- I enjoyed reading what you wrote.
1) We agree thoroughly on the limited power of Congress.
2) I think we don't yet agree on another point. My conversion to YOUR SHARE can not take place overnight. That is, it is a system to use once we have in place A) A truly Constituionally limited federal budget - maybe $600B - $1T, and B) a plan to otherwise finance the $13+T existing debt as well as the $100+T unrecorded certain future debt (I admit this will be a very difficult undertaking, but it arose from our own neglect and we must swallow the bad medicine to fix it).
3) Please do not ever feel guilty about using the term "regressive". It is simply a fact - the burden of taxes has a bigger impact on a poor person, but so does his rent, food and EVERY other expenditure.
4) No matter how you slice it, a consumption tax is still a tax which impinges upon my liberty and under such a tax, some will pay more "tax" than others (wealth redistribution) - one citizen is forced to pay another citizen's cost of the military. YOUR SHARE is no different from your rent or monthly maintenace fee.
Have I asked you if you reject H.R. 25? If so, how do we wake up those vocal Tea Party supportes of added wealth redistribution??????
- Permalink Reply by on
- H.R. 25 is just redoing the chairs on the deck of the titanic while it was sinking. People need to realize that you must TAKE the money away from the Federal Government just like taking drugs away from the addict they will scream and holler for months if not years.
Any money that goes to any level of government must be for real expenses of required government services - not a cent for "SOCIAL ENGINEERING" or tribute to Unions and industries. Without limits on their ability to increase or "CREATE" new fees, permits, use charges, offsets, damage charges, wet lands use fees, and the list goes on - they are all taxes with a new fancy environmental correct noun; but is taking your money in the end.
People must tell the government at all levels they are to outsource all services including fire, police, and utility operations. The proceeds form the sale will apply to the debt and the saving used to lower the tax burden on the citizens. It will be a long road but it must be done as the government businesses like the Post office, Amtrak, GM, Chrysler, AIG, Banks and Wall street brokers, are just another poorly managed failing enterprise.
The Federal Government owns many assets around the world - sell them and pay off the debt. How much can we sell 100 miles of ocean front land in California for? How about the California channel islands - millions of acres of land. We are broke - liquidate and start clean. So, see we do not need taxes to get the job done.
Sell all the DC office building and lease them back, same with the Post offices across the nation. Suddenly we start seeing a way forward that does not break the sovereign individuals. Now for a last example - we can sell the interstate highway system and turn them into toll roads - saving all the money we now pay the State and Federal transportation departments - why not????
Eliminate the national debt and revoke the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments, return to the enumerated powers in Article I sections 8 & 9.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Careful - where you head as you might be giving creditability to a out of control unconstitutional federal government. We might not want to legitimatize any of the usurped null and void laws the Progressives have passed illegally over the last 100 years. The power of the people and the Rights of the States must be retained or the Republic could be lost forever.
- Permalink Reply by on
- you all are focused on the income side of the Financial statement - how about we look at the balance sheet?
Nation debt is 13T and maybe short term problem of 20T say that is $ 33T. How much are the assets of the Federal government worth? Federal Highways and roads, post office buildings, mineral rights on million and million of acres of federal lands, 100 miles of California ocean front land. Enough the point is made - make them sell it all and the loser businesses they have purchased like the post office and Amtrak.
All sovereign individuals would be forced to divest assets if they were broke and could not pay their bills - the same rules apply to all businesses why not government? I can not fathom a function the private enterprise businesses could not provide a superior service at a reduced cost to the People.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Constitutional Professors do not understand the Constitution they change words and the meanings of words to "create" the end result they seek. Below is an example of a communication between me and a Constitutional Law Professor. I asked him about the conflict of the 5th amendment protection against "TAKING" of property without just compensation even when for the public good. How does that explain the conflict with the 16th amendment (and Progressive tax rates which are no where in the Constitution so are they Unconstitutional?).
You can see quickly - as they deflect the "INCOME TAX" as not being "PROPERTY" but income (which is MONEY and money is property according to the Founders). They use new laws and new words to develop new laws which to create more case law decisions. It is the usurping of powers in my humble opinion.
Mr. Piatt:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The 16th amendment does not specify the tax rates, and in any case as a later amendment would trump the 5th.
Anyway, the "property" protected in the 5th does not include income as it is earned. I applies to realty and personalty. Real estate taxes, even progressive ones are constitutional (as "direct taxes") if Congress wished to impose them, which it does not.
- Permalink Reply by on
- " . . . we are a free and soverign people, and will not have others decide for us."
Frederick, I am with you wherever you decide to go with this. I would also suggest that in addition, or in the alternative, a complimentary or parallel line that I would like to pursue:
I mentioned in a previous post I would like to start a "virtual" Article V Convention in cyberspace as a way of getting TPP bloggers to think about the issues and propose solutions. If we could get one or two people in each state who would volunteer to be "delegates" it would broaden the discussion and perhaps bring together other people who want to amend the Constitution but may have different priorities on which amendment to propose. If we could get the "balanced budget" people, the "repeal the 17th" people, the "term limits" people and all the other "people" proposing single issue amendments to sit down together in a "virtual convention hall," we may already have a critical mass to start working on the state legislators to call an Article V Convention for offering amendments.
I believe the danger of an Article V Convention are exaggerated; I believe if we name the agenda in the call for the Convention, Robert's Rules or Order would require a two-thirds vote to change the agenda. Whatever comes out of the Convention still must be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures.
I think that is a pretty good safeguard once people understand that the Supreme Court now amends the Constitution WITH NO SAFEGUARDS whenever FIVE justices agree on what the Constitution should say. Don't believe me? Read Roe v. Wade. Justice Blackmun's convoluted reasoning in that case is an excellent example of making up law out of thin air. It also is an amendment to the Constitution.
I feverently believe any reforms requiring Congress and the president to follow the Constitution will be futile unless we can rein in the Court, which right now has given itself the power to trump both and to amend the Constitution with a simple majority vote--five justices. If you are interested, I can cite specific cases to prove my case.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Frederick,
Good post and a spot on subject. My only addition would be that the Progressive courts during the FDR Presidency made many erroneous decisions that due to the questionable adoption of the British Common Law case Law theory. Law School now teach Case Law Theory and down play the role of the Constitution in our courts.
The example is the case you cited where the Supreme court decided that words and meaning can be changed or altered to suit their desires. This is horrible but the results under the Common Law Theory is much worse because England does not have a Constitution they use case law precedent to make decisions on current day suits this is their base of law. America being a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution and does not require case law precedent but it was used anyway. The General Welfare case after the decision above becomes base law - precedent and it then subject to the concept of Satre decisis (settled law) even when this conflicts with the Constitution it prevails and future cases will use the decision instead of the Constitution. They then use one case to give them power over another case all the time moving from one point in law to many other areas - one upon another until our freedoms are just gone.
So it becomes clear why Progressives always change the meaning of words or the name of a cause defeated. Just look at Global cooling, global warming, Climate disasters, new ice age, and others all different names for the same program. So words have meaning and meanings must be from the time period when written.
- Permalink Reply by on
- And people wonder why I say FDR was a disaster of a President and set the nation back 50 years. We are all still paying the price today and every day until we restore the original Constitution ending the 14th, 16th and 17th amendment.
- Permalink Reply by on
- If I remember correctly (its been over 20 years), in high school they preached FDR up like he was some great innovator, and his New Deal was so great. I wonder what kind of mind set kids would have if they were taught the truth about FDR.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Yes, he was the father of what we now see as the failure of the Constitution and the lack of respect for it's limits on the beast of the federal government. he destroyed the Supreme and the principle of the three party government and the concept of checks and balances. He started the tri-party usurping of the Constitutional power that each had under the Rule - by - Law - they created the Rule - by - Man limits of government we see in use today.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction of the Article I, Section 8 General Welfare Clause—as elaborated in Story's 1833 "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"—was the correct interpretation. Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not an independent grant of power, but a qualification on the taxing power which included within it a power to spend tax revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government. This no doubt was the authority that government needed to spend tax money on anything and everything.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "Progressive courts during the FDR Presidency made many erroneous decisions that due to the questionable adoption of the British Common Law case Law theory."
The Common law predates Roosevelt and predates the Republic. "The common law was received in the American colonies and adopted as the basis of American legal systems after the Revolution in the state and federal constitutions. " (West's Encyclopedia of American Law.) However, the common law is being grossly misused by the United States Supreme Court. Common law can never lawfully override the statutory law made by Congress. Traditionally, common law courts ruled in the "interstices," the tiny spaces between laws made by Parliment or the King. It was intended to fill in the blancks where no law existed. It was useful in solving disputes not anticipated by the lawmakers, and the common law judges knew--and kept within--their limits. The real culprit who changed that was an 1803 Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison. I submit the Supreme Court of the United States, acting contrary to the Constitution, is the real villain and reform of the federal government cannot be effective without bringing the Supreme Court under constitutional control. The common law is not the problem, it is the Supreme Court's bastardization of the common law that we must deal with.
__________________
Glenn Neal is a retired lawyer and the author of The Second American Revolution: One Way or the Other [A look at dysfunctional government and what we can do to fix it] Flyover Country Press, LLC (2010)
- Permalink Reply by on
- The General Welfare clause was intended as a restriction on the government rather than a mandate. It made clear that Federal Government could only levy taxes to pay debt, for the national defense, and provide for the general welfare. So what exactly what is the general welfare?
One thing was clear the government could not provide anything to anyone or any group for any reason that it wanted, The general welfare was to be provide for the benefit of the country as a whole not one region over another or one person over another or one ethnic group over another.
A good example of this is the interstate highway system, flood control dams, surveying and printing of maps, National Weather Service or the Federal Aviation Administration. All for these agencies and expenditures are for the good of the nation.
Congress has gotten into the mode of adding “earmarks” to bills they pass so far as I can see none to very few of these “earmarks” are for the general welfare of the nation.
Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.
Thomas Jefferson, They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union
- Permalink Reply by on
- A I have stated before James, I feel the General Welfare clause is not a clause at all, merely a descriptive reasoning as to what the congress may use the power to tax for, a guideline if you will.
For example, the congress may tax to enact the enumerated powers, only when it is for the common defense and or general welfare of the nation.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The thing to remember, the "general welfare" refers to the welfare of the Republic, not the transfer of wealth by giving welfare payments to individuals!
- Permalink Reply by on
- Exactly!
- Permalink Reply by on
- I agree but how do we undue a 45 year of unlimited use of taxes.
- Permalink Reply by on
- It is simple in concept; relatively more difficult (but not impossible) in execution.
1. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment (automatically end unfunded mandates);
2. A balanced Budget Amendmnet;
3. End Gerrymandering (So real people not partisan firebrands) get elected;
4. An amendment to require the Supreme Court to follow contract law when interpreting the written Constitution (just what's in the "four corners" of the document); any SC precedent to the contrary shall be overruled as they appear in future cases. An automatic and widespread abolishment of precedent would create chaos so we need to phase it in gradually--like it happened in the first place. But the SC has no constitutional power to override Congress.
Under the common law, courts routinely made new law in the interstices , the narrow spaces where the King or Parliment had not made law. A common law court could "fill in the blanks" but had no authority to overrule the King or Parliament.
Do not expect Congress--or the Supreme Court--to cooperate in limiting their own power. It will require an Article V Convention for offering amendments. There is a lot of resistance to haveing an Article V convention for fear it will become an "open convention" where everything is on the table (i.e. rewrite the entire Constitution). I believe there are enough safeguards in place to prevent that.
No comments:
Post a Comment