- "Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and given him triumphal processions. Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the new wonderful good society which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean more money, more ease, more security, and more living fatly at the expense of the industrious."-- Marcus Tullius Cicero(106-43 BC) Roman philosopher and statesman
- Permalink Reply by on
- Let me first state that all that claim to be Constitutional scholars are mostly Lawyers and they are all full of puff and air - just as PH they all claim some historical works of the Federalists in the case of PH others it is Madison's notes on the Convention, Jefferson's letters, or others works and papers.Please let me now state for the record that the CONSTITUTION SAYS WHAT IT MEANS AND MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. To that extent I now have put myself firmly in the camp of the literalist. When we the people, the lawyers, the Judges, the Politicians get to choose the meaning of the words and the timing of the meaning all reason flies out the window.Then you get to where PH is lost and can not find her way home to the actual meaning of the Constitution itself. It is not a document for one to interpret it is an instruction how to limit the FEDERAL CENTRAL GOVERNMENT and to give the most power and Freedom/Liberty to the people. What anyone said about a particular Article or amendment means nothing - if you read Hamilton, Madison and Jefferson you will find them contradicting themselves on many issues over time so how could one pick a time of their thinking and say it is valid when we do not know if they latter said a different thing and the document was lost. Or some of the other FF&R could have said many opposing things.I maintain that the Federalist papers were SALES documents to convince a few State to ratify so they said what ever was felt needed to sell the deal - not what the words really said and the words said is what the Convention Ratified.The Progressives have used the altering of word meaning over time to usurp the Constitution - Income tax was not allowed until the 16th amendment in 1913, but if you read it as a literalist, where does it allow for a higher tax rate for one citizen than that applied to another? Well is just does not say that is allowed now does it?Literalism - historical [THIS IS MY CAMP AND THE 1828 DICTIONARY IS MY SOURCE OF DEFINITIONS - http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,incomeHistorical literalists believe that the contemporary writings of the Framers are not relevant to any interpretation of the Constitution. The only thing one needs to interpret the Constitution is a literal reading of the words contained therein, with an expert knowledge in the 18th century meaning of those words. The debates leading to the final draft are not relevant, the Federalist Papers are not relevant - only the words.The historical literalist takes a similar look at the Constitution as an originalist does, but the literalist has no interest in expanding beyond the text for answers to questions. For example, an historical literalist will see the militia of the 2nd Amendment as referring to all able-bodied men from 17 to 45, just as in the late 18th century, and this interpretation will color that person's reading of the 2nd Amendment.
Literalism - contemporary [I FIND THE HISTORICAL ABOVE MORE TO MY LIKING]NO MODERNIZING OF DEFINITIONS - WHERE DOES ONE STOP ON TERMS LIKE GAY?Very similar to an historical literalist, a contemporary literalist looks only to the words of the Constitution for guidance, but this literalist has no interest in the historical meaning of the words. The contemporary literalist looks to modern dictionaries to determine the meaning of the words of the Constitution, ignoring precedent and legal dissertation, and relying solely on the definition of the words.Just as the historical literalist view parallels the originalist view, but much more narrow in focus, so too does the contemporary literalist mirror the modernist; and again, the main difference is the literalist looks only to the words of the Constitution for meaning. To expand on the 2nd Amendment example, the contemporary literalist will view the militia as the modern National Guard, and this will color that person's views on the 2nd.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Per my previous post to you I am a LITERALIST so each word has a meaning that is set in time and place. This can not be altered or the entire document would have no meaning and therefor no purpose or power to limit the actions of a Oppressive tyrannical government - the intention of the FF&R were to form a COMMON DEFENSE and foreign power of treaties that would be weak and depend on the States for money to exercise those limited powers.As for PROPERTY RIGHTS I would recommend a book by Richard Epstein on the TAKING CLAUSE. Now will attempt to lay out the case of conflict inside the Constitution itself of the Progressive tax rate system is to be used as law.The current system taxes a $ 50,000 wage at say 16% and then taxes a $ 1,000,000 wage at 39% and uses the extra tax "TAKEN" from the high wage earner to REDISTRIBUTE THE $ 20,000 WAGE EARNER TO MAKE HIM MORE EQUAL.
Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionmentamong the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.It does not appear that the variable rate taxing is authorized under the above? Nor does the word redistribute appear anywhere in the entire Constitution.Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life...
; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor bedeprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Now we look at the results of the variable rate income tax "TAKING MORE FROM ONE AND USING IT FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION" - Income is money and money is property as is wealth. This is a direct violation of the above "TAKING CLAUSE' which only purpose seems to be to protect citizens [Individuals]from the majority - which as the FF&R feared - they vote for a tax they did not have to pay.A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.
Alexis de Tocqueville1828 DefinitionIN'COME, n. in'cum. [in and come.] That gain which proceeds from labor, business or property of any kind; the produce of a farm; the rent of houses; the proceeds of professional business; the profits of commerce or of occupation; the interest of money or stock in funds. Income is often used synonymously with revenue, but income is more generally applied to the gain of private persons, and revenue to that of a sovereign or of a state. We speak of the annual income of a gentleman, and the annual revenue of the state.1828 Definition1. A coming in; admission; introduction. [Not in use.]PROP'ERTY, n. [This seems to be formed directly from proper. The Latin is proprietas.]1. A peculiar quality of any thing; that which is inherent in a subject, or naturally essential to it; called by logicians an essential mode. Thus color is a property of light; extension and figure are properties of bodies.2. An acquired or artificial quality; that which is given by art or bestowed by man. The poem has the properties which constitute excellence.3. Quality; disposition.It is the property of an old sinner to find delight in reviewing his own villainies in others.4. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying and disposing of a thing; ownership. In the beginning of the world, the Creator gave to man dominion over the earth, over the fish of the sea and the fowls of the air, and over every living thing. This is the foundation of man's property in the earth and in all its productions. Prior occupancy of land and of wild animals gives to the possessor the property of them. The labor of inventing, making or producing any thing constitutes one of the highest and most indefeasible titles to property. Property is also acquired by inheritance, by gift or by purchase. Property is sometimes held in common, yet each man's right to his share in common land or stock is exclusively his own. One man may have the property of the soil,and another the right of use, by prescription or by purchase.5. Possession held on one's own right.6. The thing owned; that to which a person has the legal title, whether in his possession or not. It is one of the greatest blessings of civil society that the property of citizens is well secured.7. An estate, whether in lands, goods or money; as a man of large property or small property.8. An estate; a farm; a plantation. In this sense, which is common in the United States and in the West Indies, the word has a plural.The still-houses on the sugar plantations, vary in size, according to the fancy of the proprietor or the magnitude of the property.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Dear Professor,Saw your participation to the Enumerated Powers and the 10th Amendment and Limited Government debate in November 18, 2011. I Sir am a Literalist so keep in mind that the actual Founders, Framers and Ratifier meant what they said and said what they meant. It that vane - it appears that 38+ State Legislatures can submit and vote on a PROCESS AMENDMENT to repeal the 14th, 16th and 17th articles of amendment. The 28th amendment is framed after the 21st amendment which repealed the 18th.Many of the Constitutional students involved have debated and come to the conclusion that the language in Article V authorize the proposed actions . . To help others and to provide a real study center for serious students of our Constitution. The library is the most complete and largest that I have seen on the web anywhere. We have State Legislators visiting and they are now considering our solution to restore states rights and powers per the 10th amendment and limiting the Central Federal government to the powers of Article I section 8. The limits and powers in Article I - II and III will be returned to the original limits and language of governing Article.Needless to say the process is safe and can not run away -it is simple and is only 20 words - there are no new amendments to argue over, no new powers to argue, and could be attractive to red and blue States in the current political reality. There is a perfect storm existing today, the people 77% are convinced that Washington is broken and can not or will not fix itself with new elections, the taxes are killing our economy, the regulations are killing industries, all resulting in low economic growth and few job opportunities. The people want solution and returning to the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION - The one that the FF&R wrote in plain everyday simple language of the day that the average citizens could read and understand.Please visit our site and give us some opinions on how we can improve our efforts.
Thank you in advance
Lock J. Piatt
210 667 3350San Antonio, Texas
- Permalink Reply by on
- This is interesting as the definition came the USConstitution.net site where they say this about the militia . .Literalism - historical [THIS IS MY CAMP AND THE 1828 DICTIONARY IS MY SOURCE OF DEFINITIONS - http://www.1828-dictionary.com/d/search/word,incomeHistorical literalists believe that the contemporary writings of the Framers are not relevant to any interpretation of the Constitution. The only thing one needs to interpret the Constitution is a literal reading of the words contained therein, with an expert knowledge in the 18th century meaning of those words. The debates leading to the final draft are not relevant, the Federalist Papers are not relevant - only the words.The historical literalist takes a similar look at the Constitution as an originalist does, but the literalist has no interest in expanding beyond the text for answers to questions. For example, an historical literalist will see the militia of the 2nd Amendment as referring to all able-bodied men from 17 to 45, just as in the late 18th century, and this interpretation will color that person's reading of the 2nd Amendment.Here is the meaning in 1828 and 1913 no mention of any ages now is there - see they just make it up and we are supposed to eat it up like gospel. Well LITERALIST like me check words and meaning out - they are full of it -1828 DefinitionMILI'TIA, n. [L. from miles, a soldier; Gr. war, to fight, combat, contention. The primary sense of fighting is to strive, struggle, drive, or to strike, to beat, Eng. moil, L. molior; Heb. to labor or toil.] The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.1913 Definition
Militia (militia) n. (?) Mi*li"tia [L., military service, soldiery, fr. miles, militis, soldier: cf. F.milice.] - In the widest sense, the whole military force of a nation, including both those engaged in military service as a business, and those competent and available for such service; specifically, the body of citizens enrolled for military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be called into actual service except in emergencies.The king's captains and soldiers fight his battles, and yet . . . the power of the militia is he. Jer. Taylor.
- Military service; warfare.[Obs.] Baxter.
- In the widest sense, the whole military force of a nation, including both those engaged in military service as a business, and those competent and available for such service; specifically, the body of citizens enrolled for military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be called into actual service except in emergencies.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The great Roman statesman, orator, and philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote: Nescire autem quid ante quam natus sis acciderit, id est semper esse puerum. “Not to know what happened before you were born, that is to be always a boy, to be forever a child.“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.”
- Permalink Reply by on
- Buckley wrote:"I consider this battle of educational theory important and worth time and thought even in the context of a world situation that seems to render totally irrelevant any fight except the power struggle against Communism. I myself believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level."“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.”
- Permalink Reply by on
- JB,the State of California has three times the number of Attorneys in the Nation of Japan which has a much bigger population by more than double. Japan also has a much bigger gross national product.So, Lawyers what say you out there? Then please rely to this . . .This explains why but then the Redistribution of wealth kicks in latter huh?That made Jefferson the first person in history to advocate a system of decimal coinage, and the United States the first country to adopt one. This was a very good idea, and, as good ideas always do, it quickly spread. Today every country on earth has a decimal currency system.
But if Jefferson’s decimal coinage concept was a good idea that quickly spread around the world, another idea that developed here at that time was lousy: the so-called American Rule, whereby each side in a civil legal case pays its own court costs regardless of outcome. This was different from the English system where the loser has to pay the court costs of both sides.
The American Rule came about as what might be called a deadbeat’s relief act. The Treaty of Paris (which ended the American Revolution) stipulated that British creditors could sue in American courts in order to collect debts owed them by people who were now American citizens. To make it less likely that they would do so, state legislatures passed the American Rule. With the British merchant stuck paying his own court costs, he had little incentive to go to court unless the debt was considerable.
The American Rule was a relatively minor anomaly in our legal system until the mid-20th century. But since then, as lawyers’ ethics changed and they became much more active in seeking cases, the American Rule has proved an engine of litigation. For every malpractice case filed in 1960, for instance, 300 are filed today. In practice, the American Rule has become an open invitation, frequently accepted, to legal extortion: “Pay us $25,000 to go away or spend $250,000 to defend yourself successfully in court. Your choice.”
Trial lawyers defend the American Rule fiercely. They also make more political contributions, mostly to Democrats, than any other set of donors except labor unions. One of their main arguments for the status quo is that the vast number of lawsuits from which they profit so handsomely force doctors, manufacturers, and others to be more careful than they otherwise might be. Private lawsuits, these lawyers maintain, police the public marketplace by going after bad guys so the government doesn’t have to—a curious assertion, given that policing the marketplace has long been considered a quintessential function of government.
The reason for this is that when policing has been in private hands, self-interest and the public interest inevitably conflicted. The private armies of the Middle Ages all too often turned into bands of brigands or rebels. The naval privateers who flourished in the 16th to 18th centuries were also private citizens pursuing private gain while performing a public service by raiding an enemy’s commerce during wartime. In the War of 1812, for instance, American privateers pushed British insurance rates up to 30 percent of the value of ship and cargo. But when a war ended, privateers had a bad habit of turning into pirates or, after the War of 1812, into slavers.
Predictably, the American Rule has spread exactly nowhere since its inception at the same time as the decimal coinage system. There is not another country in the common-law world that uses it. Indeed, the only other country on the planet that has a version of the American Rule is Japan, where a very different legal system makes it extremely difficult to get into court at all.
The United States has more lawyers and more lawsuits, per capita, than any other country. But lawsuits don’t create wealth, they only transfer it from one party to another, with lawyers taking a big cut along the way. Few things would help the American economy more than ending theAmerican Rule. Texas reformed its tort law system a few years ago and the results have been dramatic. Doctors have been moving into the state, not out of it, and malpractice insurance costs have fallen 25 percent. And remember, good ideas always spread.
- Permalink Reply by on
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
- Permalink Reply by on
A world where jobs go extinct wholesale
COMPUTERS WILL HERALD DISRUPTIONS ON UNHEARD-OF SCALE, EXPERTS FEAR
General Motors envisions an all-around collision warning in a driverless vehicle, like this. Millions of people make a living driving cars and trucks, and those jobs will vanish in the next 25 years, one expert warns.Related Video
They seem right out of a Hollywood fantasy, and they are: Cars that drive themselves have appeared in movies like "I, Robot" and the television show "Knight Rider."Now, three years after Google invented one, automated cars could be on their way to a freeway near you. California and other states are rewriting the rules of the road to make way for driverless cars. Just one problem: What happens to the millions of people who make a living driving cars and trucks - jobs that always have seemed sheltered from the onslaught of technology?"All those jobs are going to disappear in the next 25 years," predicts Moshe Vardi, a computer scientist at Rice University in Houston. "Driving by people will look quaint; it will look like a horse and buggy."If automation can unseat bus drivers, urban deliverymen, long-haul truckers, even cabbies, is any job safe?Vardi poses an equally scary question: "Are we prepared for an economy in which 50 percent of people aren't working?"An Associated Press analysis of employment data from 20 countries found that millions of midskill, midpay jobs already have disappeared over the past five years, and they are the jobs that form the backbone of the middle class in developed countries.That experience has left a growing number of technologists and economists wondering what lies ahead. Will middle-class jobs return when the global economy recovers, or are they lost forever because of the advance of technology? The answer may not be known for years, perhaps decades. Experts argue about whether the job market will recover, muddle along or get much worse.The astounding capabilities of computer technology are forcing some mainstream economists to rethink the conventional wisdom about the economic benefits of technology. For the first time, we are seeing machines that can think - or something close to it.In the early 1980s, at the beginning of the personal-computer age, economists thought computers would do what machines had done for two centuries - eliminate jobs that required brawn, not brains. Low-level workers would be forced to seek training to qualify for jobs that required more skills. They'd become more productive and earn more money. The process would be the same as when mechanization replaced manual labor on the farm a century ago; workers moved to the city and got factory jobs that required higher skills but paid more.But it hasn't quite worked out that way. It turns out that computers most easily target jobs that involve routines, whatever skill level they require. And the most vulnerable of these jobs, economists have found, tend to employ midskill workers, even those held by people with college degrees - the very jobs that support a middle-class, consumer economy.So the rise of computer technology poses a threat that previous generations of machines didn't: The old machines replaced human brawn but created jobs that required human brains. The new machines threaten both.Here are the three scenarios that economists and technologists offer about jobs in the future:ECONOMY RETURNS TO HEALTH AFTER WRENCHING TRANSITIONIt has always happened before. Europe and the United States endured repeated economic and social upheaval during the 19th and early 20th centuries as their agricultural economies transformed into industrial ones.Peter Lindert, an economist at the University of California-Davis, says computers are more disruptive than earlier innovations because they are "general-purpose technologies" used by all kinds of companies. They upend many industries instead of just a few. Information technology touches every business.The changes are coming much faster this time, too. Lindert says that's showing up in the steep drop in prices for some products this time.Computing power is doubling every 18 months to two years - and the price is plummeting.But Lindert does not believe workers are doomed to unemployment. With the right skills and education, he says, they can learn to work with the machines and become productive enough to fend off the automation threat."There is a period of time that is extremely disruptive," says Thomas Schneider, CEO of the consultancy Restructuring Associates. "If you're 55 years old now and lose your job, the odds of you ever getting hired into what you were doing before is as close to zero as you can imagine."If you are a 12-year-old, you have a very bright future. It's just not doing what your father was doing or your mother was doing."The rise of the iPhone, for instance, has put more than 290,000 people to work on related iPhone apps since 2007, according to Apple. That suggests that new technology continues to create new types of jobs that require higher skills and creativity."Over the long run, I have confidence we can do it," says Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University. But, he warns, "I can see us being in this kind of doldrums for half a decade, for a decade, or for longer."ECONOMY CONTINUES TO PRODUCE JOBS, JUST NOT ENOUGH GOOD ONESSome economists worry that the sluggish, lopsided labor market of the past five years is what we'll be stuck with in the future.Smarter machines and niftier software will continue to replace more and more midpay jobs, making businesses more productive and swelling their profits.The most highly skilled workers - those who can use machines to be more productive but can't be replaced by them - will continue to prosper. Many low-pay jobs are likely to remain sheltered from the technological offensive: Robots are too clumsy to tidy up hotel rooms or clear dirty dishes at busy restaurants."Computers can do calculus better than any human being," says Andrew McAfee, principal research scientist at MIT's Center for Digital Business. But "restaurant bus boy is a very safe job for a long time to come."Under this scenario, technology could continue to push economic growth - but only a few would enjoy the benefits. More people would be competing for midpay jobs, so pay would shrivel. Many midskill workers would be left unemployed or shunted into low-skill, low-pay jobs. The income gap between the rich and ordinary citizens, already at record levels in many developed countries, would continue to widen.Most economists say that unequal societies don't prosper; it takes a large and confident middle class to produce the consumer spending that drives healthy economic growth. "In the long run, you could actually see growth stopping," says economist Maarten Goos at Belgium's University of Leuven. "If everyone is employed in low-wage service jobs, then, that's it."TECHNOLOGY LEADS TO MASS UNEMPLOYMENTIn a speech last year, former U.S. Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers declared that the biggest economic issue of the future would not be the federal debt or competition from China but "the dramatic transformations that technology is bringing about."Summers imagined a machine called the "Doer" that could make anything or provide any service. Productivity would soar. Wonderful goods and services would emerge. Enormous wealth would go "to those who could design better Doers, to those who could think of better things for Doers to do." But everyone else would be worthless in the labor market.Summers said the world is moving in that direction and has completed only 15 percent of the journey, but already we are "observing its consequences."Consequences, indeed. ATMs dislodged bank tellers. Microsoft Outlook manages what secretaries used to do. Expedia is replacing travel agents. E-ZPass is doing away with toll-booth operators. And robots continue to supplant factory workers.But surely some jobs are safe. Truck drivers, perhaps? A machine can't negotiate a left-hand turn against oncoming traffic without a human behind the wheel, can it? Or so economists Frank Levy of MIT and Richard Murnane of Harvard University reasoned in their book, "The New Division of Labor," way back in 2004.That was then.Six years later, Google developed a car that could drive itself, crossing the Golden Gate Bridge, circling Lake Tahoe and cruising down Hollywood Boulevard. The gee-whiz driverless car could soon claim victims in the job market."Twice a week, a truck comes near my house, and two guys get out and pick up the garbage," says Vardi, the Rice computer scientist. "This will disappear. There will still be a truck coming, but it will be driven autonomously, and the garbage will be picked up autonomously, and those jobs will be gone."In the United States alone, 92,000 people are employed as sanitation workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Add all other driving occupations, from long-haul truckers to taxicab drivers, and the total exceeds 4 million. All those jobs may be in danger.And that's the future: Other occupations already are disappearing. Add up the jobs that technology can take across dozens of occupations and the result, Vardi and others warn, is unemployment on a scale we haven't begun to imagine."The vast majority of people do routine work. The human economy has always demanded routine work," says software entrepreneur Martin Ford. He worries that machines will take all those routine jobs, leaving few opportunities for ordinary workers.In his book, "The Lights in the Tunnel," Ford foresees a computer-dominated economy with 75 percent unemployment before the end of this century; the vast majority of workers, he predicts, won't be able to develop the skills necessary to outrun job-killing computers and robots."People talk about the future, creating new industries and new businesses," Ford says. "But there's every indication that these are not going to be in labor-intensive industries. ... Right from the get-go, they're going to be digital."Consider the great business successes of the Internet age: Apple employs 80,000 people worldwide; Google, 54,000; Facebook, 4,300. Combined, those three superstar companies employ fewer than a quarter of the 600,000 people General Motors had in the 1970s. And today, GM employs just 202,000 people, while making more cars than ever.As far back as 1958, American union leader Walter Reuther recalled going through a Ford Motor plant that was already automated. A company manager goaded him: "Aren't you worried about how you are going to collect union dues from all these machines?""The thought that occurred to me," Reuther replied, "was how are you going to sell cars to these machines?"
