Thursday, May 15, 2014

JOHN ADAMS SUPREME COURT

THE SUPREME COURT OF JOHN ADAMS

GERBER: John Adams' Supreme Court

How a Founder's idea protects us still

By Scott D. Gerber

The Washington Times

5:07 p.m., Friday, October 1, 2010

White House Historical Association (White House Collection) John Trumbull's 1793 portrait of John Adams was done in sittings during
Adams' vice presidency. He was elected president in 1796.

The most powerful court in the world is now in session. The first Monday in October marks the beginning of a new term for the Supreme Court of the United States.

Thiswouldn't have been possible without John Adams. Although the Supreme Court's power typically is traced to the 1803 opinion of John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison that the court has the authority to void acts of the legislature and the executive that are inconsistent with the Constitution, there would have been no
"great chief justice," as Marshall is called, without Adams.

Of course, it was President John Adams who nominated Secretary of State John Marshall to the Supreme Court in 1801. But Adams' most significant contribution to the court's power was not his ability to recognize a talented jurist when he saw one. Rather, it was his articulation, as the American founding's most
sophisticated thinker, of the political theory of an independent
judiciary in a 1776 pamphlet, "Thoughts on Government," published during
the initial rush of state constitution-making.

The pamphlet - a clarion call for separation of powers written in response to Thomas Paine's recommendation in "Common Sense" that all government power be vested in a unicameral legislature - was influential in a number of state constitutional conventions beyond Adams' home state of Massachusetts, including those in New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and Virginia. Adams
argued in "Thoughts on Government" for a bicameral legislature: a
representative assembly, "an exact portrait in miniature of the people
at large," and a smaller "council" chosen by the assembly and designed
to "check and correct [the assembly's] errors." The executive should be
chosen by the two houses of the legislature on an annual basis, and he
should be endowed with the power to veto legislation. Most important of
all, Adams
explained the significance of an independent judiciary to any form of
government dedicated to the preservation of liberty. He wrote:

"The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people, and every blessing of society depend so much upon an upright
and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought
to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent
upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, as both should be checks
upon that."

Adams recommended that judges be "nominated and appointed by the governor, with the advice and consent of council." However, he argued for more
than merely making the judiciary a separate branch of government. He
called for stable judicial compensation and tenure so long as judges
behave well: "[T]hey should hold estates for life in their offices; or,
in other words, their commissions should be during good behavior, and
their salaries ascertained and established by law." Adams
also insisted that judges who misuse their offices should be impeached
by the "house of representatives ... before the governor and council"
and, "if convicted, should be removed."

Adams was serving as a diplomat in England during the framing of the federal Constitution of 1787. Although that Constitution excluded the executive
from the impeachment process, it otherwise contained principles
identical to Adams' proposal: The Supreme Court
is a separate branch of government, the justices enjoy life tenure
during good behavior, and their salaries cannot be diminished while they
are in office. Without this political architecture created by Adams that guarantees judicial independence for Supreme Court justices, the United States never would have seen a John Marshall
in 1803 or a John G. Roberts Jr. in 2010. After all, without judicial
independence, no court could safely void an act of another branch.
Bluntly stated, the risk to a judge who exercises judicial review when
he or she is not independent of the executive and the legislature is
either removal from the bench or a reduction in salary.

John Adams knew this, and so did the Framers who met in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 when they wrote Adams' theory of judicial independence into Article III of the Constitution of the United States. Thanks to John Adams, the American people, under the watchful eye of the Supreme Court, are the freest people in the history of the world.

Scott D. Gerber is a law professor at Ohio Northern University. His book, "A Distinct Judicial Power: The Origins of an Independent Judiciary,
1606-1787," will be published by Oxford University Press in March 2011.

CONSTITUTION, DEFINITIONS, MEANINGS, INTERPRETATION BY JUDGES RULES

The government is powerless to change the Constitution; and this applies
to the Judiciary, acting alone or in collaboration with the other
branches. A particularly impressive restatement by the Supreme Court -
of the basic rule the "the original meaning is controlling" - in the
1905 South Carolina case, is presented in a special section of the
Appendix (page 291, post)

The original meaning is ascertainable from the Constitution's own words -
construed in the light of the intent of the framing and ratifying
bodies with respect to the provision (of the original instrument, or any
amendment) under consideration - as supplemented by all pertinent
historical records which cannot change or be changed just as the intent
is unchangeable.

The strictly limited role of the judges in "interpreting" the
Constitution - the role as clearly defined under the constitutional
system and well understood by all competent and reliable authorities
since 1788 -is to ascertain, define and apply this intent and meaning
solely on the basis of it's words and the mentioned historical records.
That is, to merely clarify- not to make - the fundamental law (which the
Constitution itself determines) as intended by those who framed and
adopted it (per pars. 2 and 3 above). As explained particularly in the
Federalist number 78 by Hamilton, in so doing judges are obligated to
apply their honest Judgment to such ascertainment, definition and
application; and not to indulge their will, or whim, in disregard of the
original and meaning mentioned above. As Hamilton there also
emphasizes, in deciding cases thus involving principles of the
Constitution, judges chief of all those on the Supreme Court as the
highest judicial authority - are obligated to respect precedent (to
abide by prior decisions which have so ascertained, defined and applied
that the unchangeable intent and meaning on the basis of those
historical records). Therefore, they may not change their minds as and
when the please concerning the meaning of this fundamental law,
concerning the definitions of these principles. Any such power so to
change their minds could not but result in its belittlement, if not
doom, as the intended source and basis of stability of limited
government in America - as the reliable guide for the conduct of the
people and the dependable bulwark of their liberties. In this
connection, decisions by the Supreme Court must be mad impartially,
"according to the rules of the Constitution," as Madison asserted in The
Federalist number 39. (See also number 81, by Hamilton.) From THE AMERICAN YARDSTICK by Hamilton A. Long (1963)

Clearly it was intended that the Constitution was to be a "forever"
document and very difficult to change, alter from, deviate, usurp, or
amend. Now the question comes how can the Progressives call the
Constitution a "living" document or a simple out line for Congress to
expand as desired. It appear that the "COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE GENERAL
WELFARE CLAUSE" have clearly been changed in scope, meaning, and extent
of applications. This constitutes a usurpation of powers that neither of
the three branches possess as individuals or a collective. It appears
that they have changed word meanings, modernized, altered intents and
have changed the Constitution and the rule-by- Law to the rule-by-man.

Without a strict enforced Constitution as defined above we are not
protected and could be changed into country of limited freedoms and a
failed state.

RESEARCH AND INFORMATION SITES

RESEARCH AND INFORMATION SITES - GREAT EASY TO USE -

Here are some useful links regarding our Republic - how and why the Founders said and did what they did. Feel free to add your links so all of us can have facts at thand for use in our debates.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/preface.html#31r

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/intro.html

http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/5005

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5

http://grassrootstexans.net/blog/

http://www.u-s-history.com/index.html

http://usafoundingfathers.blogspot.com/2006/03/founding-fathers-ori...

http://www.fed-soc.org/search/pnf.asp

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1550.htm

http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/interstate-commerce-cla...

http://www.law.umn.edu/constcom/index.html

NATURAL GAS ACT IN THE US HOUSE

Natural Gas for transportation - ? tax credits?

This bill is before congress to encourage switching vehicles to compressed Natural gas [CNG] and off gasoline. Pickens has been after this for years so we can start becoming energy independent. There are many issues that Congress must address for this to become a viable option.

1) Retail CNG filling stations

2) Change the EPA regulations about what is required for a company to convert cars and trucks

The current rules are cost prohibited some estimates are over $ 5000.00 per vehicle?

3) Highway tax issues [none on CNG now]

New NAT GAS Act is Introduced in the U.S. House

Share 477

Congressmen John Sullivan (R-OK), Dan Boren (D-OK), John Larson (D-CT) and Kevin Brady (R-TX) have introduced H.R. 1380, the ‘New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions’ (NAT GAS) Act. This bill will be the legislative vehicle to replace millions of barrels of imported oil with domestic natural gas, especially for fleet vehicles.

The original sponsors - two Republicans and two Democrats - said the bill would “offer limited tax credits and federal regulatory changes to encourage the production and purchase of natural gas vehicles” in the United States. Congressman Sullivan who is the Vice Chair of the House Energy and Power Subcommittee said that “69 percent of the oil consumed in America is used for transportation, two-thirds of which we import from foreign nations.” Congressman Larson, who is the Chair of the Democratic House Caucus, said we have enough domestic natural gas to meet our needs “for the next 100 years.” He also said, “If we start making cars and trucks that run on natural gas, there’s the potential to create over a half a million American jobs.”

Dan Boren and Kevin Brady also commented on the new legislation. Brady said, “Targeting business fleets and cargo trucks that offer the greatest promise, this bill creates a strong five-year window to build, buy and refuel natural gas vehicles here at home.” Boren made a point of the bipartisan nature of the bill saying, “We must move America off OPEC oil and give our citizens some options at the fuel pump. It is supported by some of the most progressive, as well as by some of the most conservative, members of Congress.”

According to the press release, the bill, H.R. 1380, was introduced today with 76 bipartisan original cosponsors in the House and has been endorsed by both President Obama and T. Boone Pickens as part of the nation’s energy solution.

– The Pickens Team

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 6th, 2011 at 1:27 pm by admin in In the News, Pickens Plan.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

AMERICA IS STILL NUMBER ONE IN MANUFACTURING

Made in the U.S.A. -- Still #1 in the World

Just because every cheap toy or consumer good is made in China doesn't mean everything else is.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2...

Let them make the junk, I'll keep manufacturing high tech, jet engines, and industrial machinery.

WHO PAYS TAXES FOR REAL?

WHO PAYS THE TAXES FOR REAL?

Here is another POGO moment -

Guess Who Really Pays the Taxes

By Stephen Moore From the November/December 2007 Issue

Filed under: Economic Policy, Public Square

Yes, income in America is skewed toward the rich. But taxes are skewed far, far more. The top 5 percent pay well over half the income taxes. STEPHEN MOORE has the numbers.

1. Are income taxes fair?

That depends on who is offering the opinion. Democratic candidates for president certainly don’t think so. John Edwards has said, “It’s time to restore fairness to a tax code that has been driven badly out of whack.” Hillary Clinton laments that “middle-class and working families are paying a much higher percentage of their income [in taxes].” Over the past seven years, however, Americans in general think taxes have become more fair, not less. The Gallup Organization found in an April poll that 60 percent of respondents believe the income taxes that they themselves pay are fair, compared with 37 percent who believe the taxes they pay are unfair. In 1997, the figures were 51 percent fair and 43 percent unfair.

2. What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

3. But didn’t the Bush tax cuts favor the rich?

The New York Times reported recently that the average family in America with an income of $10 million or more received a half-million-dollar tax cut, while the middle class got crumbs (less than $100 shaved off their tax bill). If we examine the taxes paid in a static world—that is, if we assume that there was no change in behavior and economic performance as a result of the tax code—then these numbers are meaningful. Most of the tax cuts went to the super wealthy.

But Americans did respond to the tax cuts. There was more investment, more hiring by businesses, and a stronger stock market. When we compare thetaxes paid under the old system with those paid after the Bush tax cuts, the rich are now actually paying a higher proportion of income taxes. The latest IRS data show an increase of more than $100 billion in tax payments from the wealthy by 2005 alone. The number of tax filers who claimedtaxable income of more than $1 million increased from approximately 180,000 in 2003 to over 300,000 in 2005. The total taxes paid by these millionaire households rose by about 80 percent in two years, from $132 billion to $236 billion.

4. But haven’t the tax cuts put more of the burden on the backs of the middle class and the poor?

No. I examined the Treasury Department analysis of how much the rich would have paid without the Bush tax cuts and how much they actually did pay. The rich are now paying more than they would have paid, not less, after the Bush investment tax cuts. For example, the Treasury’s estimate was that the top 1 percent of earners would pay 31 percent of taxes if the Bush cuts did not go into effect; with the cuts, they actually paid 37 percent. Similarly, the share of the top 10 percent of earners was estimated at 63 percent without the cuts; they actually paid 68 percent.

5. What has happened to tax rates in America over the last several decades?

They’ve fallen. In the early 1960s, the highest marginal income tax rate was a stunning 91 percent. That top rate fell to 70 percent after the Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts and remained there until 1981. Then Ronald Reagan slashed it to 50 percent and ultimately to 28 percent after the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Although the federal tax rate fell by more than half, total tax receipts in the 1980s doubled from $517 billion in 1981 to $1,030 billion in 1990. The top tax rate rose slightly under George H. W. Bush and then moved to 39.6 percent under Bill Clinton. But under George W. Bush it fell again to 35 percent. So what’s striking is that, even as tax rates have fallen by half over the past quarter-century, taxes paid by the wealthy have increased. Lower tax rates have made the tax system more progressive, not less so. In 1980, for example, the top 5 percent of income earners paid only 37 percent of all income taxes. Today, the top 1 percent pay that proportion, and the top 5 percent pay a whopping 57 percent.

6. What is the economic logic behind these lower tax rates?

As legend has it, the famous “Laffer Curve” was first drawn by economist Arthur Laffer in 1974 on a cocktail napkin at a small dinner meeting attended by the late Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley and such high-powered policymakers as Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Laffer showed how two different rates—one high and one low—could produce the same revenues, since the higher rate would discourage work and investment. The Laffer Curve helped launch Reaganomics here at home and ignited a frenzy of tax cutting around the globe that continues to this day. It’s also one of the simplest concepts in economics: lowering the tax rate on production, work, investment, and risk-taking will spur more of these activities and will often produce more tax revenue rather than less. Since the Reagan tax cuts, the United States has created some 40 million new jobs—more than all of Europe and Japan combined.

7. Are lower tax rates responsible for the big budget deficits of recent decades?

There is no correlation between tax rates and deficits in recent U.S. history. The spike in the federal deficit in the 1980s was caused by massive spending increases.

The Congressional Budget Office reports that, since the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenues have grown by $745 billion—the largest real increase in history over such a short time period. Individual and corporate income tax receipts have jumped by 30 percent in the two years since the tax cuts.

8. Do the rich pay more taxes because they are earning more of the income inAmerica?

Yes. There’s no doubt that the share of total income earned by the wealthy has increased steadily over the past 25 years. Since 1980, the share of income earned by the richest 1 percent has more than doubled, from 9 percent to 19 percent. The share of the income going to the poorest income quintile has declined. Income disparities, in absolute dollars, have grown substantially.

What is significant is that for the top 5 percent and 10 percent of earners, the ratio of taxes paid compared with income earned has risen. Forexample, in 1980, the top 10 percent earned 32 percent of the income and paid 44 percent of the taxes—a ratio of 1.4. In 2004, this group earned more of the income (44 percent) but paid a lot more of the taxes (68 percent)—a ratio of 1.6. In other words, progressivity—in terms of share of totaltaxes paid—has risen. On the other hand, for the top 1 percent of earners, progressivity has declined from a ratio of 2.2 in 1980 to 1.9 in 2004.

9. Have gains by the rich come at the expense of a declining living standard for the middle class?

No. If Bill Gates suddenly took his tens of billions of dollars and moved to France, income distribution in America would temporarily appear more equitable, even though no one would be better off. Median family income in America between 1980 and 2004 grew by 17 percent. The middle class (defined as those between the 40th and the 60th percentiles of income) isn’t falling behind or “disappearing.” It is getting richer. The lower income bound for the middle class has risen by about $12,000 (after inflation) since 1967. The upper income bound for the middle class is now roughly $68,000—some $23,000 higher than in 1967. Thus, a family in the 60th percentile has 50 percent more buying power than 30 years ago. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, this has been a “rising tide” expansion, with most (though not all) boats lifted.

10. Does the tax distribution look a lot different if we factor in other federal taxes, such as the payroll tax?

It’s true that the distribution of taxes is somewhat more equally divided when payroll taxes are accounted for—but the change is surprisingly small. Payroll taxes of 15 percent are charged on the first dollar of income earned by a worker, and most of the tax is capped at an income of just below $100,000. The Tax Policy Center, run by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, recently studied payroll and income taxes paid by each income group. The richest 1 percent pay 27.5 percent of the combined burden, the top 20 percent pay 72 percent, and the bottom 20 percent pay just 0.4 percent. One reason that the disparity in tax shares is so large is that Americans in the bottom quintile who have jobs get reimbursed for some or all of their 15 percent payroll tax through the earned-income tax credit (EITC), a fairly efficient poverty-abatement program.

11. How do tax rates in the United States compare with tax rates abroad?

Overall, taxes are between 10 percent and 20 percent lower in the United States than they are in most other industrial nations. This gives America a competitive edge in world markets. But America’s lead in low tax rates is shrinking. For example, the United States now has the second-highest corporate income tax in the developed world, after Japan. Our personal income tax rate is still low by historical standards. But in recent years many European and Pacific Rim nations have been slashing income taxes—there are now ten Eastern European nations with flat-tax rates between 12 percent and 25 percent—while the political pressure in Washington, D.C., is to raise them.

12. Do tax cuts on investment income, such as George W. Bush’s reductions in taxrates on capital gains and dividends, primarily benefit wealthy stockowners?

The New York Times reported that America’s millionaires raked in 43 percent of the investment tax cut benefits in 2003. It’s true that lower taxrates have been a huge boon to shareholders—but most of them are not rich. The latest polls show that 52 percent of Americans own stock and thus benefit directly from lower capital gains and dividend taxes. Reduced tax rates on dividends also triggered a huge jump in the number of companies paying out dividends. As the National Bureau of Economic Research put it, “The surge in regular dividend payments after the 2003 reform is unprecedented in recent years.” Dividend income is up nearly 50 percent since the 2003 tax cut.

The same phenomenon occurred with the capital gains tax, which is essentially a voluntary tax because asset owners can avoid it by simply holding onto their stock, home, or business. This “lock-in” effect, as it is called, can be economically inefficient, since owners have a tax incentive to keep poor investments, rather than drawing out the cash and putting it into assets that are more productive. When the capital gains tax is cut, people unlock their assets and reinvest in other enterprises.

The 1997 tax reform, passed under President Clinton, reduced the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent, and taxable capital gains nearly doubled over the next three years. The 2003 reform brought the rate down to 15 percent, and between 2002 and 2005 there was a 154 percent increase in capital gains reported as income.

This explosion in realized gains cannot be explained only by the rise in the stock market, which averaged just 13 percent annually between 2003 and 2005. Capital gains tax receipts also far outpaced the revenues that the government’s static models predicted. Between 2003 and 2007, actual taxreceipts exceeded expectations by $207 billion.

Stephen Moore is senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial board and a contributor to CNBC TV. He was the founder of the Clubfor Growth and has served as a fiscal policy analyst at the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. His latest book is “Bullish on Bush: How George Bush’s Ownership Society Will Make America Stronger” (Madison Books).

Image credit: chart illustrations by MacNeill & MacIntosh.