The Accumlation of Wealth is not protected by the Constitution.

[Sallow]

Was watching the PBS show "Open Mind" where a Conservative lawyer and a Liberal Professor were debating the Citizen's United case. There were many interesting points made on both sides. The professor pointed out that Citizen's United opened up a secret conduit for corporations to fund candidates they wanted and was dangerous to free speech. The Lawyer pointed out that it was Liberals that wanted the non-disclosure loophole and it was an "unintended consequence" that people like Rove exploited it. He pointed out that Unions, George Soros and the ACLU use the very same method.

Then something interesting happened. The professor tried to point out that the use of money to pay for speech is action..not speech..and is not protected by the Constitution. He also had previously brought up that corporations were not protected as a collective entity but the press were.

The case he brought up was:

United States v. O'Brien - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The lawyer's rebuttal was what I found pretty poignant. He did not want government interference with the free expression of ideas. He said that when governments around the world become involved in setting the limits of speech..the outcomes are usually pretty bad. What he suggested was that the accumlation of wealth was the problem and not the speech. Government does have the power to limit that through progressive taxation or eliminate the corporate entity itself...through anti-trust. While I've basically felt the same way..I never thought it quite in those terms. That the accumlation of wealth is not protected by the United States Constitution.

And that came from the Conservative. I really miss that sort of thing. Intelligent conservative thought. Willam Buckley was a favorite of mine. So far no one really comes quite close.

 

[loosecannon]

"That the accumlation of wealth is not protected by the United States Constitution."

Property rights are mainly protected by British Common Law which was legally adopted by all of, or almost all of, the states and is covered in those state's constitutions.

But the accumulation of wealth, esp immortal wealth in all forms, is a huge problem both for democracy and for the economy.

Correct, the constitution protects neither. But the states do.

 

[Jack Fate]

Corporations are made up of US citizens.

 

[Foxfyre]

The accumulation of wealth is absolutely protected by the Constiution so long as the unalienable, civil, legal, and Constitutional rights of others are not violated. That's what the anti-trust and RICO laws are intended to do: protect the rights of everybody and establish what will be unlawful conduct by business and enterprise.

There is no freedom without the right to lawfully and ethically acquire however much property one's ability and desire will allow, however. The minute government can decide how much is 'enough' for anybody, we have no freedoms at all.

Progressive taxation, in my opinion, goes against the intent of the Constitution and in many ways is counter productive in what it is intended to accomplish.

Freedom loving people should be asking how much is necessary to have an effective, efficient, and fiscally responsible government rather than how much should anybody be allowed to earn.

 

[boedicca]

Sallow clearly doesn't get the 5th Amendment.

 

[Agit8r]

OF COURSE! PERPETUAL ACCUMULATION OF PROPERTY WAS CONSIDERED ANTI_REPUBLICAN!

"But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded agst in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The power of all corporations, ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."

-- James Madison; Detached Memoranda (1818-ish)

 

[loosecannon]

Sallow clearly doesn't get the 5th Amendment.

sure he does:

“ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Was watching the PBS show "Open Mind" where a Conservative lawyer and a Liberal Professor were debating the Citizen's United case. There were many interesting points made on both sides. The professor pointed out that Citizen's United opened up a secret conduit for corporations to fund candidates they wanted and was dangerous to free speech. The Lawyer pointed out that it was Liberals that wanted the non-disclosure loophole and it was an "unintended consequence" that people like Rove exploited it. He pointed out that Unions, George Soros and the ACLU use the very same method.

Then something interesting happened. The professor tried to point out that the use of money to pay for speech is action..not speech..and is not protected by the Constitution. He also had previously brought up that corporations were not protected as a collective entity but the press were.

The case he brought up was:

United States v. O'Brien - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The lawyer's rebuttal was what I found pretty poignant. He did not want government interference with the free expression of ideas. He said that when governments around the world become involved in setting the limits of speech..the outcomes are usually pretty bad. What he suggested was that the accumlation of wealth was the problem and not the speech. Government does have the power to limit that through progressive taxation or eliminate the corporate entity itself...through anti-trust. While I've basically felt the same way..I never thought it quite in those terms. That the accumlation of wealth is not protected by the United States Constitution.

And that came from the Conservative. I really miss that sort of thing. Intelligent conservative thought. Willam Buckley was a favorite of mine. So far no one really comes quite close.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment

There's nothing intelligent about saying the Constitution gives the government the right to pillage the people.

 

[Conspiracist]

Corporations are made up of US citizens.

Not always true

 

[loosecannon]

OF COURSE! PERPETUAL ACCUMULATION OF PROPERTY WAS CONSIDERED ANTI_REPUBLICAN!

"But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded agst in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The power of all corporations, ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."

-- James Madison; Detached Memoranda (1818-ish)

immortal and or hereditary wealth is what the colonists sought to escape the bondage of

 

[boedicca]

Sallow clearly doesn't get the 5th Amendment.

sure he does:

“ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

No he doesn't - and neither do you.

 

[loosecannon]

Sallow clearly doesn't get the 5th Amendment.

sure he does:

“ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

No he doesn't - and neither do you.

OK YOU don't understand that amendment.

So show us where in that amendment the "right" to accumulation of wealth is illustrated.

Accumulation and preservation are not the same btw, and even preservation of wealth in this nation is constitutionally limited.

 

[boedicca]

If we're going to quote founders:

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free. (John Adams)

Property is surely a right of mankind, as really as liberty. (John Adams)

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own. (James Madison)

 

[Foxfyre]

OF COURSE! PERPETUAL ACCUMULATION OF PROPERTY WAS CONSIDERED ANTI_REPUBLICAN!

"But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded agst in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The power of all corporations, ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."

-- James Madison; Detached Memoranda (1818-ish)

immortal and or hereditary wealth is what the colonists sought to escape the bondage of

Sorry but that is frankly very VERY wrong. The colonist sought to escape the bondage of a government that had power to tell them where they must live, what religion they must practice in order to be acceptable, and that confiscated their property at will while recognizing no unalienable rights of the people.

 

[boedicca]

sure he does:

No he doesn't - and neither do you.

OK YOU don't understand that amendment.

So show us where in that amendment the "right" to accumulation of wealth is illustrated.

Accumulation and preservation are not the same btw, and even preservation of wealth in this nation is constitutionally limited.

Orwellian sophistry on your part.

Once someone earns or acquires income, it becomes part of his wealth at that moment.

 

[Sallow]

I thought it was interesting that the conservative in the debate was advocating this point of view. However I've always thought that either you can have a small concentrated center of wealth or you can a vigorous democratic republic with a strong capitalistic economy.

But the two are incompatiable. You can't have both.

 

[Sallow]

Was watching the PBS show "Open Mind" where a Conservative lawyer and a Liberal Professor were debating the Citizen's United case. There were many interesting points made on both sides. The professor pointed out that Citizen's United opened up a secret conduit for corporations to fund candidates they wanted and was dangerous to free speech. The Lawyer pointed out that it was Liberals that wanted the non-disclosure loophole and it was an "unintended consequence" that people like Rove exploited it. He pointed out that Unions, George Soros and the ACLU use the very same method.

Then something interesting happened. The professor tried to point out that the use of money to pay for speech is action..not speech..and is not protected by the Constitution. He also had previously brought up that corporations were not protected as a collective entity but the press were.

The case he brought up was:

United States v. O'Brien - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The lawyer's rebuttal was what I found pretty poignant. He did not want government interference with the free expression of ideas. He said that when governments around the world become involved in setting the limits of speech..the outcomes are usually pretty bad. What he suggested was that the accumlation of wealth was the problem and not the speech. Government does have the power to limit that through progressive taxation or eliminate the corporate entity itself...through anti-trust. While I've basically felt the same way..I never thought it quite in those terms. That the accumlation of wealth is not protected by the United States Constitution.

And that came from the Conservative. I really miss that sort of thing. Intelligent conservative thought. Willam Buckley was a favorite of mine. So far no one really comes quite close.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment

There's nothing intelligent about saying the Constitution gives the government the right to pillage the people.

Pillage?

No.

Regulate?

Absolutely.

 

[loosecannon]

No he doesn't - and neither do you.

OK YOU don't understand that amendment.

So show us where in that amendment the "right" to accumulation of wealth is illustrated.

Accumulation and preservation are not the same btw, and even preservation of wealth in this nation is constitutionally limited.

Orwellian sophistry on your part.

Once someone earns or acquires income, it becomes part of his wealth at that moment.

yours is the sophistry. Demonstrate where the amendment protects rights of wealth accumulation. It doesn't. Since it doesn't produce case law where a court ruled otherwise. You can't.

The states protect rights of wealth accumulation, not the feds, and those rights are limited rights.

 

[loosecannon]

I thought it was interesting that the conservative in the debate was advocating this point of view. However I've always thought that either you can have a small concentrated center of wealth or you can a vigorous democratic republic with a strong capitalistic economy.

But the two are incompatiable. You can't have both.

wealth is political power, Kings had immortal wealth

The reason why churches are so powerful is because they are immortal.

 

[Agit8r]

OF COURSE! PERPETUAL ACCUMULATION OF PROPERTY WAS CONSIDERED ANTI_REPUBLICAN!

"But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded agst in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The power of all corporations, ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."

-- James Madison; Detached Memoranda (1818-ish)

immortal and or hereditary wealth is what the colonists sought to escape the bondage of

yes. and the "aristocracy of monied corporations" was seen as the same sort of subversion