Where In The Constitution Does It Say This?

Kathianne, many moons ago the Supreme Court consistently ruled that the only purpose of Federal taxation, was to fund authorized functions of the Fed government. They even struck down laws that imposed high or bizarre taxes, on grounds that they clearly were not meant simply to fund something, but to control something. And therefore those taxes were unconstitutional, the Supremes said.

That was then, this is now. In the 1930s then-President FDR beat and harassed the Supreme Court into changing their tune. He got them to pass a new definition of "liberty". Before then, "liberty" was the freedom from oppression, injustice, coercion and a few other things. Everyone agreed that it was the Fed govt's job to defend and protect our "liberty". But in the new definition, "liberty" included the right to be free from the ordinary problems of life - hunger, fear, etc. Since the govt was supposed to protect "liberty", this USSC decision gave them the authority to regulate and restrict nearly every part of our lives. (Regulating and restricting are the only powers government has, BTW. govt by its nature can create nothing. And it cannot "help" anyone except by forcing others (usually taxpayers) to do the "helping".)

The Framers never intended the Fed to "mitigate inequality". They knew it was impossible, like getting water to flow uphill. But FDR was elected on his promise to make everything better, in the middle of the Great Depression. Apparently people thought that passing a law could make the impossible come true. Funny part is, a lot of his disciples still believe it. We just elected a bunch of them to majorities last November.
 
Kathianne, many moons ago the Supreme Court consistently ruled that the only purpose of Federal taxation, was to fund authorized functions of the Fed government. They even struck down laws that imposed high or bizarre taxes, on grounds that they clearly were not meant simply to fund something, but to control something. And therefore those taxes were unconstitutional, the Supremes said.

That was then, this is now. In the 1930s then-President FDR beat and harassed the Supreme Court into changing their tune. He got them to pass a new definition of "liberty". Before then, "liberty" was the freedom from oppression, injustice, coercion and a few other things. Everyone agreed that it was the Fed govt's job to defend and protect our "liberty". But in the new definition, "liberty" included the right to be free from the ordinary problems of life - hunger, fear, etc. Since the govt was supposed to protect "liberty", this USSC decision gave them the authority to regulate and restrict nearly every part of our lives. (Regulating and restricting are the only powers government has, BTW. govt by its nature can create nothing. And it cannot "help" anyone except by forcing others (usually taxpayers) to do the "helping".)

The Framers never intended the Fed to "mitigate inequality". They knew it was impossible, like getting water to flow uphill. But FDR was elected on his promise to make everything better, in the middle of the Great Depression. Apparently people thought that passing a law could make the impossible come true. Funny part is, a lot of his disciples still believe it. We just elected a bunch of them to majorities last November.
A very good post, the only thing that will undo this would be 'the will of the people.' Funny thing, I think that may be coming, sooner than we conservatives or those liberals think. Something will happen.
 
Kathianne, many moons ago the Supreme Court consistently ruled that the only purpose of Federal taxation, was to fund authorized functions of the Fed government. They even struck down laws that imposed high or bizarre taxes, on grounds that they clearly were not meant simply to fund something, but to control something. And therefore those taxes were unconstitutional, the Supremes said.

That was then, this is now. In the 1930s then-President FDR beat and harassed the Supreme Court into changing their tune. He got them to pass a new definition of "liberty". Before then, "liberty" was the freedom from oppression, injustice, coercion and a few other things. Everyone agreed that it was the Fed govt's job to defend and protect our "liberty". But in the new definition, "liberty" included the right to be free from the ordinary problems of life - hunger, fear, etc. Since the govt was supposed to protect "liberty", this USSC decision gave them the authority to regulate and restrict nearly every part of our lives. (Regulating and restricting are the only powers government has, BTW. govt by its nature can create nothing. And it cannot "help" anyone except by forcing others (usually taxpayers) to do the "helping".)

The Framers never intended the Fed to "mitigate inequality". They knew it was impossible, like getting water to flow uphill. But FDR was elected on his promise to make everything better, in the middle of the Great Depression. Apparently people thought that passing a law could make the impossible come true. Funny part is, a lot of his disciples still believe it. We just elected a bunch of them to majorities last November.

Once the BS is moved aside, the truth reveals itself.

Thank you sir.

Passing laws NEVER improves, are changes the beliefs of anyone, or anything.

People, and their beliefs stand on their own.
 
De nada, senor y senorita. The case was West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, decided I believe in 1937. Interestingly, it was a minimum-wage case. Even more interestingly, it was a STATE min-wage case, not Federal. The Supremes had consistently held that ANY attempt by governments anywhere, to artificially control wages, or working hours, or etc. was an unconstitutional infringement on the liberty of employer and employee, removing their freedom to contract with each other for those things. They held that no government had the authority to set any such limits.

How things have changed, eh?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top