Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[Little-Acorn]

By the way, Franklin wrote that in 1783.

When the Constitution was ratified six years later, it overruled him, saying that property cannot be taken from individuals except by due course of law. The only courses available were taxation, and Eminent Domain. No automatic transfer of property to the Publick, as Franklin describes, was mentioned. And so the Fed govt had no such power.

Nice try. You people really are desperate to steal from honest citizens, aren't you?

Got it, you can't critically think and aren't honest

TRANSLATION: "I can't find anything wrong with what you said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll impugn your character and insult you without cause, and hope somebody believes me instead of you."

 

[Dad2three]

All powers not expressly given to the federal government are retained by the states and individuals. Note these are powers, not rights.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

 

[Dad2three]

TRANSLATION: "I can't find anything wrong with what you said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll impugn your character and insult you without cause, and hope somebody believes me instead of you."

Anything wrong? With your opinion which has been proven wrong by history and SCOTUS for 200+ years? lol

 

[saveliberty]

None of your founding fathers listed had wills or transferred wealth to family huh dad2three?

Pretty long history of estate transfers, now you think that should all end? Your greed knows no bounds.

 

[dcraelin]

Maybe not by the population as whole, but they were read by those responsible for ratification, and represented the ongoing debate amongst them. Many of the articles are addressed to specific people and groups with objections. That's why it's so ironic that specific fears of those groups (like the broad interpretation of the general welfare clause) turned out be true. Despite the assurances that such fears were misplaced.

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.

True, but it was a limited campaign to get just a few to sign onto the US Constitution, then as today, the nation was deeply divided over thinking people (federalists) and sheeple (conservatives, anti federalists)

I dont think the anti-federalists were the sheeple. The federalists I think were in large part the wolves. RI was basically coerced into the Constitution under threat of blockade. We would not have a bill of rights if it wasnt for the opposition to the Constitution by folks such as PatrickHenry. .....But part of the problem we have in interpretation of the constitution is that the Bill of Rights and other amendments were basically at odds with the original un-amended Constitution. That is part of the problem I think with the understanding of the General Welfare clause.

The federalists were all for handing out political favors......and the first "breaking" of the understanding of general welfare I believe was for a national bank......so if those on the board here are complaining about redistribution not being constitutional they can blame the federalist backers of a national bank. If its ok for the bankers I dont think we should complain so much about welfare recipients.

 

[saveliberty]

"to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

All you got is a warped definition of general welfare. It means a benefit to all, not a specific group.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I ask again, what if Kaz gets his way, how do you (each of you) see the United States changing in the next decade or so?

It's not too hard to think, quoting people long dead is easy, for they cannot extend their views into the 21st Century and a nation of over 300 Million diverse individuals.

The preceding nine pages are an example of mental masturbation, how about some original thought on the impact of the fundamental change Kaz wants; in my opinion, a dystopian America.

 

[saveliberty]

In my opinon the US would be a better nation under kaz's view. People in real need would be provided for by their neighbors and friends, and family. Creating stronger bonds between people and not government. Providing specific help that returns the person to independence.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In my opinon the US would be a better nation under kaz's view. People in real need would be provided for by their neighbors and friends, and family. Creating stronger bonds between people and not government. Providing specific help that returns the person to independence.

Sure they would, today a hundred thousand people will walk by a homeless person sleeping in a doorway, and that is in one city alone. Today thousands of aged adults live alone on SS, and you and Kaz want to take that little bit away. Don't pretend to us or yourself that you would lend a hand.

 

[rightwinger]

In my opinon the US would be a better nation under kaz's view. People in real need would be provided for by their neighbors and friends, and family. Creating stronger bonds between people and not government. Providing specific help that returns the person to independence.

That system works if there are a limited number of people needing help from friends and family.

"Lets help the Jones' down the street, they are having a hard time"

But what happens when EVERYONE on the street is having a hard time?
What happens when an entire town is suffering an economic downturn?
What happens when the entire country goes through an economic depression

Are "friends and family" still capable of helping everyone who needs it?

 

[LiberalMedia]

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.

The authority for the redistribution of wealth doesn't come from the Constitution itself, nor does it need to; it comes from the social contract made by every U.S. citizen. This contract supersedes the Constitution, as the Constitution (and indeed, the other organic laws of the United States) relies on it for both power and authority.

As we know from the Declaration of Independence--which has legal status as an organic law of the U.S., the same as the Constitution--the powers of government are derived from "the consent of the governed". Nearly the entirety of American citizenry (i.e., everyone but the few raving lunatic libertarians that frequent forums like these to spew their nonsense everywhere) has given implied consent to every action the federal government takes in regard to wealth redistribution. This consent has been given by various methods, but especially includes voting for politicians that want and take action to institute wealth redistribution, continue wealth redistribution, and refine methods involved in wealth redistribution.

No contract is a one-way mandate; rather, contracts require all parties involved to perform their duties established under the contract, and to enforce the terms of the contract in the event it is ever violated. We the People, the citizens of the United States, are one party in the contract; the other party is our government, which consists of individual citizens elected from among larger bodies of other citizens. When We the People began electing our fellow citizens to positions of power, and they began using that power to violate the Constitution, the only appropriate action at that point would be to dispute the action and, if necessary, remove our representatives in government from office. Instead, the actions are never seriously disputed--by election, recall referendum, lawsuit, or other court challenge--and most of the people causing these actions are re-elected. Joe Wilson (R-SC), for example, co-sponsored a bill that would "reauthorize, revise, and extend State family assistance grants for FY 2004 through 2008 and make annual appropriations." His most recent bid for re-election, in 2012, saw him taking in 96% of the vote. 96% of his voting constituents gave their express consent for his actions, and 100% of his non-voting constituents gave their implied consent by not objecting to his actions by voting against him.

So to sum it up, OP, people have an obligation--not a "right," not an "ability," and not an "option," but an obligation--to object when the terms of the contract they agreed to with the government and each other is being violated. The vast majority of the U.S. does not object, and in fact, many of them very vocally agree with this violation. You are living in a country ruled by the will of the majority, and an overwhelming majority of your fellow citizens are completely fine with the redistribution of wealth, as evidenced by their continued express and implied consent to said redistribution, regardless of whatever grumblings they make in public. There are numerous remedies available to enforce the Constitution, and they are not being used because most people really don't care that the Constitution is being brushed aside for this particular affair. The few that do honestly object and take steps to enforce the Constitution will always be hopelessly outnumbered, as they are an extreme minority. I haven't heard even the most extreme, hardliner libertarians advocating a country where the popularly-elected government and its people cower before the dictates of the minority.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In my opinon the US would be a better nation under kaz's view. People in real need would be provided for by their neighbors and friends, and family. Creating stronger bonds between people and not government. Providing specific help that returns the person to independence.

That system works if there are a limited number of people needing help from friends and family.

"Lets help the Jones' down the street, they are having a hard time"

But what happens when EVERYONE on the street is having a hard time?


What happens when an entire town is suffering an economic downturn?
What happens when the entire country goes through an economic depression

Are "friends and family" still capable of helping everyone who needs it?

Even in good times and even today, well fed, clothed and sheltered Americans walk past the poor, ignore the aged and tsk tsk when a child suffers.

 

[Desperado]

You've 'got' nothing, beyond a zeal for authoritarian government.

And like all libertarians ALL you have is 'faith and myths' to stand on, as NO NATION has EVER used your bullshit, even limited!

No Country has every tried a Libertarian form of Government, However many countries have tried a socialist/Communist and all have failed.

 

[kaz]

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?

Obama's tax proposal of 28% was a fools trap, it came with downsides that were way worse than the cut. And it worked, it snared you.

 

[kaz]

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!

Yes, you want their money, and they are greedy because they won't give it to you. I am quite familiar with that, you have made it very clear.

 

[kaz]

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?

I advocate tax cheats, but I don't cheat on my taxes because I keep my eye on the sparrow.

 

[kaz]

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.

Cool, so what about answering the question?

 

[kaz]

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!

Once again, you deleted the context of the statement so you could take the statement out of context.

 

[kaz]

Cool. Care to answer the question?

this multi-quote thing is really throwing me off. Did they change something, in the way it works?
Anyway the answer to the opening question if thats what you mean is: It is Consitutional.

I agree on the quotes, it's been confusing. And that is the first part of the question, the rest of it is, where does the Constitution grant the Federal government that authority since the Constitution is a document of enumerated Federal powers.

I wish they would have a simple option to highlight parts of a post you wish to respond to and put it in as quotes. Theres probably a way to do it....but I dont find it simple in any way.

OK on the subject. I believe the General welfare clause authorizes welfare payments, cant remember how the federal powers are enumerated but you may have a point in that welfare payments are not specifically mentioned, However, like a lot of things the federal government does, it does this where the states do not want to do it. In other words If the feds werent handling it the states would be and your tax burden would be roughly the same or ....even more since the states generally have balanced budgets.

General welfare means that it applies to everyone. Like the military. The military does not discriminate, it protects all the population. The courts, everyone has access to redress grievances. The police protect everyone. Taking money from one person and giving it to another is not general welfare, it clearly benefits only the person receiving the money. Try again.

Also ask yourself why if "general welfare" means they can do anything they want, they bothered making 20% of the Constitution the 9th and 10th amendments. Why limit power you just said was unlimited?

 

[rightwinger]

In my opinon the US would be a better nation under kaz's view. People in real need would be provided for by their neighbors and friends, and family. Creating stronger bonds between people and not government. Providing specific help that returns the person to independence.

That system works if there are a limited number of people needing help from friends and family.

"Lets help the Jones' down the street, they are having a hard time"

But what happens when EVERYONE on the street is having a hard time?


What happens when an entire town is suffering an economic downturn?
What happens when the entire country goes through an economic depression

Are "friends and family" still capable of helping everyone who needs it?

Even in good times and even today, well fed, clothed and sheltered Americans walk past the poor, ignore the aged and tsk tsk when a child suffers.

True

Even then, who gets helped turns into a popularity contest. The family with sad faced children that gets featured on the 6 o'clock news get swamped with donations

The minority family suffering just as bad gets ignored