do libs understand that equally sharing wealth is not in our constitution?

Answer 1

LMAO! You know, I work at a university, and several professors proudly proclaim themselves socialists. Funny, though - when it comes time for pay raises, I have yet to hear *any* of them say - no, wait! Give it to the staff. Equal distribution of the wealth only sounds good when it's someone else's money, apparently.

Answer 2

I do not believe that all libs look at the Constitution and see wealth-sharing written into it. Not all of them. Back in the 1960s, there was a majority on the Sup. Ct. who thought that way, and they issued some of their rulings that way, but that majority didn't last long. Undoubtedly, SOME libs still do think that way, but I doubt that it is all libs.

When you speak in such sweeping generalizations about "them," you only provoke them to retaliate and then they say sweepingly generalized things about "us."

Answer 3

Actually, you are not correct.

In the preamble, one of the give goals for creating the country is to "promote the general welfare".

In Article I, one of the two primary spending powers for congress is the general welfare.

In the 5th Amendment, the govt is explicitly allowed to seize property for community (public) benefit.

So, the Constitution fully allows a socialist govt -- and nowhere does it say socialism is prohibited. Nor does it require capitalism. In fact, the only form of economy prohibited is communism, because the Constitution explicitly allows for private (non-community) ownership of property,

Other than that -- it's up to the people and/or Congress to decide how property is owned and regulated.

But don't forget -- most liberals oppose socialism as much as fiscal conservatives do. Please don't confuse the two.

Answer 4

Obama who's a criminal professional and went to the final regulation college in the rustic takes the form very heavily. the quote you have given would not communicate approximately what he thinks could ensue yet is his assessment of the warren courtroom. and that i think of his assessment that the form says what the state can not do to you, and it would not say that lots approximately what the federal government could do for you. Obama additionally would not like the assumption of courts putting public coverage. i think of he might particularly the legislator settle on gay marriage and abortion rights and affirmative action. He thinks that while you're for any of those issues or carry any place on any coverage, you're greater powerful served working to get the legislator to amend the regulations then attempting to stress your opinion on others by using a courtroom decision. Obama has no longer been very forceful in filling his courtroom appointments he has spent no political capitol on them. Obama's financial coverage is likewise not often for the redistribution of wealth, his policies have helped human beings that have money make greater and those that don't, nicely he knows this is no longer ordinary for us and he feels our soreness. an analogous people who ran the Bush financial coverage run the Obama financial coverage.

Answer 5

I never said we should equally distribute wealth I just think everyone should be able to have a certain quality of living here in the U.S. The rich can stay rich but we need to make sure that the poor can at least be provided with the basics.

Answer 6

So you think that lame argument will get all us 'lemming libs' to disregard the Constitution... just as the current administration has done so? WRONG!!

Answer 7

Libs can't understand with any logic that within the human race there is a conservative cult called Republicans who don't want to give at all so that others may have adequate health care. Libs can't understand with any logic that in their greed and lust this same abomination will support enterprising brigands who will stop at nothing including war and murder to line their own pockets and reward these supporters at the expense of the lives of their countrymen.

Answer 8

Neither is Capitalism!

OR

Militarized Economic Globalization!

Answer 9

Excuse me but I don't believe it was a liberal that called the constitution a "god damned piece of paper".

Answer 10

Either is waging war without a Declaration of War by Congress