Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[kaz]

It also doesn't say all money is the people's money, it only says legitimate taxes are the people's money. It doesn't even define what taxes are legitimate. He's only arguing against tax evasion.

ONCE MORE:
" All the Property that is necessary to a Man for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Go back to the full quote. That was OKTexas's point, you cut out the context of the quote. The full quote showed he is referring to collecting "justly levied" taxes, it is not saying all money belongs to the government.

 

[kaz]

You posted the whole thing, and it showed you were wrong. It did not say all money is the people's money as you claimed. You need to learn to read. Maybe restart in elementary school. LOL. Liberalism, I couldn't make up the shit you actually believe. Look at Jamestown, you are looking in a mirror. That could have been you.

Yes, you DO need to learn to read and comprehend,YOUR posit was NEVER my posit

"All the Property that is necessary to a Man for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

Go back to the full quote homey, not the parsed out part with no context.

 

[dblack]

If the taxation power is being used to redistribute wealth, or other wise manipulate society, it's being abused. The purpose of taxes is to fund the legitimate functions of government, not to use as a 'workaround' for things government would like to do, but otherwise haven't been authorized by the Constitution.

I think those who pushed for the 16th amendment knew that wealth can pool up in a society at the top.....this is essentially what happened in the monarchy the founding generation rejected. Progressive Income taxes allowed by the 16th,(and not really disallowed by the Constitution in its original form either) is a partial remedy for that. Some may choose to call that "redistribution"

I think you're right. But they failed to express that clearly in the amendment, and the Constitution doesn't authorize that kind of federal manipulation. So, at best, it's a fraud that should be considered null and void.

 

[Dad2three]

It was the offered rationale, and explanation, for the contents of the new Constitution. If the Federalist Papers were, as you suggest, propaganda, and the Constitution actually means something different than what its authors claimed, then the ratification of the Constitution was fraudulent and should be reconsidered.

So you DON'T know ALL the federalists were was adversiment to sway a few NYers to support a STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T over the weak Articles of Confederation. Got it

 

[dcraelin]

It was the offered rationale, and explanation, for the contents of the new Constitution. If the Federalist Papers were, as you suggest, propaganda, and the Constitution actually means something different than what its authors claimed, then the ratification of the Constitution was fraudulent and should be reconsidered.

The Federalist papers by most accounts were not widely read. AND, if you've ever tried to wade your way through them you know your eyes glaze over pretty quickly.....I doubt they were very effective even to those that bothered to read them in New York.
They are over-hyped.

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, that is correct, and no, they don't grasp that. And no other western power does that to their own corporations. Which is why ours are leaving. And rightly so. Let's fix the system and stop pushing them out the door.

Yet all we have from the Axis of Evil, Obama, Harry and Nancy is blaming the victim. Nothing will change, they are intent on achieving our doom.

Yes, LET THEM FUKKING LEAVE, IF they don't want tto pay their FAIR SHARE, FUCK THEM. Just like the bullshit off shoring of 'profits' Google, Apple, Microsoft', etc use to hide US profits and call it foreign

IF THE FUKKING CONS/GOPERS BELIEVED IN GOOD GOVERNANCE, THEY WOULD'VE BEEN WORKING WITH OBAMA, THEY DON'T. Obama proposed lowering the Corp tax rate to 28% and get rid of loopholes and use the extra revenues for infrastructure and guess what the party opf no said?

 

[dcraelin]

I think you're right. But they failed to express that clearly in the amendment, and the Constitution doesn't authorize that kind of federal manipulation. So, at best, it's a fraud that should be considered null and void.

ok now the multi-quote isnt getting all the quotes I thought I was indicating I wanted (within the same message)

I think it was pretty obvious what the 16th was authorizing. The history of the Income tax is a bit instructive as one had been used in the civil war without any opposition in the courts. THEN the courts dreamt up an excuse really that they were unconstitutional..............the public for the most part was furious with the court.....and the Congress rightly responded with a constitutional amendment option...which was rather quickly accepted.

 

[Dad2three]

So if our tax rates are so low, why are they leaving? Is it their racism over the black president?

You mean saving ANY money versus paying none, and recognizing the GOPers don't seem to care and will not work with the Dems to change the laws to stop this nonsense? It's called greed, you should know that quite well!

 

[Dad2three]

The Dems' motto: All Your Moneys Are Belong To Us.

GOPers just think Gov't should be free, especially wars!

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's humorous how frantically the big-govt pushers keep trying to ignore the part of the Constitution that forbids their attempts to buy votes by redistributing wealth.

Redistributing wealth, as described in the OP, has two parts, of course:

1.) Taking money from one person,
2.) Giving that money directly to another peson.

The first is taxation, which the Fed govt clearly has the powerr to do.

The second is spending, which the Constitution explicitly restricts to programs that will help all Americans equally (see the so-called "Welfare Clause"). Handing money directtly to one person or group, blatantly violates that restriction.

It is flatly unconstitutioutional for the Fed govt to redistribute wealth.Despite the number of times the liberals desperately try to pretend that if the first is legal, then the second must also be legal.

 

[Dad2three]

LOL, you didn't get it. SCOTUS is the Federal Government, you argued the Federal government gave itself the power to ignore the Constitution. That is a non-argument. Other than for an authoritarian leftist like you, but your brain is not in play, your penis has been mailed to Obama.

Weird you don't understand the system of Gov't where Congress writes the laws and SCOTUS gets to interpret them. Perhaps you should try Somalia or do as Ben said?

 

[saveliberty]

You mean it was PURELY propaganda to get NYers to pass the STRONG FEDERAL US CONSTITUTION right? Advertisements of the day?

No, it was very much a limited government push. I understand you need it to be less than that to promote your progressive trash.

 

[Skylar]

The Constitution enumerates the powers of the Federal government. Then to make it clear that those are the only powers the Federal government has, they wrote the 10th amendment, which says anything the Federal government is not authorized to do, it is prohibited from doing. And to go even further, they said any right of the people not protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments is as important as any right that is protected in the Bill of Rights or other amendments.

Which means, protecting people from having their wealth confiscated and redistributed, which is clearly not in the constitution, is as important as have our speech restricted or our property searched without a warrant.

So, for those of you who consider it to be a legitimate use of Federal force to redistribute wealth, what Constitutional authority is that based on? Be specific.

EDIT: Redistribution of wealth refers specifically to taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. That means, at the Federal level, all forms of welfare including food stamps, AFDC, social security, medicare/medicaid, earmarks. All things which specifically take money from one citizen and place them directly in the hands of another.

It does not include the military, courts, national parks, anything that is for the general welfare, not specific welfare.

The courts interpret the constitution by design. So any question of 'constitutionality' would need to include court precedent on the matter. And the courts clearly recognize the federal government's authority to tax and spend on a litany of projects that would fall under 'general welfare'. Answering your question.

If you want to ignore 2 centuries of precedent, then you can have a fascinating philosophical discussion. And I'll gladly join you. But it really has no relevance to the actual world. As the issues we're discussing have already been settled legally.

 

[Dad2three]

That was OKTexas, dumb ass. I didn't disagree with that.

Where you are wrong is you used it to say Ben Franklin believed all money belongs to the government. Actually, he said justly levied taxes are. He did not say government can tax whatever it wants, he just said if taxes are justly levied, the money taxed at that point belongs to the government. He was against income tax evasion, he was not a Marxist like you thought he was.

I already explained this to you several times. What is wrong with you? Learning disability? Blowing Obama and can't breathe? What is it?

"Where you are wrong is you used it to say Ben Franklin believed all money belongs to the government. Actually, he said justly levied taxes are."

I SAID NO SUCH THING, WHAT BEN ACTUALLY SAID:

"All the Property that is necessary to a Man for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick,"

PRETTY SURE THAT MEAN WE COULD HAVE A 99% TAX ON BILLIONAIRES AND 99% ESTATE TAX, IN BEN'S OPINION!

 

[Little-Acorn]

It's humorous how frantically the big-govt pushers keep trying to ignore the part of the Constitution that forbids their attempts to buy votes by redistributing wealth.
Redistributing wealth, as described in the OP, has two parts, of course:
1.) Taking money from one person,
2.) Giving that money directly to another peson.
The first is taxation, which the Fed govt clearly has the powerr to do.
The second is spending, which the Constitution explicitly restricts to programs that will help all Americans equally (see the so-called "Welfare Clause"). Handing money directtly to one person or group, blatantly violates that restriction.
It is flatly unconstitutioutional for the Fed govt to redistribute wealth. Despite the number of times the liberals desperately try to pretend that if the first is legal, then the second must also be legal.

 

[saveliberty]

LOL, you didn't get it. SCOTUS is the Federal Government, you argued the Federal government gave itself the power to ignore the Constitution. That is a non-argument. Other than for an authoritarian leftist like you, but your brain is not in play, your penis has been mailed to Obama.

Weird you don't understand the system of Gov't where Congress writes the laws and SCOTUS gets to interpret them. Perhaps you should try Somalia or do as Ben said?

SCOTUS does not interpret the Constitution, it applies the Constitution. Your understanding of this is truly poor to nonexistent.

 

[Dad2three]

You deleted the discussion, dumb ass. And your post didn't show that.

DID YOU DENY REDISTRIBUTION UPWARDS THE PAST 30 YEARS? Yes or no will do. Did I give you proof there has been upwards distribution the past 30 years./ Yes or no?

lol

 

[rightwinger]

It's humorous how frantically the big-govt pushers keep trying to ignore the part of the Constitution that forbids their attempts to buy votes by redistributing wealth.

Redistributing wealth, as described in the OP, has two parts, of course:

1.) Taking money from one person,
2.) Giving that money directly to another peson.

The first is taxation, which the Fed govt clearly has the powerr to do.

The second is spending, which the Constitution explicitly restricts to programs that will help all Americans equally (see the so-called "Welfare Clause"). Handing money directtly to one person or group, blatantly violates that restriction.

It is flatly unconstitutioutional for the Fed govt to redistribute wealth.Despite the number of times the liberals desperately try to pretend that if the first is legal, then the second must also be legal.

There is no Constitutional way to take money from one person and give it directly to another person

There is also nothing in the Constitution that requires that everyone benefit equally from all laws. That is impossible to do

 

[Dad2three]

LOL, so you did finally get the point he was referring to justly levied taxes since you deleted that part of the quote.

He's against tax cheats, he's not a Marxist, homey.

TRY LYING AGAIN BUBBA:

"All Property, indeed ... seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, "

 

[saveliberty]

That was OKTexas, dumb ass. I didn't disagree with that.

Where you are wrong is you used it to say Ben Franklin believed all money belongs to the government. Actually, he said justly levied taxes are. He did not say government can tax whatever it wants, he just said if taxes are justly levied, the money taxed at that point belongs to the government. He was against income tax evasion, he was not a Marxist like you thought he was.

I already explained this to you several times. What is wrong with you? Learning disability? Blowing Obama and can't breathe? What is it?

"Where you are wrong is you used it to say Ben Franklin believed all money belongs to the government. Actually, he said justly levied taxes are."

I SAID NO SUCH THING, WHAT BEN ACTUALLY SAID:

"All the Property that is necessary to a Man for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick,"

PRETTY SURE THAT MEAN WE COULD HAVE A 99% TAX ON BILLIONAIRES AND 99% ESTATE TAX, IN BEN'S OPINION!

Ben didn't know any billionaires. Your assumptions are laughable.