jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (52 posts)

Should it be possible

  1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
    weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago

    For a vote in Congress, to confiscate the property of any specific group of people?

    1. Maembe profile image60
      Maembeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It depends on whether one supports the US constitution.  If they do, they would probably say yes.  Personally, I've never been a fan of eminent domain, but I support it when absolutely necessary.

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
        weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What are you talking about?   Could you cite the Constitution for what you're saying?

        1. Maembe profile image60
          Maembeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Absolutely, the fifth amendment states
          "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

          Basically, the government can take property for public use.  For example, if they wanted to build an interstate and your property was in the way or something like that.

          Jeez, for a self-proclaimed arbiter of the US Constitution you don't seem to know it very well.  That's twice today.

          1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
            weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Well, here's the whole amendment:  "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

            It clearly states that property cannot be taken without due process of law - meaning a trial.   

            Now, I read through the powers of Congress just now, it's article 1, section 8, and nowhere in there is Congress authorized co confiscate property by vote.  The 10th Amendment says  that if Congress isn't authorized to do something, that power does not exist for Congress, period.   Such powers are retained by the state or the people themselves.   

            So, again, I ask how you come to the conclusion that a vote in Congress can take your property away?

            1. Maembe profile image60
              Maembeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The due process part is clearly separate from the "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."  It doesn't require due process, only "just compensation."
              A vote in congress can, and always has, been able to take your property away since the inception of the constitution.

              1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
                weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                What?   How do you get past :  "deprived of life, liberty, or property" and then turn around and say you CAN be deprived of property without due process?

                1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
                  weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Furthermore, how do you get past the fact Congress has no such power granted to it?

                  1. Maembe profile image60
                    Maembeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't even understand what you're trying to argue here.  Eminent domain has been used for well over 200 years, since before the founding of the United States in fact.  Are you stating that the founding fathers were wrong or that they made an error in the syntax and thus that part is invalidated?

                2. Maembe profile image60
                  Maembeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I didn't write the constitution.  I would guess that by giving someone just compensation you are not depriving them of property.  Depriving someone of something usually refers to preventing them from having it, whereas "taking" is pretty self explanatory.

                  1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
                    weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    That's nonsense.    taking property is taking property.    Whether you give them money in return is based on why it was taken.    If it was taken to compensate victims of a criminal,  it had better be done by a court of law.   If you take someone's property by legal means, for public purpose, then they MUST be paid for it.   

                    None of these have anything to do with votes in Congress.

  2. Cagsil profile image62
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Should it be possible?

    Actually, it is possible, never mind, whether or not, it should be possible.

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
      weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Explain it.

  3. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    The supreme court delegated by your constitution said yes.

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
      weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Where?

      1. Maembe profile image60
        Maembeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There have been many rulings.  The most ridiculous of which is probably kelo vs. the City of New London in 2005.  Basically, the government can take your property and give it to private businesses.

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
          weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The Supreme Court is not delegated to amend or determine the meaning of the constitution.    Read the Constitution.

  4. Shadesbreath profile image90
    Shadesbreathposted 6 years ago

    It happens all the time. You have a history book handy?

  5. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 6 years ago

    What property? Income Guns,gold or for example Eminent domain?

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
      weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Property is property.    Do you ahve some point?

  6. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 6 years ago

    Actually it seems like you don't

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
      weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, you thought I was asking a question to make a statement?   

      A "When did you stop molesting children" kind of thing? 

      No, i didn't.    I asked a very clear and straightforward question.   Notice how liberals are stymied by it.

  7. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 6 years ago

    I asked you a direct question? Are you perplexed by this?

  8. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 6 years ago

    Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
    Section 8 - Powers of Congress



    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    This is why I asked my question and there's your answer if you are talking about money

    1. Druid Dude profile image61
      Druid Dudeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Imminent Domain

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
        weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Where is Congress given the power of imminent domain?

        1. Maembe profile image60
          Maembeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The Constitution.  The Federal government has had that power since the foundation of our country.

          1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
            weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Quote it to me.

            1. Maembe profile image60
              Maembeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I already have.  Its an irrefutable fact that the founding fathers intended for government to be able to exercise eminent domain, addressed it in the constitution, and used it since the beginning of the US.  Do you think the "just compensation" clause was included just for fun?

    2. weholdthesetruths profile image60
      weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I didn't say anything about taxes.    However, the PURPOSE for which Congress can raise taxes... are enumerated in the constitution, it's not allowed to tax for any other purposes than those given it.  Further, taxes are not levied "upon groups of people", they are simply levied.

  9. Moderndayslave profile image60
    Moderndayslaveposted 6 years ago

    general Welfare of the United States; That's a pretty broad brush.

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
      weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Who is "United States" in the Constitution?

  10. Doug Hughes profile image59
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    There was a place where wetwistthesetruths palmed a card.

    In the constitutional discussion of the phrase "without due process" he claims it means without a trial. If the founders had meant without a trial, they would have said, "without a trial". DUH!

    Allow me to guess what this post is about. Twisting is in sneaky defense of an oppressed group who is unjustly, unfairly, and unconstitutionally deprived of property without a trial.

    My guess is that the oppressed group is the very rich, who not only pay more taxes, but pay at a higher RATE than say, a single mother working a fast food job. Those poor, rich people are being discriminated against.

    Which brings us to a central question. Should the rich pay more? Let's turn to the man who penned the phrase, "We hold these truths...". I quote Thomas Jefferson.

    "These revenues will be levied entirely on the rich, the business of household manufacture being now so established that the farmer and laborer clothe themselves entirely. The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. The poor man, who uses nothing but what is made in his own farm or family, or within his own country, pays not a farthing of tax to the General Government, but on his salt; and should we go into that manufacture also, as is probable, he will pay nothing. Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings. * —To General Kosciusko. Washington ed. v, 586.

    1. DTR0005 profile image82
      DTR0005posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Nice one Doug. I have read this passage before.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image59
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        More people should read Jefferson. You have to read in context, but it becomes clear that Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and the political philosophers of the time had NOTHING in common with the Randian philosophy that they want to dress up in Colonial costume and present as the original intent of the founders.

        1. DTR0005 profile image82
          DTR0005posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          With tube socks for ankel hose...

          1. DTR0005 profile image82
            DTR0005posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            ankle - loll

        2. lovemychris profile image81
          lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thom Hartmann: Thomas Jefferson’s 3 Greatest Fears http://dlvr.it/NvPWG

      2. weholdthesetruths profile image60
        weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Too bad you have no idea what was going on.     This is why the federal goverment was funded SOLELY by tarriffs, not by income taxes, so that it could not tax directly the people of the country.   Jefferson believed that taxing imports was the only equitable way to fund the government, and that, was because it never taxed any domestic product or transaction.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image59
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't offer my opinion about Thomas Jefferson. I quoted the man himself. Even a Teabagger can see that TJ intended to fund,"canals, schools & roads" with federal money taken entirely from one class - the rich.

          So much for your hypothesis.

    2. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wow! I had no idea how far these TP'ers wanted to take us from the original intent of the framers....it's disgusting! How dare they!

      1. Doug Hughes profile image59
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The first Federal Health Care Law (with a mandate) was passed in 1798 and signed into law by John Adams. The law covered merchant (not military) sailors and required withholding by the shipowners to be given to the federal government who set up government-run clinics and hospitals.

        The law was called "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen". Google it. (I don't make any of this up.)

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
          weholdthesetruthsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Still unconstitutional.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image59
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            In 1798 the Congress WAS The founding fathers. All were survivors of the Revolutionary War from just 20 years prior.

            But you know better.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Doug, that's a bone-head argument.

              John Adams and his party signed into a law a bill that made it illegal to criticize his party. That was CLEARLY unconstitutional, but according to you and your "precedent makes everything ok" logic, you now are not allowed to make fun of Republicans.

              This is why I care so much about actually reading the damned Constitution: because @$$wipes like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton will make it illegal for us to voice our opinions, but then say that "well TSCOTUS said it's ok"

              1. Aya Katz profile image89
                Aya Katzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                So you admit that about twenty years after the revolutionary war, many of the founding fathers who were in power were turning on other founding fathers and trying to silence them into submission!

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  yes, of course they were.

                  That's the plague of government - give people control over one another and things go bad. Political parties exist for one group to have better control over another group.

                  This is not an "admission", it's clear as day. I've BEEN arguing this since I came to HubPages.

              2. DTR0005 profile image82
                DTR0005posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                So Evan, now you presume to tell us that "Founding Fathers'" words weren't really the intent of the Founding Fathers' words? Come on dude... If you are going to live by the black and white, you will die, figuratively, by the black and white...

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
                  Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Nonsense. That's not even my argument at all.

                  Read the constitution. that tells you EXACTLY what "they" wanted the government to be.

                  It's crystal clear - the 10th amendment makes the entire document readable.

                  My argument is that "THE FOUNDING FATHERS" wrote a document called "the Constitution of the United StateS of America", had the majority of stateS approve it, and then individual founding fathers went about corrupting it for their own personal gain.

                  This is entirely consistent with history, and entirely consistent with ALL of my previous posts.

                  Doug has yet to accept the fact that "precedence" doesn't overrule the Constitution, as every Liberal thinks it does.

  11. Evan G Rogers profile image81
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    SHOULD it be possible?

    No of course not.

    IS it possible?

    Yes. Unfortunately.

 
working