Special tax to fund war not necessary
Congress is talking about a special tax to fund this war so that our Great Grandchildren won’t have to be paying for it.
Right now, China, Saudi Arabia, etal own our debt. Why doesn’t the U.S. Government issue War Bonds or Debt Bonds, that pay the Americans who buy them the same percentage of Interest that we pay Foreign Countries, take that money and start paying off the debt?
Wouldn’t it be better to have the debt spread among Americans than a Foreign Government?
When WW2 started we were coming out from under the Great Depression, we were totally unprepared. The U.S. issued War Bonds, converted factories into defense plants, rationed eveything. There were no Millionaires that came out of that war.
This letter has not been edited.
A war bond is a government debt instrument. In other words, it adds to our debt; it does not decrease it. What Mr. Rader is proposing makes no sense. He wants to pay debt with more debt.
Here's a novel idea: Let's cut spending!
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 02:11 PMfranki which of your anti war buddies would buy the bonds?
Posted by on October 15, 2007 02:16 PMFrank realizes that war bonds create debt. What he is saying is that he thinks it would be preferable for that debt to be owed to Americans rather than to foreign countries, especially a country like China which poses considerably more risk to our country than do its citizens.
Frank:
Wouldn’t it be better to have the debt spread among Americans than a Foreign Government?"
But of course the big problem is that if we start spending our money on war bonds we may irritate our venerable president by having to curtail our shopping and our trips to Disneyland.
Above all, like terrorism, we want all the sacrifices to be made "over there". Good God, to hear some people talk, you'd think there was a war on.
Posted by Truth on October 15, 2007 02:28 PM"He wants to pay debt with more debt."
Were you a fan of the Republican tax cuts during time of war coupled with the deficit spending?
Posted by jay on October 15, 2007 02:28 PMCut spending, JohnnyBoy2? From where?
From FEMA? Katrina was not too big of a deal anyway, just ask Big Bar' Bush.
From the Dep't of Education? Then your precious No Child Left Behind Act couldn't be enforced.
From Dep't of Health and Human Services? Then your idols at Big Pharma couldn't get absurdely rich from the Medicare fraud they love to do to squeeze every cent from the taxpayers as possible.
Well, we couldn't even begin to touch the Pentagon's budget, now could we? Even in spite of all the waste and fraud found there.
From the Dep't of Interior? How would the BLM be able to rape the country's resources as fast as your hero W wants them to be?
From the Dep't of Transportation? Remember the bridge collapse in MN?
From the Dep't of Energy? Don't we have nuclear fuel stockpiles to oversee?
From the Dep't of Labor? I'm sure that the families of the coal miners in WV and UT would be thrilled about that.
The list goes on and on . . .
Now, I know that you want to see the dissolution of the Union, just like Grover Norquist. (You two, along with that retard James Jones, are filthy anarchists!!) But the strength of America lies in its federalist roots, complete with a good degree of centralized power. But that does not matter, when taxes are the most evil thing to ever be imposed on a people, right? Just remember, that if your pipe dream of no more federal government comes true, then you will have to pay taxes to the state, county, region, and municipality. Did I just make you a sad panda with that, you little women-basher?
Here's a better idea: Raise taxes on those who can afford to pay them!
Posted by JohhnyBoy2 is a moron on October 15, 2007 02:35 PMjay,
Hell yes. The tax rate cuts worked. Revenue increased every year since the 2003 tax rate cuts.
Truth,
Who we owe the debt to is not as important as how much we owe. Either way, it's a debt that our "grandchildren" will have to pay. Also, if the goal is raise money for the war, why would we prohibit foreign nations from contributing to our war chest?
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 02:37 PMSo you're okay with our country now owing more than we are owed?
That's an interesting stance on debt. I'm with Greenspan. He maintains that the republican majority simply through fiscal restraint and theory out the window...while out to lunch. How do you want your grandchildren to pay for that? paper or plastic?
Oh by the way...real median household income has gone down for the last 6 years....that's not a healthy economy for the middle class.
Posted by jay on October 15, 2007 02:42 PMEliminate Dept. of Education.
Cut Dept. of Health and Human Services (it consumes $800 billion annually and keeps growing. Hillary already has plans to increase it by an extra $200 billion annually)
You cited examples of government waste in the same breath as defending those programs. You don't want to cut money from FEMA even though you've just acknowledged how ineffectual they are. You bashed Dept. Of Health yet would you cut money from that dept.?
Here's a novel idea: Let's cut spending!
Posted by John II
By getting out of Iraq, right?
Posted by on October 15, 2007 02:49 PMand if you think times are bad now just wait till hillbillary health care is here and her government sponsered 401 comes along.
and dear sweet jonnyboy2 who so profoundly stated,
Here's a better idea: Raise taxes on those who can afford to pay them!
well if you make more than 10 bucks a you can afford it. I cant afford my taxes now as it takes away alot of money from my family, so you pick up the slack. that way I can have more to enjoy with my family and not pay for some lard ass to sit around with his hand out wanting what I earned.
Posted by on October 15, 2007 02:50 PMjay wondered:
"So you're okay with our country now owing more than we are owed?"
Where did I suggest that?
"He maintains that the republican majority simply through fiscal restraint and theory out the window...while out to lunch."
Of course they did. The R's acted like D's. They spent too much.
"Oh by the way...real median household income has gone down for the last 6 years....that's not a healthy economy for the middle class."
That is statistically irrelevant. RMHI rose for households with one or more earner. Either way, what does that have to do with the topic at hand?
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 02:54 PMJohnnyBoy2,
FEMA was a disaster because of an incompetent lackey put in charge of it by an even more incompetent president. FEMA worked quite well under Clinton, but you could never give Clinton any credit for anything good, now could you?
And the Dep't of Education has nothing at all to do with the "General Welfare" of the country does it? Are you really trying to say that the US would better off being populated by dolts? I know that you desperately want company, but a more educated country, the better.
And I did not bash DHHS, just that Billy Tauzin got Congress (a REPUBLICAN Congress) to allow the plundering of the US Treasury through a worthless Medicare bill. Besides, are you actually saying that both Medicare and Medicaid be abolished? (Eliminating DHHS would do just that.) I would love to see just how severely the private medical insurance sector would fail the country if that were so. No, I wouldn't because it would men the intense suffering of too many American citizens. But they don't matter, right? It always has to be profits over people, right?
Indeed, I did not bash any of those departments per se, but rather how they are being misused by this incompetent and corrupt president, and the previous congresses that enabled the plunder of the country in the name of short-term profits.
Boy, JohnnyBoy2, you really are a moron.
Posted by JohnnyBoy2 is a moron on October 15, 2007 02:55 PMSo there is an anonymous retard out there making less than $10. How do you afford a computer, or the electricity to power it?
Posted by JohnnyBoy2 is a moron on October 15, 2007 02:59 PM"And the Dep't of Education has nothing at all to do with the "General Welfare" of the country does it? Are you really trying to say that the US would better off being populated by dolts?"
If you want to know what concerns the "general Welfare", read the Constitution; it was enumerated for you.
Are you saying that before the Dept. of Education, we were a nation of dolts? Education should be left to the states.
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 03:12 PM"RMHI rose for households with one or more earner."
absolutely not true
Posted by jay on October 15, 2007 03:21 PMJohnnyBoy2,
I have read the US Constitution. Many times. And it is not enumerated very well at all, as the Founders wanted it to be. They understood that the Constitution is supposed to be a living document, not set in stone. No matter what Antonin Scalia or his lapdog Clarence Thomas says. The Founders knew that as the country grew and matured, the Constitution would need to be accessible to a growing and maturing country.
Should education be left to the states? Maybe. Probably not. As the world becomes more interconnected, and as high-growth, high pay jobs demand more and higher education, the educational systems have more of a need to be nationalized. And appropriately funded (the main failure of NCLB). But, then again, I have never cared for people from Mississippi or Kansas or Texas, so why should I want their competition? Why should I want them to provide quality education to people? Because they are Americans too, and deserve to be treated like equals.
Posted by JohnnyBoy2 is a moron on October 15, 2007 03:21 PMjay,
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1805.html
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 03:25 PM3:21 said:
"They understood that the Constitution is supposed to be a living document, not set in stone. "
That's what amendments are for.
"As the world becomes more interconnected, and as high-growth, high pay jobs demand more and higher education, the educational systems have more of a need to be nationalized."
Why? The states respond to interstate competition just as they do to global competition. This competition allows for more experimentation. Each state can attempt news ways to better educate it's people. Education should be run by local government, not clueless politicians 2000 miles away.
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 03:32 PMJohnnyBoy2,
That is not necessarily what amendments are for. Those are to deal with something not even implied in the US Constitution. Like the end of slavery, expanding voting rights, or the national income tax. The reason there are so few amendments to the US Constitution is that many, many things are implied in the Constitution. And that was close enough for the Founders.
And you go back to your favorite fantasy, that of the perpetual goodness of competition. Well, I guess that if Mississippi, or Texas, or Kansas wants to provide sub-par education to their citizens, then I guess that's an advantage for me. But, unlike you, I do not hold that the pursuit of the self and self-aggrandizement trumps all.
Posted by JohnnyBoy2 is a moron on October 15, 2007 03:42 PMAccording to the Congressional Budget Office Fiscal Year 2007 report, the Federal Budget is projected to be balanced, assuming real taxes and spending stay equal to inflation, by 2010. So this "HUGE deficit" will not be paid by our grandchildren, but by us in less than 3 years.
It is our TRADE deficit that is the issue, not our budget deficit. Maybe we should do what China did, and just devalue our dollar?
As far as "discretionary spending" in the Federal Budget, it is about $800 Billion. What kills us is the Mandatory Spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), of more than $1.7 TRILLION. You want to cut waste? Get off the teat of the Government and abolish Social Security and Medicare/caid. THAT is where the real savings will come.
Check out this link to the Heritage Foundation, and see just how much the Government wastes of OUR money...
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/index.cfm
"Truth, Who we owe the debt to is not as important as how much we owe. Either way, it's a debt that our "grandchildren" will have to pay. Also, if the goal is raise money for the war, why would we prohibit foreign nations from contributing to our war chest?
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 02:37 PM"
Of course how much we owe is the important thing. But if we owe so many billions of dollars to China, or if we owe it to American citizens, we still owe so many billions of dollars. The difference is, that when we repay it, we will either be making China or American citizens richer. You prefer to make the Chinese richer?
Prohibit borrowing from foreign nations? You must have read that on some other forum, Johnny, because Frank said nothing about that. Of course, given the way Bush operates, we'll have to borrow from other countries, but to the extent we borrow from our own we'll have to borrow less from the foreign countries.
3:42 said:
"The reason there are so few amendments to the US Constitution is that many, many things are implied in the Constitution. And that was close enough for the Founders."
Not quite. The real reason is that the Constitution has been largely ignored. FDR trampled over it and set a horrible precedent for future demagogues.
"Well, I guess that if Mississippi, or Texas, or Kansas wants to provide sub-par education to their citizens, then I guess that's an advantage for me."
That's an odd way of putting it. Who determines what is sub-par? You? Why should you tell a Texan how to educate their children? Maybe some states would abandon government administered schooling altogether in favor of lower taxes. Maybe they would feel home-schooling is a better option. That's the whole point of having states. Otherwise, by your logic, we might as well abandon states altogether and just have one big central government.
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 03:51 PM... moron,
You said:
"That is not necessarily what amendments are for. Those are to deal with something not even implied in the US Constitution. Like the end of slavery, expanding voting rights, or the national income tax. The reason there are so few amendments to the US Constitution is that many, many things are implied in the Constitution. And that was close enough for the Founders."
Yet you claim to have read the Constitution "Many times"
The tenth amendment states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution states implicitly what the powers of Congress are, and Article III of the US Constitution states the responsibility and powers of the Judiciary. Under the Constitution, the only branch allowed to legislate, is the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, and as such, the actions of legislation by precedent are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Maybe you should take another look at that Constitution of yours, and read it a little more thoroughly. I think you missed a WHOLE BIG PART of it.
Posted by Dan2 on October 15, 2007 04:02 PMDefinition of fanatic extremism: arguing that we should abolish Social Security, Medicare, Department of Education, rather than make them less costly and more efficient. The nice thing about the forum from the standpoint of the fanatic extremists is that you don't need to let reality stand in your way. And you won't find them tinkering with military spending or corporate welfare. Yes, the government has a duty to protect us, but these people think that is the only duty the government has.
Posted by Truth on October 15, 2007 04:05 PMhave read the US Constitution. Many times. And it is not enumerated very well at all, as the Founders wanted it to be. They understood that the Constitution is supposed to be a living document, not set in stone. No matter what Antonin Scalia or his lapdog Clarence Thomas says. The Founders knew that as the country grew and matured, the Constitution would need to be accessible to a growing and maturing country.
Posted by JohnnyBoy2 is a moron on October 15, 2007 03:21 PM
Errr, Moron, there is a way for the Constitution to be changed and it is in the Constitution (you said you read it "many times"). You amend it. It's not as easy as having 5 people on the Supreme Court just invent new rights, etc., but it is Constitutional.
The Constitution is very important. It guarantees our rights and was designed to limit the power of government. People who call the Constitution a "living" document generally want to kill that part and expand the power of the central government.
Oh, and one last thing, JohnnyBoy2: You are indeed a moron. And an effiminate moron at that.
And to you, Dan2, "The Supreme and Infallible Philosopher of the RMN Threads", that has to be the stupidest thing I have ever seen you post, and I have seen many. So incredibly stupid, in fact, that this is the only reply you will get from me: Take a college-level class on US Government from an accredited institution, quit listening to Rush, and try to think for yourself. You know how to do that, don't you?
The longer I stick around these threads, I am beginning to think that maye Fresh-One-Note is right: you all ARE morons. And even worse, it is contagious. See all you idiots around, it's been a waste of time being in your presence!
Posted by JohnnyBoy2 is a moron on October 15, 2007 04:11 PMDan2: "Under the Constitution, the only branch allowed to legislate, is the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, and as such, the actions of legislation by precedent are UNCONSTITUTIONAL."
I think what Dan2 is trying to say is that he doesn't think the constitution authorizes much of what the government today is doing. Obviously, there are many more people who do think that constitution does authorize what the government is doing, incidentally including the Supreme Court. The constitution appoints the Supreme Court rather than Dan2 to decide such questions.
The problem is that Dan2 has confused himself with God. He thinks that if it's his opinion, then all contrary opinions are to be ignored. It's a nice way to make oneself feel important. Or should I say IMPORTANT?
Posted by Truth on October 15, 2007 04:14 PMThe Governments powers and responsibilities are well defined in our Constitution. Federal taxes collected in 2006 were $2.4 TRILLION, with a budget deficit of aprox. $300 Billion or almost 3 TIMES the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan war's budget.
Let's see, discretionary spending = ~$800 Billion
Mandatory spending = $ 1.7 TRILLION
Where should the "real" cuts come from??? Seems like an easy question to me. Eliminate MANDATORY Federal programs, cut individual taxes by 75% and corporate taxes by 1/3 and STILL balance the budget while having the ability to increase discretionary spending by 20%. If the Federal Government gets out of the retirement income business and the health coverage business, we would ALL have a lot more money to spend, save, or pay for our own health care of CHOICE.
RADICAL EXTREME idea, I know... TOTALLY outside the realm of reality, because the Social Programs of not FDR, but LBJ have created a culture of dependence, and has removed the will to succeed from our brothers and sisters. You want an example of this? Look at New Orleans and the people that died because instead of taking action on their own they "waited for the Government to help.."
THAT is where the problem lies at it's very root. The "we know better" programs that have the appearance of helping, only to create an obstacle so overwhelming that the very idea of liberation is beyond the scope of reality.
Posted by Dan2 on October 15, 2007 04:22 PM...moron,
Just what post are you referring to that would be "the stupidest thing I have ever seen you post?" The amount of taxes collected, the Federal Budget numbers, the actual words and language of the Constitution?
I hold a BA in History and an MA in Human Resources from the University of Wisconsin. I have audited over 50 credit hours at the University of Marquette School of Law, with an emphasis in Constitutional Law. What does your C/V look like?
As far as listening to Rush, what an infantile response, with your translucent attempt to hide the fact that what I wrote is above and beyond your comprehension. How clever of you to resort to name calling when the subject matter exceeds your ability to comprehend it at it's root. I have not heard nor listened to a Rush Limbaugh program since the early 1990's. I prefer to research facts, and read daily the NY Times, the Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, obviously the RMN, and The Boston Globe (to get my Red Sox information). Maybe you should try reading for a change, instead of sitting in front of PBS?
Posted by Dan2 on October 15, 2007 04:36 PMIt's amazing that grown people blame FDR and LBJ for all the problems they see. Are they simply unacquainted with our constitution? Neither of these men could enact laws. Neither of these men could determine the constitutionality of a law enacted by a totally different group of people from them. Neither of them could prevent any succeeding president from proposing different laws, or prevent succeeding congresses from enacting different laws, or prevent succeeding supreme courts from ruling laws unconstitutional.
Johnny Boy and Danny Boy need to take a look at that document called the constitution.
Both of them want an entirely different country from what we have now. They want a federal government which does little more that build a transportation system and a military. The trouble is, only a very few other people want the kind of country which they want.
Dan2: "Look at New Orleans and the people that died because instead of taking action on their own they "waited for the Government to help..""
We all know that Dan2 doesn't know what the circumstances were under which these people died. But facts are not what Dan2 is about. What he apparently does want is a federal government that will stand by in the event of a natural disaster and watch people die without doing anything to help.
Posted by Truth on October 15, 2007 04:42 PM
Dan2,
This question is not an attack (which, sadly, I have to preface since these forums have become something of a lion's den), but I am curious if you have a solution to this quandary.
Suppose we eliminate the mandatory spending that you talk about, i.e. social security, medicaid, etc. How would those who are unable to earn a wage due to disability or permanent illness find the income to pay their own way in covering their living and medical expenses, should these programs be eliminated?
I, too, have an issue with government dependence programs, but from where I sit, I don't see any other solution that takes care of the "unhireable" without, realistically, leaving them to die. I also have an issue with health care falling completely into the private sector's hands, where profit motive inherently insists that the more sick people there are, the more profits that can be made from them. Seems counter-productive to me.
What would be your private sector solutions that wouldn't abandon the unhireable and would take the "sickness" motive out of health care?
Posted by Dan on October 15, 2007 05:26 PMGlug, glug, glug. Help me!
Naw, let 'em die. Let's all get tax breaks and let the levies and bridges collaspe. I've got mine. It's all about me. Remember?
Posted by Stan B on October 15, 2007 06:20 PMas they say up at csu F all of you morons who want to raise taxes or think the federal government owes you anything. get off your fat lazy butts and go to work and then you can pay for your selves and your family and stop asking me to do it for you.
yep stan its about me and my family and I dont care about yours till my family is taken care of. if you cant take care of yours then you should have gone with abortion and its not to late for you to be first.
Dan2:
According to the Congressional Budget Office Fiscal Year 2007 report, the Federal Budget is projected to be balanced, assuming real taxes and spending stay equal to inflation, by 2010. So this "HUGE deficit" will not be paid by our grandchildren, but by us in less than 3 years.
But a HUGE debt of something like $9 trillion will remain to be paid off. How much federal spending goes toward servicing the debt? Last I looked something like $450 billion a year.
Posted by CL on October 15, 2007 06:39 PM4:50 sounds like every other poster on Daily Kos. They rant, curse, lecture, but never quite make a rational argument. They argue based on intent, not logic. They say, I care more about people than you do so anything I say is right.
On the Daily Kos, all the members can swarm against dissenting opinion to force a poster off of the website. I've been banned several times merely for arguing conservative principles.
But, now these emotional and immature "progressives" are spilling over to local online forums. They can't expel dissenting opinion like they do on their own websites. Yet, they still manage to disrupt the spirit of debate here.
4:50's IP address should be banned from RMN. His comments are beyond aggressive or spirited debate tactics. He simply wants to disrupt conversations here. He wants to bring down this forum to Daily Kos' level. We should not let that happen.
I urge RMN to ban his IP so he can no longer disrupt this forum. Linda Seebach used to manage this forum. Does anyone know who has taken her place?
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 07:23 PMWhat Dan2 and JohnII want is to force a system of government on the people of the United States that the people of the United States do not want. I have yet to find authorization for that kind of thing in our constitution.
Posted by Truth on October 15, 2007 08:07 PMThe MORON highlights the rational thinking and debating skills used by the ever increasing Progressive wing taking over the Dem Party.
Gaze
Posted by Get Real on October 15, 2007 09:25 PMTruth,
What are you talking about? We've shown you examples from the Constitution numerous times. I've shown you quotes from the Father of our Constitution. What have you shown? You lecture and ramble. Show me the section of the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to take money from my paycheck and give it to your retirement fund.
Keep in my, Dan2 and I are arguing in favor of the Constitution. You and your buddies are arguing for extra-Constitutional programs. In fact, you collect checks from the government. So, you have a vested interest in defending the ongoing violation of our Constitution.
So, Truth, please provide the article and section of the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to manage a mandatory retirement system.
Posted by John II on October 15, 2007 09:30 PMDan2 and John II, you're wasting your breath trying to debate with Kantists. After all, they all deeply love ideas put forth in a work call "Critque of Pure Reason".
Posted by drew on October 16, 2007 12:13 AMDan2:
As far as "discretionary spending" in the Federal Budget, it is about $800 Billion. What kills us is the Mandatory Spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), of more than $1.7 TRILLION. You want to cut waste? Get off the teat of the Government and abolish Social Security and Medicare/caid. THAT is where the real savings will come.
This is misleading. If you abolish Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid you also get rid of the revenue generated by those taxes. Sure you can greatly reduce the Fed's spending, but you also would greatly reduce incoming revenues. What would be the net change in the total Fed deficit be?
Offhand I don't know if these programs are currently running a deficit or surplus - if they are running a surplus you would actually increase the total Fed budget deficit.
Posted by CL on October 16, 2007 06:50 AMDan 2,
Aside from all the venom, name calling, and other display of temper and emotion, you were asked a question; and you have not answered it - nor has anyone else, for that matter.
You proposed eliminating Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare as the way to save money for the Government.
Perhaps you and your confrere, John II would now tell us - without the political rhetoric, and Constitutional "interpretation" rant, please - just what you propose to do with the current Americans now living on Social Security, and being taken care of by Medicare/Medicaid.
Seeing as how these Americans have paid the taxes from their incomes to be on these programs in the first place, and additional millions of Americans are currently paying taxes to be on these programs - at least in part - in the future, what is your plan for them, after, having - quite literally - stolen their money?
Posted by Old Grouch on October 16, 2007 08:31 AMOld Grouch,
It's a good question but one that you already know the answer to. Doling out new programs is easy, taking them away is hard. That's why it is so important to fight any new programs. Once it's put into place it's nearly impossible to remove regardless of cost.
President Bush offered a plan to reform Social Security. The plan included a phased withdrawal for currently eligible participants. Those currently receiving benefits would continue to do so. Younger folks who have been paying into Social Security with the understanding that they would eventually receive full Social Security benefits would not receive those full benefits. They would have, however, received something even better: their own private accounts.
So, we'd have to do something similar Medicare and Medicaid.
As for your stealing their money comment, I already feel like money is being stolen from me. Every paycheck I see a big deduction that I do not want to make. I don't want to collect Social Security checks. I'd rather put that money into my own personal retirement account.
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 09:02 AMBack on topic...it's easy to see why the ever decreasing number of war supporters don't want more Americans to sacrifice for this quagmire.
This is an unfortunate shell game they've played since the beginning of the war. Knowing full well that fighting this war on the cheap ran a extremely high risk of failure, they decided to do it anyway in the hope that keeping it's costs under the radar would ensure indefinite support. Unfortunately the gamble didn't pay off. We are now faced with some tough choices and pretending that they don't need addressing only hurts our troops and our safety and fiscal stability.
John II, please try really hard to be a little honest. You say: "We've shown you examples from the Constitution numerous times."
What you have done is to quote a provision of the constitution that a few have interpreted the way you see it but the vast majority, including the Supreme Courts down the line, have interpreted differently from the way you see it.
All you have done is to arrogantly declare that your view is the only view, despite the fact that it is held by only a few people and has been rejected time and again by our presidents, our congresses, or supreme courts and our people.
How to interpret that provision is indeed a debatable topic. There are arguments which favor your interpretation and arguments which favor the accepted interpretation. Certainly you are free to continue to put forth your arguments and to hope that one day it will prevail and the long-existing interpretation will fall. But to act as though there is only one possible interpretation is asinine and childish.
Posted by Truth on October 16, 2007 09:30 AMJohn II's answer to the catastrophe that would ensue if we were to abolish medicare: hey, it's no big deal; we'd just have to do something about it. Presumably he means something that would not involve any government money. It sounds a little like Bush's plan in Iraq.
Posted by Truth on October 16, 2007 09:36 AMTruth,
I have showed you the actual words of the Constitution. What have you shown us?
Let's see it. Show me the article and section that authorizes a federal retirement program.
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 09:37 AMJohn II,
As usual, you do not answer the question. Telling someone that they already know the answer to a question is a very poor cop out.
Again very much as usual, you are totally unable to answer questions in any REAL and constructive manner, concerning the hyperbolic rhetoric, advanced in favor of regression to the 18th Century. And this is especially apparent when those questions deal with the actual and immediate effects of an implementation of the absolutely absurd notions propounded as solving today's problems according to 18th Century ideas concerning the Constitution.
I did not ask for additional ideas about what "might be done" at a later time to "correct" what you fantasize and imagine is a mis-interpretation of a specific part of the document. Indeed, I specified that I didn't want any more of the "political rhetoric and Constitutional 'interpretation' rant". But, in the end, that's all you have to offer.
Indeed, your entire political "philosophy" may be summed up in a short sentence: "Now there abideth, contempt for all others, selfishness, and greed, these three; and, for John II, the greatest of these is greed."
Dan 2,
Do you propse to answer? Or not?
Posted by Old Grouch on October 16, 2007 09:45 AM"John II's answer to the catastrophe that would ensue if we were to abolish medicare: hey, it's no big deal; we'd just have to do something about it. Presumably he means something that would not involve any government money."
Why not look to the states to manage their own people? You know, like how it was supposed to be.
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 09:47 AMOld Grouch,
I answered your question. What more do you want to know?
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 09:55 AM"Why not look to the states to manage their own people? You know, like how it was supposed to be.
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 09:47 AM"
Bit of a problem, John. There are at least fifty reasons for not looking to the states, they begin with Alabama. Name the states that have come forward and said they would take on the medicare burden that the federal government now takes on.
Posted by Truth on October 16, 2007 10:51 AMSorry for the delay. Playoff baseball on last night and all, and actually busy at work.
I don't have an answer to what would happen if we eliminated mandatory spending completely, because I have not researched into the alternatives in any length. My comment was directed mostly at those who "feel" that we spend too much on national defense (i.e. the War), when in reality, it is but a tiny portion of our Federal Budget.
But, in my opinion, I would like to see Social Security phased out. Cover those that are currently on Social Security retirement, but add a sunset clause, with the option of those currently paying in (my generation and Gen Y) the ability to "opt out"
Compassionately, I would not know what to do with those that we have currently relying on Medicare/caid right now, but just as unemployment insurance is only a temporary benefit, I would think that we could and should have a cap on what the Government will provide. The reliance on the Government is the problem, not necessarily the program itself.
Old Grouch, you implied that we would be "stealing" the money out of those people's accounts. We all know that taxes paid into SSA and for Medicare are not put into our own "accounts" to collect on later. At least we all SHOULD be aware of that. What I pay into SSA pays those currently living on SSI, and is not gaining interest. In fact, I would be more than happy to "lose" all that money that I have already paid in, as I have no expectation to ever see that money, nor will I rely on the Government to take care of me when I retire. But to assume that I will receive as much as I paid into the SSA is silly, because that is not the way it works.
While this is a harsh opinion, it is based on the theory of Darwinism, and of survival of the fittest. Those that would still choose to pay for someone else that they do not know, through charitable giving, or in other ways, should be free to do so. It should not be compelled by the Government that we MUST do so. If that means that those unable to fend for themselves, and do not have their own support system do not survive, then as harsh as it is, so be it. We already have over-population. Sounds terrible, and it would not affect anyone personally close to me, because I would find a way to take care of "my own" but the reality of it is, I should be free to choose what to do with the money that I work hard for, studied hard for. I shouldn't be compelled nor confined by the Government in what I choose to contribute in a charitable fashion.
Dan - I don't know if this answered your question, and Old Grouches' question or not. The short answer is, I just don't know what to do about this. I don't know that there is a feasible way to go about eliminating programs that so many have come, not to rely upon, but depend upon.
CL,
That is where the reduction of the individual and corporate income taxes that I referred to come into play, when you ask what about the funding of those programs. It would be a direct reduction in those taxes.
Stan B,
It was the failure of the people of New Orleans, to leave the city before the storm, and then once the storm hit, to EXPECT that the Government would come and take care of them. Have you seen the Spike Lee documentary "When the Levies Broke?" People literally waited for the Government to come rescue them, instead of doing for themselves. That is what happens when people become dependent on the Government for EVERY aspect of their lives.
While it is easy to lay blame on FEMA and the HORRIBLE response in New Orleans, the response should not have been a rescue mission, it should have been a rebuilding mission, but this is for another topic altogether.
-It was implied that I do not know the way Government works, because I referenced the programs of FDR and LBJ. The New Deal was a package that FDR sold to the American people, as well as the Congress, and signed into law. The Great Society that then came from LBJ and him saying it would be his greatest accomplishment in creating Medicare and Medicaid, and the introduction of the Federal Food Stamps program in 1967 were things that LBJ fought hard for and won Congressional passage on. All one needs to do is review his memoirs. It is worth a trip to Austin to sit in his Presidential Library and read his memoirs, his speeches, and review footage and transcripts of meetings with Congressional leaders. To learn about his influence in social programs, even if his foreign policy was hated.
I do not propose a revolution of any kind, nor do I wish for a reversion back to the "way things used to be." I would prefer to see a smaller government, not involved in "feel good" social programs, pork spending, or judging how effective our Congresspeople are in "bring more Federal money back to the state." I would prefer to keep the money that I have worked and studied hard to earn, to contribute to the economy, to provide for my family, and to donate to charities of MY choice, as I am the one that indeed earned this money.
If that has the appearance of being greedy on the surface, so be it. For those that feel they can sit in judgment of me personally, without knowing anything about me other than my political philosophy, so be it. I do not feel the need to either explain the manner in which I live, nor do I feel it appropriate to comment on my personal contributions. What I do not think is appropriate is to be compelled by what others would do with MY money, or anyone else's for that matter. I do not think that we should always plan to benefit the least common factor, but instead should inspire to the greatest factor. I believe in a hand up, not a hand out. I believe and have observed that Government programs designed to "help" instead hinder and create a dependence. I would prefer to create independence, not continued dependence. If that is wrong in some of your eyes, so be it.
I hope that answered the questions posed directly to me. I don't have all the answers, nor do I have all the facts. I research the best that I can, and have formed my political philosophy not on what "feels good" or "looks good on paper" but on the data of the results of these programs and years of study and research. Observable physical data. I will not comment to or about anyone that does nothing to contribute to a conversation, but instead calls names. For what purpose would it serve to misrepresent my education on this forum? What I did, and what I studied benefits me and my family, in what I do for a living. I did not go to school to "impress" a bunch of anonymous posters on a newspaper's blog, but to feed my desire for knowledge, and direct my passions in a progressive way, so that when I do have a conversation, I can speak (or write) intelligently on a variety of topics, with a focus on Constitutional Law, history, and baseball (and at work Human Resources). That is it. That is me. If you are impressed with that, cool. If not, I don't care. I will never meet or hang out with anyone on this board. I encourage people to research on their own, to think for themselves, and not to be influenced or have their "minds change" by what I write, but maybe to do a little homework and get out of their comfort zones, just a little bit. To follow up, and correct me when I make an error. I do not know everything, but based on the direct questions to me, it looks like I am at least assisting in helping people think critically and ask questions.
That's all I have for today. One big long post. I may be back tomorrow, but I have already taken too much time from my morning to continue on these boards today. If you do ask another direct question, I won't be back to it until tomorrow at the earliest.
Posted by Dan2 on October 16, 2007 10:52 AMTruth said:
"Bit of a problem, John. There are at least fifty reasons for not looking to the states, they begin with Alabama. Name the states that have come forward and said they would take on the medicare burden that the federal government now takes on."
That's up to each state to decide. If Alabama decides to favor lower taxes instead of government welfare programs, they are free to do so. The payoff for Alabama might be more jobs because of lower taxes. Other states may favor higher taxes for more government welfare programs; they are also free to do so.
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 11:06 AMI did want to respond once more to Truth, for the VERY last time.
Truth, READ THE CONSTITUTION! SPECIFICALLY the 10th Amendment. This is in direct response to your post:
"What Dan2 and JohnII want is to force a system of government on the people of the United States that the people of the United States do not want. I have yet to find authorization for that kind of thing in our constitution."
Actually, before we even address the non-sense of your claim that you "have yet to find authorization for that kind of thing in our constitution," how about you actually use the language and words that John and I write, vs your "divined interpretation" of what you think we are implying? What do you wish to either hide or promote, that scares you to actually quote my statement, than to editorialize it.
But for your authorization, it is called the 10th Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE."
I don't expect an intelligent discussion from you. But I would appreciate if you are going to comment on my philosophy, you actually make an attempt to
1. Understand the topic at hand
2. Do a little research before you make yourself look a fool
3. Don't editorialize with your insanity, my direct comments.
I will now resume ignoring your blather...
Posted by Dan2 on October 16, 2007 11:13 AMDan 2: "While this is a harsh opinion, it is based on the theory of Darwinism, and of survival of the fittest."
Government is the antithesis of survival of the fittest. Compassion is the antithesis of survival of the fittest.
Survival of the fittest is the antithesis of "a society will be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable members".
Dan2 should have referred to Social Darwinism rather than Darwinism.
The vast majority of people want to live in a compassionate society. But private compassion is never enough. Private compassion does not take care of the needs of the millions of people at the bottom of the ladder. That is why there is government compassion. That is why there is not a civilized government on the globe that does not have programs to help those on the bottom rungs. Government compassion recognizes the greed and selfishness that would control society in the absence of government compassion. The social havoc and misery wrought by the predatory capitalism of a thankfully bygone era emphatically prove the need for government compassion. Only a few people fail to recognize that there is abysmal difference in the opportunities available to, say, someone living in the ghetto and someone from a wealthy family. While the Declaration of Independence may be wrong to say that all men are created equal, that does remain a lofty goal of government. That men have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness carries with it the duty of government to try to create equality of opportunity. There are a few who do not think it is the role of government to address this problem. They are wrong. Those countries in which the government lacks compassion are countries beset by social disruption and chaos, and indeed by revolution.
Thanks, Dan2.
The point to my question is that no one really seems to have that answers. Discussions on political philosophies are fine, but we really have to sit back and ask what the ramifications are going to be. Day in and day out, we debate socialism, capitalism, left, right, yadda yadda and try to pigeonhole nearly every topic into a distinct political philosophy, but do these philosophies solve problems?
Indeed, dependence on government programs is a problem, but what is the solution? I don't have the answers either, but my disappointment is there seems to be very few discussions and debates in an attempt to brainstorm a solution. The only subject people seem to debate on these forums anymore is "Your political philosophy sucks!" and then throw in some name calling.
If someone out there could present a solid blueprint for eliminating programs, where those who truly depended on the programs didn't suffer from the loss, I would back such a plan.
Posted by Dan on October 16, 2007 12:12 PMDan2, I do hope I didn't ruin your day by pointing out the weakness of your arguments.
It's not about the tenth amendment. As the court in UNITED STATES v. SPRAGUE, 282 U.S. 716 (1931) said:
"The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the states or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified."
Some advocated wording in the Tenth Amendment similar to what was in the Articles of Confederation, that is limiting the federal government to powers "expressly" given it. That was rejected so that, yes, the federal government does have implied powers.
The question is, as I am sure you know but failed to state, what power does the federal government have under that part of the Section Eight of Article One which reads "The Congress shall have Power To *** provide for the *** general Welfare of the United States."
As I have previously posted at some length, although hardly at the length of your posts, there was disagreement among the people involved in drafting and approving of the constitution as to the meaning of that phrase "the general welfare". Some, such as Jefferson, thought a narrow construction applied, and that, although there is no wording to support their argument, the phrase applied only when it was in furtherance of the other powers listed in Section Eight. Others, such as Hamilton, supported a broader construction, that is, that the "general welfare" clause stood on its own and was not dependent on the other powers granted.
The Hamiltonian view has long prevailed.
Those who support the Jeffersonian view are certainly entitled to continue the debate and try to change the law, but at this time, and for many years, the Hamiltonian view is the law.
It is asinine to say that there is only one possible construction and that is your construction when your construction has been rejected by many congresses, courts and peoples. We get a lot of that kind of thing from religious zealots, and from the Bush administration, but people don't buy it because it is irrational and supremely arrogant.
Posted by Truth on October 16, 2007 12:25 PM
Truth said:
"Others, such as Hamilton, supported a broader construction, that is, that the "general welfare" clause stood on its own and was not dependent on the other powers granted."
Truth, can you name any other Founders who agreed with Mr. Hamilton?
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 12:32 PMAs to Dan's comment that we spend too much time discussing political philosophies, the fact is that solutions depend on and arise out of political philosophies.
If a person's philosophy is "dog eat dog", or, as Dan2 puts it, "survival of the fittest", then he is not likely to accept a solution based on compassion. If his philosophy is that the federal government has no power to spend money to provide help to the disadvantaged, then he is not likely to support a solution which involves the expenditure of federal government money.
That seems to leave private or state money, or no money at all, for the solution. If your view is, as mine is, that private money has never been and will never be anywhere nearly sufficient, and that, not only would the states not tolerate having the burden thrust on them, but a series of fifty different programs would be extremely more expensive as well as divisive, then there seems to be little room for compromise, and the solution will have to be one which one side or the other simply rejects.
Posted by Truth on October 16, 2007 12:41 PMDan 2,
Since you have no answers to the REAL world problems that would be created by them, why do you make such sweeping generalizations about current political, social, and economic matters in your defense of the absurd position you hold with respect to the Constitution?
Or do you, as with John II, simply have a "one note" noise to your opinions Which "one note" you sound, loudly and endlessly, regardless?
The endless repitition of nothing more than, "The clock MUST run backwards, because we say so", certainly becomes not only boring and tiresome, it also stereotypes the proponent as well.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 16, 2007 12:54 PMOld Grouch,
I already answered your question. Why do you pretend that I did not. If you feel that you did not get a direct answer, please restate your question.
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 01:11 PMAn quick impression of J2:
"Waahh, waahh, waahh!! I just cannot handle having my ass handed to me, so I DEMAND CENSORSHIP!! Waaahhh, waaahhh, waaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!"
Posted by JohnnyBoy2 is a moron on October 16, 2007 01:19 PMOld Grouch,
I expect more from you than to use such sweeping statements as "The clock MUST run backwards, because we say so."
Not only have I never said that, I never even IMPLIED that. To the contrary, as I stated in my long post:
"I do not propose a revolution of any kind, nor do I wish for a reversion back to the "way things used to be."
I expect Truth to misquote me, or imply statements that I don't make, but I expect more from you.
I did provide suggestions (which is more than you have done in this forum), as to what I would LIKE to see happen, but I can not comment intelligently on the feasibility of those suggestions, because to do so would be rash, and "knee jerk reactionary." I prefer to take the time to research alternatives, and then promote those. This IS an opinion area, is it not?
Maybe if we didn't create new knee jerk programs, we wouldn't have so many current problems with funding them? Maybe instead of creating a culture of dependence on the Government, we should have honored the history of the Constitutional process, understood that the Constitution is meant to LIMIT the powers of the Federal Government, not create a blank check. Maybe if we wouldn't have created the failures of the "Great Society" we wouldn't need to constantly hear politicians talking about "fixing" or "saving" social security, Medicare and Medicaid.
You expect me to come up with a solution to a problem that has created the BIGGEST drain on our Federal Budget 40 years in the works, in an opinion blog column? Give me a break. At least there is awareness to where our tax dollars are spent.
I may have been rash in calling for the elimination of those programs completely (although I believe we should phase out social security entirely BY ALLOWING PEOPLE TO INVEST IN RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS OF THEIR CHOOSING. And as I stated above (maybe you didn't take the time to read it all?), I would like to see a cap on Medicare and Medicaid, either in dollars, or in years. Maybe through a gradual phase out, where those citizens under 30 no longer contribute or expect to have Medicare/caid available as an option to them. I don't think we need big brother telling us what we need to do for health care and retirement. Constitutionally, or philosophically.
Or as James Madison wrote:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State. --James Madison, author of our Constitution, in Federalist Paper No. 45
Posted by Dan2 on October 16, 2007 01:25 PMTruth,
You prove my point without even knowing it. But if you want to quote court opinon (by copy and paste), I'm up to the challenge:
The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition. — Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., Sec 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.
It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect;... — Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803).
The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. — South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).
History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government. — Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C., So. Dist. CA.
In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution. — Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93; McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405; Yick Yo Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370.
The necessities which gave birth to the constitution, the controversies which precede its formation and the conflicts of opinion which were settled by its adoption, may properly be taken into view for the purposes of tracing to its source, any particular provision of the constitution, in order thereby, to be enabled to correctly interpret its meaning. — Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558.
The values of the Framers of the Constitution must be applied in any case construing the Constitution. Inferences from the text and history of the Constitution should be given great weight in discerning the original understanding and in determining the intentions of those who ratified the constitution. The precedential value of cases and commentators tends to increase, therefore, in proportion to their proximity to the adoption of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any other amendments. — Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 547 (1969).
To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning, would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. "In expounding the Constitution of the United States," said Chief Justice Taney in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 U.S. 540, 570-1, "every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that, no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been fully understood. — Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938).
The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely, except where reference to common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the convention who submitted it to the ratification of conventions of the thirteen states, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law and thought and spoke in its vocabulary...when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood. — Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 108.
The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by mere pretences. They are at liberty — indeed, are under a solemn duty — to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of thye courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution. — Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 661.
Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. It is the duty of the courts to be watchful of constitutional rights against any stealthy encroachments thereon. — Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 635.
It cannot be assumed that the framers of the constitution and the people who adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the constitution is positive and free of all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning to avoid the hardships of particular cases. We must accept the constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the sovereign power. — Cook vs. Iverson, 122, N.M. 251.
Where the words of a constitution are unambiguous and in their commonly received sense lead to a reasonable conclusion, it should be read according to the natural and most obvious import of the framers, without resorting to subtle and forced construction for the purpose of limiting or extending its operation. — A State Ex Rel. Torryson v. Grey, 21 Nev. 378, 32 P. 190.
If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right. — Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.
A long and uniform sanction by law revisers and lawmakers, of a legislative assertion and exercise of power, is entitled to a great weight in construing an ambiguous or doubtful provision, but is entitled to no weight if the statute in question is in conflict with the plain meaning of the constitutional provision. — Kingsley v. Merril, 122 Wis. 185; 99 NW 1044.
Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of cardinal constitutional guarantee. — Riley v. Carter, 165 Okal. 262; 25 P. 2d 666; 79 ALR 1018.
Disobedience or evasion of a constitutional mandate may not be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public. — State v. Board of Examiners, 274 N.Y. 367; 9 NE 2d 12; 112 ALR 660.
When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it. — (See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178) State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. St. 459.
I cannot subscribe to the omnipotence of a state legislature, or that it is absolute and without control; although its authority should not be expressly restrained by the Constitution, or fundamental law, of the state. The nature, and ends of legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require, nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the Federal, or State, Legislature cannot do, without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free Republican governments, which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof the government was established. An Act of the legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punishes a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A and gives it to B. It is against all reason and justice for a people to intrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature and the spirit, of our State Government, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes, and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt; or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained, would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments. — Opinion of Justice Chase in Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386-389 (1798).
Our tenet ever was . . . that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action.
Posted by Thomas Jefferson on October 16, 2007 01:58 PMWith respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.
Posted by James Madison on October 16, 2007 02:02 PMDan 2 for bringing forward a bunch of cases with general statements constitutional construction, none of which involve the proper construction of the "general welfare" clause.
I'm sure that the courts which have rejected your construction of the clause were aware of those cases.
By the way, you can't make up in quantity what your posts lack in quality or relevance.
You remind me of a supreme court which holds, five to four, that no reasonable person would find the facts as the trial court did and reverses the trial court's judgment, ignoring the fact that twelve jurors, the trial judge, the three appellate judges, and four of the nine supreme court judges thought that the evidence did support the findings. Many more people than that have rejected your construction, yet you continue to claim it is the only possible construction.
Posted by Truth on October 16, 2007 02:03 PMIf in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
Posted by George Washington on October 16, 2007 02:03 PMGood friend James, first of all, let me thank you for your service to our country. And I want you to know that I disagree with those historians who rated your failure to keep us out of the War of 1812 as the sixth worst presidential error. I rate is at as the seventh; the historians refused to consider Bush's Big Mistake but I insert it in the number one spot.
I do ask you not to claim you said things which you did not say. For example, in your above post to this thread, you did not say the last six lines. Shame on you, and you a good deist. And of course, contrary to those forged six lines, there was controversy about what construction to apply to the "general welfare" clause from the very start, with you and Tom leading the charge on one side and Al on the other. As you well know, your side never had a chance.
I also want to commiserate with you on your failure to convince the nation that your construction of the "general welfare" clause is the correct one. But, as you often might have said, you win some, you lose some. You put up a good fight, even though you did end up changing your mind about the authority of Congress to authorize a national bank.
Please say "hello" to Dolley for me. I got to hand it to you, landing a young beauty like that at your age.
Posted by Truth on October 16, 2007 02:25 PMHa, Truth, you are piece of work. You call his quote a forgery and bring up the War of 1812, as if to suggest that since he did not prevent that war, he must surely be wrong on the Constitution. Where's the connection?
I guess, if we followed your logic, we should discredit Mr. Hamilton for allowing himself to partake in a deadly duel with the Vice President. Or for getting involved in a blackmail scandal involving secret payments in order to silence his extra-marital affair. Yes, resorting to such petty irrelevances certainly makes it easier to sidestep constitutional arguments.
Is that all you've got? Do you have any valid constitutional arguments to make?
Posted by John II on October 16, 2007 02:43 PMTo the Honorable George Washington, I am sorry to inform you that there are those in our very midst who are accusing you of supporting Jefferson's construction of rthe general welfare clause by the simple expedient of quoting you on how the constitution should be changed and then surreptitiously hoping that people will consider that a statement on the general welfare clause. But not to fear because I am ever here to defend you against such scoundrels.
In fact, you never entered into the debate between Tom and Alex. It's true that some people claim you sided with Alex:
"In his Final Address to the Congress in 1796, George Washington endorsed Hamilton's view.
Washington noted that ``Congress have repeatedly, and not without success, directed their attention to the encouragement of Manufactures,'' and he argued that much more needed to be done, especially invoking the idea of the dangers of the country remaining dependent on foreign supply.
Washington also argued that, ``with reference to individual, or National Welfare, Agriculture is of primary importance,'' and he proposed the creation of institutions for promoting agriculture through ``premiums, and small pecuniary aids, to encourage and assist a spirit of discovery and improvement.'
But I am not sure that statement is clear enough.
While you and that other George are as different as night and day, Martha and Laura shared a dislike for active politics. If Martha were around today, her mind would hardly be changed.
Posted by Truth on October 16, 2007 02:45 PMDan2:
CL,That is where the reduction of the individual and corporate income taxes that I referred to come into play, when you ask what about the funding of those programs. It would be a direct reduction in those taxes.
I understand that - what I was calling misleading was like when you wrote to OG:
You expect me to come up with a solution to a problem that has created the BIGGEST drain on our Federal Budget 40 years in the works, in an opinion blog column?
What I was pointing out was these programs (Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid) each have their own (payroll) taxes. In the case of Social Security, until recently, it had a net inflow of funds (surpluses) instead of a net drain (deficit) (which is why the Feds started including SS with the general budget - to make the deficit look better).
It's one thing to talk about ending the programs (and I for one would love to see a change in SS where I could control what I put in it), getting the Feds out of the picture and getting rid of the taxes - it's another to point at just one end of the pipe and say look at how much is draining out (of the treasury) and not mention the volume that is pouring in.
Posted by CL on October 16, 2007 02:46 PMI can't believe I suffered through Valley Forge to win freedom for this idiot called Truth. Clearly, a monarchy is much more suitable for such an educated rabble as this.
What say you, my good friend, Mr. Hamilton?
Posted by George Washington on October 16, 2007 02:50 PMDamn it, John, if I want to have a little chat with James, you'll just have to put up with it. Anyhow, my post was directed to him. You have no business reading James' mail.
Posted by Truth on October 16, 2007 02:53 PMMy apologies, Mr. Washington, for the disaster I have caused. Had I any idea that the masses would violate our Constitution in this manner, I would have kept my mouth shut. If I had the power, I'd challenge this feckless coward, Truth, to a duel. And this time, I shall not miss.
Posted by Alexander Hamilton on October 16, 2007 02:56 PMFrom each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
And leave my good comrade, Truth, alone. He is very good man. Smart, like a...what's the word, like a tool, da, he's smart like a tool; Like a useful tool. Truth is my useful tool.
Posted by Karl Marx on October 16, 2007 03:03 PMNow, now, Al, it is hardly a disaster. You have helped father the greatest nation in the world, in some ways the most compassionate, and it's all due to your insisting on a government which cares for its people. There is little doubt that if Tom and Jimmy could see what has come about, they would quickly change their minds and fall in behind you.
The pity, Al, is that these people who viciously attack you claim to be strict constructionists. Yet, they read into the constitution words which are not there. They read into it words which limit the application of the general welfare clause, but, as you and I know, those words do not appear in the document. I'm sure you get as tired as I do of those people who put words into the constitution that are not there. Damn liberals is what they be.
Posted by Truth on October 16, 2007 03:11 PMGeorge Washington or Alexander Hamilton
You did a passing good job constituting the nation and all that. Things have turned out well - on the whole.
The checks and balances seemed to adequately reign in the power and the authority of The State untill about the mid-twentieth century but it seems you overlooked potential problem. To wit:
What are we to do about a court system that its asserts its own moral judgements in place of the will of the people as expressed through the legislature?
For instance, we have the case where the justices of a particular court, on a particular day decided (5-4) that any regulation of abortion was "unconstitutional."
As a result, We currently abort about one million fetuses per anum.
Now you may well ask: How can that be when abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution? Obviously you intended to leave the question to the states. To the extent you thought about it at all.
Well, the black-robed ones reasoned that while the right to an abortion was not actually metnioned in the constitition it emanated from a penumbra of something they called the Right to Privacy.
In other words - they made it up.
So what recourse do the people have when judges become princes? I'll bet you didn't think of that one did you?
Have you kept up with the target practice all these years? Some of us hope so.
Posted by James Jones on October 16, 2007 06:23 PMGeorge Washington or Alexander Hamilton
You did a passing good job constituting the nation and all that. Things have turned out well - on the whole.
The checks and balances seemed to adequately reign in the power and the authority of The State untill about the mid-twentieth century. But now seems you overlooked potential problem. To wit:
What are we to do about a court system that supplants the will of the people, as expressed through the legislature, with its own moral judgement?
For instance, we have the case where the judges of a particular court, on a particular day decided (5-4) that any regulation of abortion was "unconstitutional."
As a result, We currently abort about one million fetuses per anum with no regulation to speak of allowed.
Now you may well ask: How can that be when abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution? Obviously you intended to leave the question to the states. To the extent you thought about it at all.
Well, the black-robed ones reasoned that while the right to an abortion was not actually mentioned in the Constitition, it actually emanates from a penumbra of something they called the Right to Privacy.
In layperson terms - they made it up.
So what recourse do the people have when judges become princes? I'll bet you didn't think of that one did you?
Have you kept up with the target practice all these years? Some of us hope so.
Posted by James Jones on October 16, 2007 06:29 PMMr. Jones, you said:
"Now you may well ask: How can that be when abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution? Obviously you intended to leave the question to the states. To the extent you thought about it at all."
To be honest, good sir, I never contemplated that some people would petition the government for the right to kill their unborn babies.
Posted by George Washington on October 16, 2007 06:39 PMGeorge Washington,
Aha! That's what I thought when I first heard the ruling.
But if I may say so, and with all due respect, that doesn't answer my question now does it?
As a matter of fact, the people have not petitioned the government for the right to kill their babies in the manner of your thinking - that is exactly the point.
As another example: The people have not petitioned their government in the manner anticipated in the Constitution to allow two men to enter into Holy Matrimony.
We are a tolerant society where two men can, and do, enter into agreements whereby they live as man and wife: that is, they purschase and furnish a house, acquire children by some means and live in every way as though they were wed as in the normal and customary manner.
And yet, unsatisfied with the fact; they must also have the form.
And so they petition, not the Legislature as you designed, but the Courts, to abolish the time-honored tradition and accepted practice of marriage as being between one man and one woman. At this time it appears likely that they will be successful.
And so again I ask you Sir, with great respect and as a humble supplicant, what defence can the ordinary citizen find in the Constitution against these unwarranted attacks on the commonweal?
Posted by James Jones on October 16, 2007 08:26 PMWhat a bunch of Sock Puppets
As usual, Jimmy-Jesus Jones is in the pulpit. And, as usual, his sermon has little or no foundation in fact. But, everyone knows that already; so there is nothing really new there.
On the other hand, on another line of postings, Jimmy-Jesus Jones tells us that he is not religious! Of course, he does this in the course of blathering all about "morals", and other religious topics - as if he really knew something about the subject. Just as he blathers here about the Constitution in the same tired, stale, and outmoded fashion of John II, who obviously is the source for everything Jimmy-Jesus Jones is parroting.
As a one man "act" he gets "the hook" every time. As part of a slapstick comedy team, he's not a bit better.
But! Never bother him with facts, or with reference sources. Jimmy-Jesus Jones doesn't read anything that disagrees with one of his fantasies, or imaginary world views. It's useless to speculate whether that is because he just won't, or simply can't. In the end, it's a bit of both; since a time or two before this, when he was offered a substantial and scholarly work, he indicated that he disapproved of the author's "lifestyle", which made the book of "no value".
There is a saying: "A mind is a terrible thing to waste". Of course, that presumes there is a mind there. Reading Jones in just a waste of time.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 17, 2007 09:12 AMAll within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
Posted by Benito Mussolini on October 17, 2007 09:59 AMBuon Giorno, Il Duce!
In one sentence, you have summed up the entire content of the 18th Century folks and their arguments concerning the Constitution.
Except for one small point, that is. For them, there were, originally,13 States; and your excellent summary applied - and still does apply - to EACH of them, individually.
The rather unfortunate fact that today there are now 50 States - along with some Territories - spread over nearly half the Western Hemisphere and part of the Oceans as well, does not change the matter of course. Your stated summary applies, to EACH of them individually, as well, as we all must acknowledge.
But . . . uh . . . er . . . the numbers do tend to complicate the matter a bit. And, we can't have a Union - or National Government - that might serve to . . . sort of . . . maybe . . . have us living in the 21st Century . . . er . . . uh . . . . Can we?
Posted by Old Grouch on October 17, 2007 10:35 AMOld Grouch,
I remember when I was young, you were still a cranky old man even way back then. You used to talk to me all the time. I never new what you were talking about, but I was lonely so I didn't mind the company.
I noticed that you keep saying John II did not answer your question. Man, you've been pulling that prank for centuries now. Don't you ever get tired of that joke? Besides, with modern technology like the written word, everyone can review John II's comments and see that he answered your question.
For example, you said that all he said was "You know the answer". Well, yes, that's true. But then John II proceeded to give his answer anyway. He told you about phasing out programs similar to President Bush's plan to phase out part of Social Security.
John II then went on to explain that it's the state's responsibility, not the federal government, to implement these types of programs if the states want those programs.
I see you still like to ramble on and on without really saying anything. That was funny way back when I was young but it's not so funny anymore. In fact, it's a bit sad.
Anyway, have fun. I'll be expecting you to join me soon.
Posted by Dirt on October 17, 2007 12:23 PM"new" should be "knew"....hey, I'm dirt not a dictionary....
Posted by Dirt on October 17, 2007 12:26 PMDirt,
"Perhaps you and your confrere, John II would now tell us - without the political rhetoric, and Constitutional "interpretation" rant, please - just what you propose to do with the CURRENT Americans now living on Social Security, and being taken care of by Medicare/Medicaid. " (Emphasis added for your benefit, Dirt.)
That was my original question. All John II did was give us another blurb about the "future", IF the proposal to do away with Social Security, etc., actually became operative. Neither he, nor any of his claque, has an answer for any question dealing with the REAL world today. All they can produce is the ressurected writings of those "dead old white men" - to borrow a useful phrase - which ressurected writings deal with the 18th Century; and have very little, if any, application to today's completely different world.
But, you have made a point. The only difference between a rut and the grave is the length. And, mentally, John II and his claque have been in the 18th Century rut as long as I've been reading this website.
Is that why he's now playing at being a medium, and "channeling" George Washington? Or is it just a matter of his being nothing more than a charlatan and fraud to begin with? Brain dead, maybe?
Posted by Old Grouch on October 18, 2007 08:45 AMI addressed "CURRENT" Americans. I said they would remain on the programs. The programs would be phased out for those not currently eligible for the programs.
Posted by John II on October 18, 2007 03:27 PM