Social Justice and the Constitution

From Douglas Gibbs, at Canada Free Press:

Barack Obama won the election of 2012 with a number of strategies in place, and the one that made the largest impact was his offer of the federal government as the giver of gifts from the treasury, at the expense of the producers in society. In other words, the redistribution of wealth. The liberal left calls this Social Justice. The Founding Fathers called it despotic and unconstitutional. Today’s conservatives call it communism.

Enough voters, however, have bought into the lie that only government must be the guarantor of social justice.

The concept of Social Justice begins with the claim that the government is simply seeking to achieve “fairness.” In this pursuit, the Democrats cry out that those with more must “pay their fair share” in order for the “less fortunate” to achieve equity in our unfair society. Equality and fairness. Sounds good to most. A tool used by the statists to achieve their big government aims, Social Justice is a myriad of entitlement programs we are told were designed to ensure those that are underprivileged are taken care of by government.

Social Justice is argued as being the responsibility of the government for reasons of morality. To not support social justice is to be immoral because that must mean you want the potential recipients of entitlement programs to suffer in their poverty. In reality, the statists are paying the poor to remain poor, not only to buy their votes, but to keep them under the control of the government.

Does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to create and fund programs designed to redistribute the wealth from the taxpayers to those seeking participation in entitlement programs?

The answer is “No,” though folks that oppose a system of self-reliance and personal responsibility will argue otherwise...

Well, to be precise, the Constitution sets forth in the Preamble that we should provide for the "general welfare," although it's a political question as to what that actually means. Should the "general welfare" be defined as promoting greater liberty for the individual to pursue material economic interests to the best of his or her ability, with the aggregate of those interests promoting the public good through increasing social prosperity? Or should the "general welfare" be defined as promoting ever increasing (re)distributive "welfare" programs as defined by the radical left's entitlement ideology? As it stands right now, the latter definition is winning (and liberty is increasingly threatened).

But continue reading.