• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

In expressing relief that “taxpayers can’t sue the government for spending their tax dollars in ways they don’t like,” your editorial (June 30, “Leaving the law intact”) makes it sound like robbers would clog the courts with lawsuits trying to stop spending to enforce laws against robbery. Yes, throw those out in a millisecond. But what about spending that is arguably unconstitutional?

Federal officeholders swear to protect and defend the Constitution, but what if they simply ignore their oath to the detriment of taxpayers? It’s not as if this never happens — the war on drugs, unauthorized by the Constitution, costs many billions per year; the Iraq War was never declared by Congress, as mandated by the Constitution.

The larger question is, does the government exist for the convenience of the governed or do the governed exist for the convenience of the government?

The Rocky seems to favor the latter. If a taxpayer thinks money has been spent in violation of the stated rules — tough luck. Oh right, he has his one vote. That is what’s called accountability and popular sovereignty.

The ultimate problem here is taxation. When money is given in exchange by consent, problems can be averted by written agreements or solved as a last resort by dissociation. But taxation is not based on consent. It’s based on compulsion. There is no enforceable contract. Once that is understood, the reluctance of the government to recognize legal standing for taxpayers is understandable — and revealing.

John E. Cairnes is a resident of Limon.

READER COMMENTS

I have to agree that there are MANY things wrong with our government which need to be changed, but when one (or a group) sues the government, who picks up the governement tab??
That would be tax payers.

I am a single person without children. Should I help pay for schools? YES. I believe that education is the best thing we can give ALL children in order for them to be productive citizens.
Do I drive on all roads, either highway or local? NO. But roads are necessary to get to and from work, the grocery, schools ect. As a citizen I should help pay for those.
Hospitals, firestations, police, libraries and much more are all items we use thanks to taxes paid by you and me. I consider these necessities which I am thankful my tax dollars go for.
There is no way we can pick and choose where our tax dollars are spent. Unless we choose NOT to purchase items which generate taxes. That would include gas, groceries, clothing, property ect.
Unless you want to live like Ted Kaczynski I'm curious how you plan on implimenting this.
As a side note, I for one thought that if Bowlen wanted his new stadium he should have paid for the damn thing himself, if anyone feels the same then the last thing they should be doing is 'honoring' the donkeys by purchasing/watching anything related to them...yes I know there was an increase in tax sales w/in the city of Denver to support this stadium. I see this as a principal matter.
On another note, I never agreed with this war to begin with. I resent my hard earned money going to something which should have never have happened. I also agree with what John E. Cairnes said about the drug war....it is complete b.s. which only brings about $$$ for the gov but does nothing for the POOR citizens except make them prisioners in this country.
I have conflicting issues with all of this but it boils down to the fact that unless there is a complete revolution starting with the poor and downtrodden (those the 'establishment' fear the most) and working it's way up to the middle class who are deeply in debit but still have something of an income, nothing will change. We have no say so where our taxes should go.

On the other hand I resent my hard earned money funding wasted court time and lawyer fees funding someone's entertainment.

Why should taxpayers fund this kind of stuff? We should be using the legislature and Congress to change things. Doing through the courts is the most expensive possible way to do things. And it results in poorly designed outcomes.

MM why would you leave out the upperclass who pay most of the taxes in the revolution you speak of? I hate paying the amout of taxes that I pay and being self employeed it is a huge part of my income.
We also cant for get the war on poverty that has failed like the one on drugs. but both of those sure make some people feel good about what their government is doing [or not doing in reality].

The Supreme Court recently ruled that citizens don't have the right to question Bush's disbursement of federal funds, in his faith based initiative. Their decision is draconian at best, and unsuspecting taxpayers are financing evangelical goons. Most federal agencies advertised on their websites, some type of religious interface or support.

Bill Clinton quickly stripped blacks from the welfare rolls, at the urging of the GOP. He didn't remove Mormons. US Sen. Reid (Mormon) has promised to investigate Mormons on the welfare rolls. I've often wondered if the Fitzsimons redevelopment project was a part of Bush's ever expanding faith-based initiative.

Fitz is a cash-cow to the Mormons, of the likes I've never seen before. Former UCH and UCDHSC president/ceo Dennis Brimhall, was the program/project manager (Mayor Tauer gopher) for the construction of thisfacility. He earmarked all of the plum jobs and contracts within this project, for business owners, who are memebrs of Denver's Mormon Church community.

Brimhall retired from UCDHSC and the SLC Mormon Church hdqtrs rewarded him for fraud, waste, and abuse of federal funds, by appointing him as their new Director, Intternational Mormon Misson. Black disabled Vietnam veterans' job and contracting benefits were "vaporized" in this scam. None of the black state legislative types came to the aid of these patriots or provided any fiscal oversight or stewardship, in this racist cash-cow.

The state elected officials are incapable of conducting auditing and other financial controls (loss control), in their overall disbursement of of both state and federal funds. Proof-positive is the bipartisan "robbery", that has occurred in the revenue dept. and the disclosure of several candy stores within our colleges and universities (CCHE).

Therefore, I suggest Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, should audit Fas Tracks, CBMS, Fitz, and T-REX. USDOL/OFCCP Secy. Chao is the policewoman for protecting the job and contracting benefits of vets, across all racial lines, however, she has proven to be the fox-in-the-hen-house. However, she does a good job in getting her husband, US Sen. McConnell, financial donations from federal contractors (private and public sector).

Chao wears too many hats (MSHA/OSHA bodybags 'R' us), and she is woefully incompetent and lacks integrity, in the execution of her duties. She is the enemy (czar) of our military reservists that are serving in Iraq-NAM (families too). She nor USAG Gonzo (vet) have ever prosecuted an employer for illegally firing a military reservist.

They allow these warriors to return home, only to find they have been fired from their jobs. Chao has more than 8K complaints growing hair on her desk, and the USPS (federal agency), is the nation's worst offender of reservists' re-employment rights.
I proudly join US Rep. Jack Murtha (USMC Vietnam War-hero), "I wouldn't serve in today's armed forces with these guys, and their deferments".

MM,

You said:

"I am a single person without children. Should I help pay for schools? YES. I believe that education is the best thing we can give ALL children in order for them to be productive citizens.
Do I drive on all roads, either highway or local? NO. But roads are necessary to get to and from work, the grocery, schools ect."

The author speaks of unconstitutional federal spending and you mention education and roads. Well, one out of two ain't bad.

Building roads and bridges is perfectly constitutional so you can relax on that point. But, a national education program is not mentioned in the Constitution and should therefore be left to the States.

It does not matter whether you are "thankful" for unconstitutional federal spending; politicians must obey our Constitution.

What is the point of having a Constitution if the citizenry will become so devoid of any knowledge of it that any two-bit pandering populist politician with a phony accent can come along and promise everything under the sun in exchange for votes?

You can sue a federal or state agency, but you can't sue "the government"

John E. Cairnes,

Why do I suspect you have the quintessential American attitude of demanding services, but god forbid if you have to pay for them.

Taxes are what keep your highways maintained, and provided schools.

It may be bad policy, but the drug war isn't necessarily unconstitutional. It is not a war in the sense of a military action. Instead it's a decades long series of policies at the federal level to do something about drugs--see federal agenci

Tim,

Mr. Cairnes did not mention anything about highway maintenance. And yes, taxes provide public education. But, Mr. Cairnes is talking about federal tax money, not State tax money. The States are allowed to spend (or not to spend) on education; the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to spend tax money on public education.

If you don't want to see any more of your illegally confiscated tax money being spent willy-nilly in a totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL manner, vote for Ron Paul for president in 2008.

I must take issue with your comments MM. It is in the taxpayers paying for law suits against government agencies that the solution for excessive government spending can be found. If you don't want to have your tax dollars spent on law suits, the answer is not laws making law suits impossible, it is in forcing those government agencies through law suits to clean up their act and become responsive to the taxpayers. If a valid law suit is filed and won because it was held by the court or a jury to be owed just compensation for the wrong and liability actions of that agency, all the taxpayers who bared the financial burden for it should storm the ramparts demanding that agency's budget be reduced by the exact amount the government had to pay as a result of loosing that law suit. Then watch how fast all government agencies suddenly discover what private enterpse has know for years; either do it right and cause no liability harm in the process or prepare yourself for a public financial flogging.

Tim,

"You can sue a federal or state agency, but you can't sue "the government""

Are you sure about that? Perhaps, you should research that one a bit more.

To "fleecedbyritterowens", aka "beyondthecottoncutain", et al,: much better presentation. Your points are coming into focus without the over riding taint of victim hood and hate onscuring them. Keep up the positive work.

John 11. Yeah, it's true, you can sue government agencies, it is only elected officials that are exempt and that only for what they do in their official capacity and the government as a whole, because it is made up of countless agencies that can be sued.

But it must be understood that it is the taxpaying public that bares the cost. Haven't you noticed that when any city, county or state has to pay out tax money to cover any loss, be it legal, or self inflicted incompetence, or just plain stupidity the governments immediate response is to raise taxes on something to make up the loss. They never really are held responsible nor do they have to long bare the cost that way. Wouldn't you like to own a business like that?

Oh, wait a minute, I spoke too fast. Yeah, I remember now; savings and loan banks, farmers, car companies etc, etc ad nauseam. Of course, shame on me. What I really meant was owning a MEGA BIG BUSINESS and being able to hire pods of lobbyists and gaggles of lawyers.

Mr. Campbell,

Google: "v. United States" "supreme court"

The Federal Government ceased being a Constitutional entity early in the last century. It's only function now is to take from some and give to others. It's much more onerous than the King we fought to get rid of.

John 11, what year

For whatever it might be worth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

"In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party. The Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act are not as broad waivers of sovereign immunity as they might appear, as there are a number of statutory exceptions and judicially-fashioned limiting doctrines applicable to both. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers federal question jurisdiction on district courts, but this statute has been held not to be a blanket waiver of sovereign immunity on the part of the federal government."

POST A COMMENT

• 'Kid Nation' reality show a new low
• Rivers a shameful hire
• Too little news
• ‘Diesel’ fumes
• Unlocalized story a disservice to readers
• Riled up by Christian music
• Darling of the left
• Solutions too costly