Can the Federal Government Constitutionally redistribute wealth?

[RKMBrown]

False equivalence error there big guy. Your equivalence to progressive taxes is to making some people pay more for milk because they have more money, not supply and demand. Should we allow vendors to set prices at retail stored to progressive amounts determined individually by a customers ability to pay? Poor guy gets to walk out with steak for 1 penny per pound but rich guy has to pay 10k per pound at the same store at the same time? nah...
There is a moral aspect to the free market, yes. But it's not the same moral issue of progressive taxation.

I really dont understand what your saying here.....I dont think anyones stopping venders from charging different amounts...its just that they would find it tough and intrusive to do so, likely wouldnt have any customers left. Regardless I dont think thats what Im saying.

@dcraelin, I'm honestly curious what you meant by this. Are you suggesting that demanding equal treatment under the law is the same thing as demanding that everyone else treat you equally as well?

Im merely saying that there is really no moral aspect to Supply and Demand. In a Market economy compensation is largely determined by Supply and Demand, and it seems a bit incongruous to install a moral element to tax policy.... based on compensation.

Depends on the state: U.S. Retail Pricing Laws and Regulations by State
Many states (half) have a law where the price of an item must be displayed, and the retailer can't just arbitrarily change the price of the item per customer.

There are moral aspects to just about everything, supply and demand is no exception.

While I might agree some tax policies are arguably amoral, I don't agree that it is incongruous to install a moral element. For example, removing progressive taxation could be argued as installing a moral element of uniformity of taxation. Moral is a broad term. Taking away one moral tenant of a tax policy is equivalent to installing a different moral tenant. Morality is subjective.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree............

White flag? odd

 

[dcraelin]

False equivalence error there big guy. Your equivalence to progressive taxes is to making some people pay more for milk because they have more money, not supply and demand. Should we allow vendors to set prices at retail stored to progressive amounts determined individually by a customers ability to pay? Poor guy gets to walk out with steak for 1 penny per pound but rich guy has to pay 10k per pound at the same store at the same time? nah...
There is a moral aspect to the free market, yes. But it's not the same moral issue of progressive taxation.

I really dont understand what your saying here.....I dont think anyones stopping venders from charging different amounts...its just that they would find it tough and intrusive to do so, likely wouldnt have any customers left. Regardless I dont think thats what Im saying.

@dcraelin, I'm honestly curious what you meant by this. Are you suggesting that demanding equal treatment under the law is the same thing as demanding that everyone else treat you equally as well?

Im merely saying that there is really no moral aspect to Supply and Demand. In a Market economy compensation is largely determined by Supply and Demand, and it seems a bit incongruous to install a moral element to tax policy.... based on compensation.

Depends on the state: U.S. Retail Pricing Laws and Regulations by State
Many states (half) have a law where the price of an item must be displayed, and the retailer can't just arbitrarily change the price of the item per customer.

There are moral aspects to just about everything, supply and demand is no exception.

While I might agree some tax policies are arguably amoral, I don't agree that it is incongruous to install a moral element. For example, removing progressive taxation could be argued as installing a moral element of uniformity of taxation. Moral is a broad term. Taking away one moral tenant of a tax policy is equivalent to installing a different moral tenant. Morality is subjective.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree............

White flag? odd

lol

 

[Mathbud1]

I don't think you're getting what I"m saying. Constitutionality is a legal standard.....not a personal opinion. That standard is the federal judiciary's to check and determine. So on the question of whether or not a particular law is constitutional, the issue is definitely determined by the courts.

I'm not saying that the feds simply 'can' redistribute wealth as you understand it. I'm saying that such actions are legally constitutional as the courts have determined such actions are in accordance with the federal government's power under the constitution. The legal question of constitutionality is answered. And the validity of that determination is utterly autonomous of your agreement or disagreement.

As for its 'actual meaning', that too is for the courts to determine. You said that the welfare clause explicitly restricts the federal government to programs that benefit all Americans equally. But the welfare clause says no such thing. Presumably you interpret some term as meaning 'restricts to programs that benefit all Americans equally'. And that's the 'actual meaning' you apply.

But your 'actual meaning' and the court's 'actual meaning' differ quite significantly. And as mentioned above, the authority to adjudicate issues that arise under the constitution is the court's. Not yours. Meaning that their 'actual meaning' is valid. And yours is merely personal opinion.

And given the founder's actions in the first few sessions of congress, its quite clear they didn't consider their powers restricted to only those explicitly enumerated by the constitution. Madison himself lamented about how the general welfare clause was being used to expand government authority beyond what he thought it should be......less than 3 years after the constitution was ratified. The founders passed the Bank of the United States in the very first session of congress despite no explicitly enumerated power to do so. They passed programs that benefited only specific groups, despite your claim that the constitution prevented it.

So we have both a historic and practical legal contradiction of your assumptions. Where you define nothing, determine the meaning of nothing, adjudicate nothing. And the courts define terms, determine meaning, and adjudicate any case that arises under the constitution.

Do you hear me now?

In other words, "how dare you question the sacred decisions if the supreme court?"

 

[Dad2three]

It's hilarious how you keep posting a quote that you aren't capable of reading and comprehending.

The quote is clearly referring to that justifiable taxes are at that point the people's money. It's very clear, how can you not read it? I'm not coming to your house and having any food you have to read directions to cook, that's for sure. I'd end up getting served macaroni and catnip....

Got it, You can't use critical thinking OR honesty. Oh right a libertarian.....

 

[rightwinger]

Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...[1]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

​

And where does it say government can then give the money to other citizens?

Do you think they are supposed to keep it?

Snarky, moronic, clueless, irrelevant to the point, that would be a typical RWerism...

If the money does not go to help We the People.....where should it go?

 

[kaz]

Snarky, moronic, clueless, irrelevant to the point, that would be a typical RWerism...

If the money does not go to help We the People.....where should it go?

Um...it should be kept by the person who earned it? Just a thought...

 

[dblack]

If the money does not go to help We the People.....where should it go?

If you understood what the phrase "We the People" really referred to, you'd probably stop using it. It's not an appeal to majoritarianism. It's a reference to the concept of consent of the governed, and a defiant rejection of your authoritarian ethos.

 

[kaz]

If the money does not go to help We the People.....where should it go?

If you understood what the phrase "We the People" really referred to, you'd probably stop using it. It's not an appeal to majoritarianism. It's a reference to the concept of consent of the governed, and a defiant rejection of your authoritarian ethos.

RW thinks that being born in the US gives him the right to a split of the pie whether he does anything or not, so he does as little as humanly possible, and always has.

 

[JWBooth]

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.

I advocate tax cheats, tax avoidance, unreported income, under the table income, black market income...

 

[dblack]

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?

Somalia!!!!

 

[kaz]

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.

I advocate tax cheats, tax avoidance, unreported income, under the table income, black market income...

Yep. Starve the dragon. BTW, the sparrow reference if you're not 50 is Baretta. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time...

I am not willing to risk getting caught. So I don't cheat. But I applaud everyone who avoids, evades or cheats on their taxes. I hope there are many, many I don't know because they weren't caught.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

I advocate tax cheats, tax avoidance, unreported income, under the table income, black market income...

Yep. Starve the dragon. BTW, the sparrow reference if you're not 50 is Baretta. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time...

I am not willing to risk getting caught. So I don't cheat. But I applaud everyone who avoids, evades or cheats on their taxes. I hope there are many, many I don't know because they weren't caught.

Baretta was great... oops showing my age.

 

[kaz]

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.

I advocate tax cheats, tax avoidance, unreported income, under the table income, black market income...

Yep. Starve the dragon. BTW, the sparrow reference if you're not 50 is Baretta. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time...

I am not willing to risk getting caught. So I don't cheat. But I applaud everyone who avoids, evades or cheats on their taxes. I hope there are many, many I don't know because they weren't caught.

Baretta was great... oops showing my age.

Yes, but apparently he had the time...

 

[Skylar]

There's no question that many of the founders wanted a more powerful nation-state. But many did not, and weren't willing to sign on to a Constitution that allowed it. They did sign only with assurances from the Federalists that their concerns were addressed by careful limits on the power of the new government. That fact that afterward, many of the of the Federalists, most famously Hamilton, went to work to undo the limits they agreed to doesn't change the intent of the original compromise.

Hamilton was the Secretary of the Treasury. He didn't hold an elected office. And he didn't vote on the legislation put before the Congress. The Congress did. And the clear majority of Congress, along with the Presidency, were on board with implied powers. From the very first session of congress onward.

The Bank of the United States, later subsidies for fishermen from certain states, later still mandatory pension programs for seamen. We've had implied powers almost as long as we've had a nation. And the founders were most definitely on board.

Both Jefferson and Madison believed that Congress was bound to whatever was 'intended' according to Jefferson and Madison. But Congress didn't. Nor was compelled to by the constitution or the courts. As the constitution is, and likely always will be, a matter of interpretation by those who wield its authority

 

[Skylar]

When reading candidate bios, one of my pet peeves is the inclusion of the phrase"successful businessman"without telling the reader what kind of businessman. Invariably on further research the candidate turns out to be either a lawyer, a banker, or an insurance salesman.....the fact of which is apparently better left off the handouts.

Hamilton began as a clerk after being orphaned as a teenager. He wrote so eloquently that his own town sent him to the Colonies to be formally educated. Hamilton began penniless and eventually built a rather impressive fortune. And yes, he was a banker. And a writer. And a soldier.

I'm less impressed by those born into sumptuous privilege than I am those who built their own fortunes. And Jefferson was most definitely born with a silver spoon in his mouth. His CV may have said 'farmer', but he didn't farm. His slaves did. He may have written about 'freedom' and 'liberty' for 'all men'. But it wasn't a sentiment he lived by.....given his small army of personal slaves. Hamilton in contrast disdained slavery and had none.

I'm more impressed by those that risk their own lives and their own blood for their ideals. And Hamilton most definitely did, fighting in battle after battle against the British. And doing so with such distinction that he eventually earned Washington's respect and a position as war advisor. Jefferson in contrast wrote prolifically of the duty of patriots to fight for liberty.....while safely in France. The rich man talking of freedom vs. the poor man fighting for it?

That's a pretty clear distinction. And not much of a contest.

And Jefferson's influence on the nascent US Constitution was underwhelming. The constitution overwhelmingly reflected the Federalist vision. Of which Hamilton was one of the leading voices, second only to Madison in his contribution to the Federalist Papers. For crying out loud, it was Hamilton who called for the writing of the US Constitution to begin with.

Making Hamilton's contribution to our nation's founding more lasting and practically influential. On virtually every tenet, Hamilton was far more impressive.....personally, ethically and politically.

You say "He built his own business from nothing", I see he was a member of a law-firm, and was "the individual most actively involved in the organization of The Bank of New York" according to Wikipedia, tho it doesnt say where the original capitalization came from.

A 'member of a lawfirm'? The 'law firm' was a grand total of two guys....Hamilton and Harison. They founded the partnership together. Alas, Hamilton had neither the parentage nor the inclination to subsist on the labor of slaves in a tobacco field, as Jefferson did. Hamilton had to earn his own living.

And the Bank of New York was founded by Hamilton, who wrote its constitution. The bank was capitalized via stock sales, advertised in the The New York Packet. And it was this same Bank that offered the US Government its very first loan. Its the institution upon which the US government was first funded, and without many believe the US government wouldn't have survived.

Hamilton's influence was profound.

I see he "specialized in defending Tories and British subjects"....which reminded me of something else I've read that at least one historian thought he acted as a British agent, I believe in events surrounding Jays treaty

A British agent that personally lead the light infantry for the retaking of New York with night fighting so brutal it was reduced to bayonettes.... a retaking that forced the surrender of the British forces at Yorktown and ended major British military actions in North America during the Revolutionary War? One might as well accuse Patton of being an 'agent of the Germans'.

Hamilton was willing to fight, bleed, and even die to uphold his ideals. Jefferson was willing to write for them.

 

[dblack]

There's no question that many of the founders wanted a more powerful nation-state. But many did not, and weren't willing to sign on to a Constitution that allowed it. They did sign only with assurances from the Federalists that their concerns were addressed by careful limits on the power of the new government. That fact that afterward, many of the of the Federalists, most famously Hamilton, went to work to undo the limits they agreed to doesn't change the intent of the original compromise.

Hamilton was the Secretary of the Treasury. He didn't hold an elected office. And he didn't vote on the legislation put before the Congress. The Congress did. And the clear majority of Congress, along with the Presidency, were on board with implied powers. From the very first session of congress onward.

You're equivocating. There have always been implied powers in the Constitution, and the "necessary and proper" clause legitimizes them. That's not disputed. What is disputed is the idea that the taxation power represents a broad general power to pass laws spending money in pursuit of the "general welfare". This idea was directly mocked by the authors of the Federalist Papers and convincing the anti-federalists that no one would stoop to "such a misconstruction" was pivotal to winning approval for the new constitution. Regardless of how quickly ambitious leaders did, or did not, change their mind on this issue, the Constitution was ratified on the premise that the broad general interpretation of the general welfare clause, which holds sway today, wasn't valid.

... the constitution is, and likely always will be, a matter of interpretation by those who wield its authority

If we concede that, we might as well burn the damned thing.

 

[Skylar]

You're equivocating. There have always been implied powers in the Constitution, and the "necessary and proper" clause legitimizes them. That's not disputed. What is disputed is the idea that the taxation power represents a broad general power to pass laws spending money in pursuit of the "general welfare"

Again, that too has a long, long pedigree. With Madison lamenting against *exactly* this issue, citing the general welfare as being too broadly defined in his opposition to a law authorizing subsidies to certain fishermen.

The bill passed during the 2nd session of congress. Just like the Bank of the United States passed in the 1st session. The federal subsidies bill was passed only 3 years after the constitution was ratified. Meaning that 'wealth redistribution' as understood here has been going on since nearly the founding of our nation.

And the founders were on board. Hell, it wasn't even the 5th congress when 'The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen' act was passed. Forcing a mandatory tax on all seamen to pay for their medical care. With the federal government creating its own federal hospital system.

These are not new ideas. And they go back to the founding of our nation.

 

[dcraelin]

Hamilton began as a clerk after being orphaned as a teenager. He wrote so eloquently that his own town sent him to the Colonies to be formally educated. Hamilton began penniless and eventually built a rather impressive fortune. And yes, he was a banker. And a writer. And a soldier.
I'm less impressed by those born into sumptuous privilege than I am those who built their own fortunes. And Jefferson was most definitely born with a silver spoon in his mouth. His CV may have said 'farmer', but he didn't farm. His slaves did. He may have written about 'freedom' and 'liberty' for 'all men'. But it wasn't a sentiment he lived by.....given his small army of personal slaves. Hamilton in contrast disdained slavery and had none.
I'm more impressed by those that risk their own lives and their own blood for their ideals.

I've read some of Hamiltons writing....it is verbose to the extreme....but undoubtedly impressed some. CV? You cant blame a person for being born into wealth. I think he probably did at time do some of the real farming. Maybe not....he did have to manage a large estate.

And Hamilton most definitely did, fighting in battle after battle against the British. And doing so with such distinction that he eventually earned Washington's respect and a position as war advisor. Jefferson in contrast wrote prolifically of the duty of patriots to fight for liberty.....while safely in France. The rich man talking of freedom vs. the poor man fighting for it?
That's a pretty clear distinction. And not much of a contest.

I think Jefferson was governor of Virginia during Revolution. Hamilton was a younger man given a high rank in an era when Ive read that (at least initially) the British and others avoided targeting officers). Was he ever wounded?

And Jefferson's influence on the nascent US Constitution was underwhelming. The constitution overwhelmingly reflected the Federalist vision. Of which Hamilton was one of the leading voices, second only to Madison in his contribution to the Federalist Papers. For crying out loud, it was Hamilton who called for the writing of the US Constitution to begin with.
Making Hamilton's contribution to our nation's founding more lasting and practically influential. On virtually every tenet, Hamilton was far more impressive.....personally, ethically and politically.

Like I said, Some viewed the Constitution as a sell-out of American, Republican principles.....Patrick Henry chiefly among them. I agree to a certain extent. Hamilton's contributions I see as mostly negative

A 'member of a lawfirm'? The 'law firm' was a grand total of two guys....Hamilton and Harison. They founded the partnership together. Alas, Hamilton had neither the parentage nor the inclination to subsist on the labor of slaves in a tobacco field, as Jefferson did. Hamilton had to earn his own living.
And the Bank of New York was founded by Hamilton, who wrote its constitution. The bank was capitalized via stock sales, advertised in the The New York Packet. And it was this same Bank that offered the US Government its very first loan. Its the institution upon which the US government was first funded, and without many believe the US government wouldn't have survived.
Hamilton's influence was profound.

who bought the stock?...still leaves open possibility that he was just an agent of some wealthy men.

A British agent that personally lead the light infantry for the retaking of New York with night fighting so brutal it was reduced to bayonettes.... a retaking that forced the surrender of the British forces at Yorktown and ended major British military actions in North America during the Revolutionary War? One might as well accuse Patton of being an 'agent of the Germans'.
Hamilton was willing to fight, bleed, and even die to uphold his ideals. Jefferson was willing to write for them.

Well, never said he was an agent during the Revolution....I believe the accusations are around Jays treaty...some years later.....but it is suspicious.

 

[dblack]

You're equivocating. There have always been implied powers in the Constitution, and the "necessary and proper" clause legitimizes them. That's not disputed. What is disputed is the idea that the taxation power represents a broad general power to pass laws spending money in pursuit of the "general welfare"

Again, that too has a long, long pedigree. With Madison lamenting against *exactly* this issue, citing the general welfare as being too broadly defined in his opposition to a law authorizing subsidies to certain fishermen.

The bill passed during the 2nd session of congress. Just like the Bank of the United States passed in the 1st session. The federal subsidies bill was passed only 3 years after the constitution was ratified. Meaning that 'wealth redistribution' as understood here has been going on since nearly the founding of our nation.

And the founders were on board. Hell, it wasn't even the 5th congress when 'The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen' act was passed. Forcing a mandatory tax on all seamen to pay for their medical care. With the federal government creating its own federal hospital system.

These are not new ideas. And they go back to the founding of our nation.

Listen, you can show me rock solid evidence that every single person who helped ratify the Constitution favored a big, interventionist government the day after it was signed, but it won't change the obvious intent. The Constitution is a consent contract between "We the People" and our government. To the extent that that contract has been maligned and evaded, it's invalid. If the current government can't be brought into compliance it's right and proper for "We the People" to revoke that consent.

 

[dcraelin]

A 'member of a lawfirm'? The 'law firm' was a grand total of two guys....Hamilton and Harison. They founded the partnership together.

Just ran across this on twitter and thought of your post ....its was credited to John Adams on twitter but I have my doubts, lots of false quotes on the internets.

One useless man is called a disgrace, two useless men are called a law firm, and three or more become a Congress. --John Adams