Christian Robin Hoods

Thread closing warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 12:45 a.m. ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle

 

Because ?

 

Article I, Section 8.

 

Three page rule: www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=1

 

Nice try. Article I sec. 8 cl.? It is not in there, no matter how much you wish it to be so. Try again. If you notice the only limitations are on how taxes are levied, i.e. direct or capitation taxes. There is NOTHING forbidding or limiting the government from using tax money for the general welfare of the US, including any and every social welfare spending. In fact it seems the constitution gives Congress free reign in this area witht he necessary and proper clause.

 

I am quite aware that the only way to limit government power in any area nowadays is by electing folks to Congress, such as Congressman Ron Paul, and to the presidency who believe that there should be limits to government power.

 

Which is fine, only call it what it really is. There is not a constitutional barrier to social welfare spending. If people don't like it, that's fine, only stop the whining and complaining that it is unconstitutional because it's not. (speaking generally here, not necessarily at you)

 

Yes, there really is. For the goverment to take money by force from one person and give it to another person is unconstitutional - and immoral. It's just that very few people care anymore if the constitutional constraints on federal government power are obeyed.

But there's no use in you and I continuing to butt heads since neither of us is going to agree with the other's viewpoint.

I concede that the socialist viewpoint that you push has won the day and I doubt that liberty can be won back.

 

Immoral & unconstitutional are 2 very different things. As has been pointed out, the Constitution has no barriers to either taxation or spending on social programs.
Immoral is opinion in this case.

 

Actually, it does have a barrier toward the government taking money by force from one person and giving it to another person. It's just that people, by and large, don't like that barrier and they ignore it.

And, it is fact that it is immoral for the government, or an individual, to take money by force from one person and give it to another person.

 

Let's not be overly dramatic. Yes, I get it you don't agree. Your argument, however would be more intellectually honest if you argued it on moral grounds alone. There is NO constitutional argument in this case, period, regardless of how much you disagree or wish there to be. If there was you would be able to point it out, and you can't because it is not there.

 

Under your view, Ken, we would not have libertarian utopia, but anarchy with every man for himself. Guess we had better not take money from us by force to give people to build highways, to pay the mayor, to buy stop lights, to pay the light bill in city hall, and on and on and on.

 

Ken, this is getting comical. You don't like it for morality reasons, okay I buy that. Stop arguing a constitutional barrier, though, because there isn't one. Congress can use our tax money on whatever they deem is necessary and proper for the general welfare of the US.

 

I did point it out but socialists have a very hard time accepting the truth when it runs counter to their worldview.

 

Not constitutionally.

 

Nonsense. I have never advocated anarchy. But thanks for admitting that you have lost your socialist argument by your silly example.

Also, we have been discussing the federal government. The last time I checked most highways, mayors, stop lights, city halls, and on and on and on were related to state and local government spending. That is a different issue.

If we did things right in this country the largest amount of taxes we pay would be to local government, the second largest to the state government, and the third largest to the federal government. Instead, we do it backward in this country.

Taxation and spending should be as close to the people as possible.

For example, the state constitution of Arkansas states that every child in Arkansas will be provided with an adequate education. Therefore, the state of Arkansas has to provide education.

 

Maybe we're making a little progress. So, you admit the city can take money from you by force give to other people. One step at a time, I guess.

 

Taking anyone's money by force and giving it to another is called stealing.

PERIOD.

 

Um yes constitutionally. You have yet to point out ANYTHING in the actual constitution to justify your assertions. Here I'll simplify it for you.

Exclusive Powers of the Federal Government:
coin money
regulate interstate commerce
tax imports and exports
make treaties
make all laws necessary and proper
make war
regulate the postal system

Expressly Prohibited powers of the Federal Government:
tax state exports
change state borders

Exclusive powers of the State:
run elections
regulating intrastate commerce
establish republican forms of state/local governments
all powers not delegated to the national government or denied to the state in the constitution

Expressly Prohibited to the state:
taxing imports/exports
coin money
entering into treaties
impair obligation of contracts

Concurrent powers of both:
tax
borrowing money
establishing courts
chartering banks/corporations
make/enforce laws
eminent domain

Expressly forbidden to both:
passing bills of attainder
passing ex post facto laws
granting titles of nobility
imposing religious tests
any laws in conflict with the Bill of Rights or subsequent amendments

Now, where again is it unconstitutional? Even if you made a case against the federal government, which at best is shaky considering founding father Alexander Hamilton disagrees, there is still nothing at all forbidding state and local governments from using tax money for social purposes. Besides all states fund their own social welfare programs in addition to receiving specific block grants from the federal government.

Like I said there is no constitutional argument. If there was you could actually point it out. You disagree on moral issues alone, which is fine. Just because the government is not forbidden from using money for said programs does not mean it should, there is just not a constitutional argument against it.