• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The justification for wealth-redistribution.[W:2037]

Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

Federalist said:
Are you familiar with the constitution, in particular article I, section 8? This is the section in which congress' powers are listed. There is no power listed that would allow congress to regulate pollution or to establish the EPA.
Click to expand...

How does a Congress regulate pollution?
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Misterveritis said:
The Courts had very few responsibilities. Among them, specifically stated, is dealing with controversies between two or more states. If pollution from one state causes a lawsuit from a second state the Supreme Court is set up to hear that case and decide it.

We do not need unconstitutional agencies.
Click to expand...

We do not have unconstitutional agencies.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Hard Truth said:
When you take the power of governance from the people who are you going to give it to? Unless it is to a computer it is other people. Why should we expect that these other people know better than the rest of us? Why should we think that they will have our interests in mind? Who chooses these other people? Are they not people also?
Click to expand...


we are not taking power from the people.....we are placing 50% of direct power into the hands of the states, where they are elected by the people.

with direct power, the people have 50% and the states have 50%

however with indirect power the people have 100% power.....thru the election process.

by having direct power divided, this prevents tyranny.



if you give all direct power to a:

King...............he will become a dictator.

Small group of people............they will become an oligarchy, and rule over the people whom shall only be serfs.

"the people"................they will turn into the MOB, and majority rule will take place with 51% dictating the the 49%

which is why madison states this in federalist 47

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

the founders divided direct power, so it shall not be ALL in the same hands...to prevent tyranny
 
Last edited:
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

Hard Truth said:
Whose laws, the minority's or the mob's?
Click to expand...

constitutional law.....

there is to be no minority rule OR majority rule.

that is why we have a constitution, and supposed to have a limited government.
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

rabbitcaebannog said:
Ah, through a law. Yes, they have the power to do that.
Click to expand...

No, they don't have such a power. Congress may only make laws to carry out its enumerated powers. Congress has no enumerated power to control pollution.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

rabbitcaebannog said:
Yeah, we basically came to that conclusion the last time we had this conversation so let's call it a day. I hope you and yours have a Happy New Year!
Click to expand...

i know i am late, but i hope you have a happy new year, and peace be with you.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

PMZ said:
A pretty weak argument for 50X the cost and complexity.
Click to expand...

Except that it's not 50x the cost or complexity. Competition does not drive up costs. Most states end up with regulations that are strikingly similar because they have an uncanny ability to look around and see what works best for them. They also have much smaller budgets and more accountability to their voters.
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

rabbitcaebannog said:
No, I'm saying the Supreme Court can also preside over Federal cases too. A charge can be made from a single state toward the Federal government too. To claim tyranny is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
WE have no disagreement over all but your final statement.

This, among other things, makes the independent agencies tyrannical.

"Are you objecting to the independent agencies combination of executive, legislative and judicial powers? I agree. . . It is also unconstitutional."
Those functions need to be kept separate.
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

Federalist said:
Are you familiar with the constitution, in particular article I, section 8? This is the section in which congress' powers are listed. There is no power listed that would allow congress to regulate pollution or to establish the EPA.
Click to expand...

"The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order. The order establishing the EPA was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate."(Wikipedia)

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..........

...To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;...

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Regulating the environment qualifies as providing for the general welfare and regulating commerce between the states.
 
Re: The justification for wealth-redistribution.

VanceMack said:
Different philosophies. One says the top earners can EARN more, the other says "Life isnt fair. They's stealin all our pennies. Its not fair. Take it from them and give it to us!"

There was a 1,682 increase in first time "millionaires" in the US from 2012 to 2013. Those numbers regularly and steady have increased each year. You know how those folks became first time millionaires? I'll give you a hint...it WASNT by whining about how unfair life is and crying that some rich person knocked them down into the mud and stole their pennies. It also wasnt from playing the lottery or spending what little income they had on cell phones with data plans, internet, cable/satellite TV, the latest game console, cigarettes, alcohol, and an assortment of drugs and drug paraphernalia.
Click to expand...

As I close in on the 50th year of my life, I am constantly amazed at the pure and simple laziness of a great many Americans.

Many times I have worked 2 and even 3 jobs, because I wanted a better life for myself and my family. I also did not just sit on my butt, I continued to learn and study, to make myself more attractive to employers. And it really is not hard.

Yet I have also seen people living lives of the ultimate consumer, and it sickens me. Like living in Alabama where I rented half of a duplex for $250 a month. And in one of my jobs delivering pizza to the local housing project (where sometimes they tried to pay me with food stamps). And seeing the parking lot full of 2-3 year old cars (with rims that cost more then my car did), big screen TVs and Playbox and Xstation games filling the living room. The several times one of those parents would come into the shop of my other job, wanting to buy their kid a $1,200 computer for a present.

They are living in an apartment my taxes pay for, but are able to buy a computer that cost 5 months rent!

Yet many of these same people scream about how the "rich are stealing their money". Sorry, it is not your money, it is their money. And they pay taxes on that, a lot of taxes. Yet people want to cry as they watch their 52" flat screen in the housing project, as people like me work multiple jobs to earn it ourselves.

Yet, in this country people rise from nothing all the time. People like Chris Gardner, who went from homeless shelter to founder and CEO of a prestigious investment company and a multi-millionaire.

10 years ago, I was not even making $30k, now I make almost double that. Nobody gave it to me though, I busted my butt to get where I am today. Yet people want to tear me down, because they are not willing to work as hard as I have to achieve their own greatness.
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

Hard Truth said:
Regulating the environment qualifies as providing for the general welfare and regulating commerce between the states.
Click to expand...
How can that be? Promoting the general welfare is nothing more than executing the non-defense enumerated clauses of article 1 section 8. It is not a power separate from the rest.

If a responsibility was not delegated or directly flows from an enumerated power there is no authority for the Congress to act. We must return to our Constitutional foundations.
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

Misterveritis said:
WE have no disagreement over all but your final statement.

This, among other things, makes the independent agencies tyrannical.

"Are you objecting to the independent agencies combination of executive, legislative and judicial powers? I agree. . . It is also unconstitutional."
Those functions need to be kept separate.
Click to expand...

To suggest that the agency combines all powers is false.
 
Re: Supreme Court Responsibilities

rabbitcaebannog said:
To suggest that the agency combines all powers is false.
Click to expand...

Nearly all of the independent agencies make their rules, have an enforcement arm and have their own hearings. If you dispute your fine you can go to a civil court which presumes that the agency is right and the defendant is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom