Does anyone believe the purpose of government includes the redistribution of wealth? If so please explain where in the constitution that is spelled out.

There's only ever been one purpose for government. And that is to control it's population. Our constitution seems to be the best and fairest document yet to provide for such. But tell me where in the Constitution does it include that some banks are too big to fail? Or as I like to put it, too rich to become poor.

quote:

There's only ever been one purpose for government. And that is to control it's population. Our constitution seems to be the best and fairest document yet to provide for such. But tell me where in the Constitution does it include that some banks are too big to fail? Or as I like to put it, too rich to become poor.

Not in there.

quote:

Originally posted by Ronnie P.:

quote:

There's only ever been one purpose for government. And that is to control it's population. Our constitution seems to be the best and fairest document yet to provide for such. But tell me where in the Constitution does it include that some banks are too big to fail? Or as I like to put it, too rich to become poor.

There isn't.

Agreed!

Where is the law that says we HAVE to pay income tax? This video is long but very interesting, that is if you take the time and have the patience.
http://video.google.com/videop...1656880303867390173#

Here. 16th Amendment.


Are Federal Taxes Unconstitutional? Was the 16th Amendment Tax Ratified?

If you think you aren't required to pay taxes because the 16th Amendment to the Constitution wasn't ratified and you fail to pay your taxes to the IRS, you could find yourself in hot water.

A clever scam, perhaps more hoax than scam, used by those who want to convince you that federal taxes are unconstitutional. Their argument is that federal taxes are unconstitutional because not all fifty states ratified the 16th Amendment to our constitution. What they fail to mention is that not all fifty states are required to ratify an Amendment in order to implement it as U.S. law.
False belief turned cottage industry

There are people who make a living teaching others about how they can use the argument that the 16th Amendment wasn't ratified to justify not paying federal income tax. They advertise and conduct seminars all across America and people are falling for it. But they don't tell you the entire story. This hoax has been going on for years. And there are plenty of court rulings throughout American courts that confirm the 16th Amendment was in fact ratified. It only takes three quarters of our fifty states to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Most people don't know that fact.

I suggest you watch the video I posted barracus. It has more than just information on the irs. Just a suggestion.

Here's a short trailer of the video I posted.
http://video.google.com/videop...=3998622044808925517

http://www.thepriceofliberty.o...04/16/greenslade.htm

Thirty-six states ratified the 16th amendment which was accepted by the Secretary of State on 25 February 1913. Only 36 were required in 1913 as there were only 48 states. The states were:

The several state legislatures ratified the Sixteenth Amendment
on the following dates: Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8,
1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910;
Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8,
1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19,
1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington,
January 26, 1911; Montana, January 27, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911;
California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota,
February 1, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February
11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911;
Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Kansas, March 2,
1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April
7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected the amendment
at the session begun January 9, 1911); Wisconsin, May 16, 1911; New
York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 3, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912;
Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; Delaware,
February 3, 1913; Wyoming, February 3, 1913; New Mexico, February 3,
1913; New Jersey, February 4, 1913; Vermont, February 19, 1913;
Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having
rejected the amendment on March 2, 1911).

The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/const...ion/html/conamt.html

In addition, six states ratified it after the amendment was accepted: New Mexico (February 3, 1913) Wyoming (February 3, 1913), New Jersey (February 4, 1913), Vermont (February 19, 1913), Massachusetts (March 4, 1913), and New Hampshire (March 7, 1913), after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911.

I'm not an advocate of wealth re-distribution, so the comments that follow have nothing to do with that really.

I think two different arguements often become intertwined that aren't, at the core, related to each other: 1) the proper function/role of government, and 2) whether things are constitutional.

I'm am not a lawyer, or legal expert, so take this with the proper grain of salt. Nothing currently in practice can really be considered unconstitutional. Our Constitution allows Congress to make laws, and allows the SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of those laws. Therefore it could be argued, whether you personally agree or not, that once the SCOTUS declares something constitutional, it is. If Congress passed some law that effectively "spreads the wealth," and the SCOTUS upheld that law, how can it be unconstitutional?

As for the proper role of government, that is another question alltogether, and opinions will certainly vary. However, what you personally think the government should do is not a matter of constitutionality, being that mechanisms are in place to change government's role/authority.

quote:

Originally posted by paradox_carnival:
I suggest you watch the video I posted barracus. It has more than just information on the irs. Just a suggestion.

Why should I when we already have the 'facts' from the constitution. It doesn't matter if the video says all congressmen are lizards does it?
If I want entertainment, I'll turn to Scify.

quote:

Therefore it could be argued, whether you personally agree or not, that once the SCOTUS declares something constitutional, it is. If Congress passed some law that effectively "spreads the wealth," and the SCOTUS upheld that law, how can it be unconstitutional?

Good point, and most terrifying.

In theory, if the President believes SCOTUS is in error, he can order the Justice Department not to enforce the decision. That is not an impeachable offense.

I doubt I will live long enough to see a decision like that.