Exactly what?
Well, now I am beginning to understand your thinking. You do not support and defend our constitutionally limited âRepublican Form of Governmentâ, and instead support âdemocracyâ, mob rule government.
And just what did our Founding Fathers think of âdemocracyâ? Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to âdemocracyâ they
ââŚhave ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.â
And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate âthe evils we experience,â saying that those âevils . . .flow from the excess of democracyâŚâ
And then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out âdemocracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruelâŚâ
And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: "Democracy never lasts longâ . . . âIt soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.â. . . âThere was never a democracy that âdid not commit suicide.ââ
And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: âWe are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.â
And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying âA republic, if you can keep it.â
Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced directly by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities, have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership.
JWK
Socialist democrats running for office will promise food on the table, free public housing, health care for all, guaranteed income, free college tuition, and other niceties by taxing the so called rich; and if by chance they ever do get political power because of such promises made, their socialist iron-fisted dependency will enslave the very fools who elected them.
No, I donât think you do. I do support our republican form of government. The system of voting for representatives who in turn vote on our behalf is a type of democracy known as representative democracy which we practice here in the U.S.A. I do not support mob rule and believe there should be rules in place that protect minorities.
Where we differ is regarding the role in which the government should play in ensuring the welfare of its citizens (and what said welfare pertains) and how it goes about raising funds for that purpose. I accept SC precedent as it is now. You seem to pick and choose which SC decisions you deem valid vs invalid.
Oh, to the contrary my friend. One cannot support and defend our constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government and the use of its taxing powers to directly tax the citizens of the United States unless that tax is an equal per capita tax.
Keep in mind our Constitution declares: âNo Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.â
Your rule for taxation [âFrom each according to their ability to pay, to each who needs help living a decent life.â] violates the above federal prohibition.
Additionally, our founders, and those who ratified our federal Constitution, agreed to a specification of particulars for which Congress may lay and collect taxes âand provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United Statesâ
That specification of particulars, which Hamilton makes reference to, is found beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of our Constitution and does not include a power to provide federal revenue "⌠to each who needs help living a decent life ⌠" as you advocate.
In fact, Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 83 addresses your socialist/communist idea:
The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the NATIONAL LEGISLATURE, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.
Hamilton then goes on to apply the principle with an example:
"In like manner the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits, beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority."
Keep in mind Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 is immediately followed by "certain cases particularly specified" , and the "specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority."
The above view, expressed by Hamilton in Federalist 83, is in total harmony with what Madison states in Federalist Paper No. 41:
"It has been urged and echoed, that the power âto lay and collect taxesâŚto pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti-federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstructionâŚBut what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?. For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power.â ?
Madison also states in Federalist Paper No. 45:
â The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
Additionally, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison again explains the limited meaning of the phrase âgeneral welfareâ as follows: â⌠the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.â [3 Elliots 95]
Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out âwas united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxesâŚâ
Similarly, George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention cautions the convention:
âThe Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.â. [3 Elliots 442]
For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the meaning of the general welfare clause, and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress, or the Courts, to extended the federal governmentâs powers via the wording provide for the âgeneral welfareâ which otherwise might allow your rule for taxation ** âFrom each according to their ability to pay, to each who needs help living a decent life.â **
The bottom line is, you cannot support and defend our constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government and the use of its taxing powers as you suggest unless you believe in the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language being applied to our Constitution:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."
JWK
âWords or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoptionâŚâ __ (my emphasis) 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language
Sure I can.
Dude, Iâve been down the road with you before and I have no intentions of engaging with your wall of copypasta that Iâve seen over and over again posted by you. My opinion is not going to change from where it was last time: we have an income tax, we have welfare, and the SC has not ruled them unconstitutional.
âFrom each according to their ability to pay, to each who needs help living a decent life.â
Exactly.
How does contribute to the conversation?
You posted that, and then neglect to support it! Just like you neglect to defend your assertion that you support and defend our constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government when challenged.
JWK
The Latino walkaway movement is the socialist/communist democrat leadershipâs worse nightmare
What support does it need? Itâs irrelevant to your core fallacy that the DNC is full of communists.
Whatâs there to defend? I support our Constitution and our system of elected officials vs a king. I also have issues with it (like how we elect the President) but I would defend it in an argument. If you choose to think Iâm being dishonest, that your problem, not mine.
Off topic.
âFrom each according to his ability, to each according to his needsâ
The very essence of wealth redistribution espoused by âprogressivesâ. The underlying principle of âprogressiveâ tax schemes.
It is actually the underlying principle for any government âhelpâ.
No need to deny it.
Thatâs kind of my point. John seems to think this is some sort of proof that Democrats are communists, which is absurd since its clearly a maxim that when taken literally can be applied to most western democracies.
1 Like
Marxists, heâs right. Any democrat who supports a âprogressiveâ tax.
You think anyone who supports a progressive tax is a MarxistŘ
We are not a democracy, but Marxism and democracy are not mutually exclusive.
Of course. How can you not?
They may not want it, but gosh, LA and anyplace they govern looks like it more and more everyday. Itâs because they are ignorant of how economies work, and socialism is their religion. Or they are just mean!
And, they do not follow a fundamental maxim:
Thou shalt not covet they neighborâs property
JWK
"From each according to their ability to pay, to each who needs help living a decent life." ___ fallenturtle
1 Like
We are a representative democracy, which the founders referred to as a republic.
Iâm aware of this. Do you believe all countries that have progressive tax systems are Marxist? Is the US Marxist?
Was Lincoln a Marxist? He signed the Revenue Act of 1862 which included a progressive tax. And since Das Kapital didnât come out until 1867, I guess Marx and Lincoln must have been pen pals.
Wrong.
You think LA is governed like Venezuela?
