Resolved: The US founding fathers were Socialist

Pro’s Personal attacks I will like to point out to pro that one of the rules of the debate was no personal attacks; this includes criticism of grammar, and insulting one’s knowledge of the English language. If the voters feel my grammar is poor, or that I don’t understand my first language, than they can vote accordingly; they don’t need you to point it out to them. Rebuttals 1. The Takings Clause Pro asked, “If the government commandeers a private plot of land from a non-consenting owner and uses it for a public, how can my opponent plausibly argue that the government hasn't "redistributed" the owner's plot of land for the general public?” For one, they did not seize the land, they purchased it; just compensation is required. Furthermore, the 5th amendment is part of the bill of rights; thus it is a restrictive clause. According to the Bill of Right’s Preamble, “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”[1] 2. Due Process Clause My opponent yet again demonstrates ignorance for the definition of due process. First off, I never claimed due process is a right to retain rights, I claimed it was a judiciary process, and that you cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property in America without due process. Pro has claimed that the Supreme Court has not declared private property a right, like with rights not mentioned in the constitution, than we don’t have that right; however it is specifically mentioned in the bill of rights, so the court’s silence on that matter is evidence of our right to property. Pro has used an out of context quote by Benjamin Franklin in an attempt to prove he was for redistribution of wealth. However the original letter reads, “The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law. All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of.” [2] In other words, Franklin was referring to taxes, and the repossession of property to compensate for taxes owed. Even in regards to taxes owed, Franklin recognized that the right to property forbade the state from reposing everything, as his essentials were his right regardless of his debt. 3. The General Welfare Clause Again, I do not agree that all spending is socialist, only spending that does not benefit people who funded it. I was not silent on this issue, and I discussed it thoroughly. Pro claims “such a constrictive viewing of the General Welfare Clause was always a minority viewpoint among the Founding Fathers, and has never been accepted by a single Supreme Court Justice.” We are not talking about the Supreme Court; we are talking about the founding fathers. Furthermore, it was not a minority view; the Federalist Party had only 1 president, for 1 term, which was followed by 28 years of Jefferson’s Republican Party. [3] Hardly seems like the Federalists were with the majority. Pro said that, “According to the Supreme Court, "Hamilton maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States." Pro yet again, misinterpreted a quote; the Supreme Court did not rule that general welfare was separate and distinct from taxing; it ruled the general welfare was separate and distinct from the clauses that came later in Article 1 section 9; such as the power to establish post offices, and posted roads. Again, the General Welfare clause is a restrictive clause; it is a requirement for taxation. What the founders disagreed upon was how restrictive the General Welfare clause was, not if it was a restrictive clause. 4. Commerce Clause Pro gave the following quote by Hamilton to support his views; "it is evident, that the interference and aid of their own government are indispensable." However, the quote was yet again taken out of context; Hamilton was referring to international trade, in the Report of Manufacturers; and more specifically he was speaking of protective tariffs, which is a component of economic nationalism (a federalist policy). Here is a scan from the report; [4] 5. Federalists Nationalism > Socialism The Federalists were not Socialist, they were nationalist; a National Bank is also a Nationalist Policy, the bank of Amsterdam for example, predates socialism, as it was established in 1609.[5] The Federalist was not in favor of redistributive policies, they were for economic nationalist policies. New Argument State Constitutions We are a Federation of States, so the State Constitutions are equally important as the Federal Constitution. The State Constitutions clearly stated we have a right to property, some going as far as to make property requirements for voting. NH, as of 1784 [Sec]1.[Art.] 2. [Natural Rights.] “All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness.” [6] MA, as of 1780 [Art.] 1. “All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness”[7] NJ, as of 1776 [Art.] IV. “That all inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large.”[8] That’s all I can quote for now, due to character limits. Sources;http://www.debate.org...