Posted on 02/28/2004 2:35:00 PM PST by handk
Yes. It is called an annuity program. If the money contributed by an employee (and his employer) between 25 and 65 were invested in American industries under an annuity plan, the fund could be built to a quarter of a million dollars by the time he retires. An annuity fund of this kind would permit an employee to retire at $1,200 to $1,500 per month. Furthermore, the money is his. He does not have to be poor to get it. If he dies it goes to his widow and children. He earned it. He owns it.
58. Is the Federal Income Tax Constitutional?
Yes. The Sixteenth Amendment was adopted according to the requirements of the constitution.
59. Is this the type of tax which the Founding Fathers would have employed?
No. They provided that direct taxes be apportioned to the states according to population, not according to the incomes of the people.
60. Has income tax been administered uniformly?
No. A graduated income tax violates the equal protection of rights. It violates the principle of uniformity required by the Constitution and makes the property of accumulated wealth less sacred than those who have less.
61. Is it possible to administer the Income Tax fairly?
No. This could only be done by setting up a universal monitoring system similar to a "police state." This would violate all of the basic rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment.
62. Would it ever be possible to repeal the Federal Income Tax?
Yes. By phasing out governmental activities which are clearly outside the Constitution, the cost of government would be greatly reduced and the income tax could be safely eliminated.
63. Would the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment interfere with defense and other legitimate Federal responsibilities?
No.Tariffs and other sources of Federal revenue would more than adequately provide for the legitimate expenses of the Federal Government if its unconstitutional expenses were phased out. Who knows, there might even be a surplus!
64. Is a national sales tax constitutional?
Yes, according to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the federal government may assess a sales (excise) tax as long as it is uniform throughout the United States.
65. What about the thousands of Federal-aid programs covering nearly every aspect of American life?
Federal grants are unconstitutional unless directly related to some power specifically delegated to the Federal Government. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would probably wipe out at least 95% of the Federal-aid programs presently plaguing the nation.
66. What about EPA?
The Environmental Protection Act involves problems which the Founders delegated exclusively to the States where local supervision could prevent abuses and deal with over-regulation more readily. Today, federal control over air, water, and land environment is strangling the economy and suppressing the development of energy and natural resources.
67. What about OSHA?
Occupational safety and health are important responsibilities but they should never have been delegated to the Federal level. The Founders knew that government is too big, and the legal machinery too expensive for most citizens to handle. They therefore endure the disruptive and oppressive edicts of this agency because it has been too big for the average citizen to fight.
68. What about the Federal Communications Commission?
This agency was designed to "police" the traffic on the air waves but the FCC has used its licensing power to control the editorial content of programs. This is in direct violation of the First Amendment.
69. What about the Pure Food and Drug Administration?
There is no authority for this agency under the Constitution. If it is in the national interest to have such an agency it should have been authorized by an amendment. There is already a wide-spread criticism of the arbitrary manner in which this agency has exercised its broad spectrum of power.
70. What about Consumer Protection?
Here again we have an exercise of power unauthorized by the Constitution. Do we really want that much power allocated to the federal level where the agency is so big and powerful that not even the largest corporations are able to cope with its abuses?
71. Is there any authority in the Constitution for the government to set up tax-exempt corporations or business operations to compete with tax-paying citizens?
The answer is no, unless the corporation or business is directly connected with an area of Federal responsibility enumerated in the Constitution. For example, an independent government corporation to provide mail service would be constitutional. However, a corporation set up to compete in the production of electricity, the manufacturing of clothes, or the operating of a chain of public restaurants, would not.
72. How many corporations and businesses does the government operate at the present time which are unauthorized by the constitution?
Around 700 corporations and 11,000 businesses.
73. Are all of these tax-exempt?
Yes. They are not only tax-exempt but most of them are being subsidized out of tax funds because they are not being operated efficiently.
74. Shouldn't all of the states have been admitted to the Union on an equal basis?
Yes. This was set forth by Congress in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
75. Which states were strong-armed into accepting statehood without being admitted on an equal footing?
All of the Western States and Alaska.
76. In what way were they forced to accept statehood unequally?
Large regions of these states were retained by the Federal Government for purposes not authorized by the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.
77. About how much of the land did the Federal Government usually withhold from these states?
The government retained around 50% of the land in most Western States, but 79% of Nevada and 96% of Alaska.
78. Are any of these states attempting to get this land back?
Yes. The press has labelled this effort the "Sagebrush Rebellion," but it is not a rebellion. These states are simply following the legal and Constitutional procedures necessary to have this land turned back to them.
79. Does the Constitution authorize the President and the Secretary of the Interior to lock up large blocks of land within a state as a "wilderness reserve?"
No. This violates the express provisions of the Constitution but was upheld by the Supreme Court on extremely tenuous grounds.
80. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have a national forest within the confines of a state?
No. This is not included in the list of territories which the federal government is allowed to occupy with the consent of the state. (See Article I, Section 8, Clause 17) The Supreme Court had to distort the Constitution to justify it. Historically, the states have had fewer forest fires and have maintained the state forests on a higher level than the national forests.
81. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to have national parks within the confines of a State?
No. For the same reasons as those cited above, the Supreme Court should have disallowed them. It has been observed that as a rule state parks are better maintained and provide better facilities than those operated by the Federal Government.
82. Does the Constitution authorize the government to control, regulate, or inhibit the production of energy resources within a state?
No.
83. What about the widely expanded activities of the Interstate Commerce Commission?
The Founders never intended the "regulation of commerce" to include cartel monopolies, fixing prices, fixing routes, and regulating industries into bankruptcy. The recent deregulation of airlines dramatically demonstrated the advantage of free-market competition over a system of unconstitutional governmental regulations.
84. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to set prices?
Not in time of peace.
85. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to set wages?
Not in time of peace.
86. Does the Constitution authorize the Federal Government to enter into labor-management disputes in the private sector?
No. This area of federal usurpation occurred during the "New Deal" days by completely distorting the original intent of the Commerce Clause.
87. Is there any Constitutional foundation for the extravagant and wasteful expenditures of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare?
No. Each of the agencies under HEW has developed since the Butler Case. The dictum in this case authorized the general welfare clause to be interpreted in a manner which extended government intrusion into areas specifically excluded from federal jurisdiction by the Founders.
88. About how much of the federal budget Is spent each year on these unconstitutional activities?
Around 600 billion dollars in 1996 which is approximately 1/3 of the federal budget.
89. Would it require an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate the Department of HEW?
No. An act of Congress could dismantle this extremely costly department which has probably been more wasteful and nonproductive in its assigned area of activity than any other branch of the government.
90. Why was the Equal Rights Amendment defeated by the states?
In the beginning nearly everyone assumed that this amendment was designed to provide equal rights for women. This supposed objective was widely approved. It was only after 30 states had ratified this amendment that it was realized that the simple wording of this amendment would actually destroy a broad spectrum of rights which American women already have, such as the common law right as well as the statutory right to be supported, along with their children, by their husbands. ERA would not only have destroyed this right but also eliminated many rights relating to employment, maternity leave, insurance and survival rights which are presently provided by law.
91. Do you believe that people's morals will affect their ability to enjoy freedom and liberty under the constitution?
Benjamin Franklin said: " Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
John Adams was equally explicit: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Samuel Adams added a final warning: "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."
92. Does the Supreme Court have authority to hear cases involving moral issues such as abortion?
No. The original Constitution allowed the federal courts to hear only eleven kinds of cases, clearly outlined in Article III.
93. Is federal funding of abortion a violation of the Constitution?
Yes. The specific and limited authority granted to the Federal Government does not include any funding for abortions.
94. Was the United States taken off the gold and silver standard in violation of the Constitution?
Yes. The gold standard is written into the Constitution (Article I, Section 10, Clause 1) and was removed by several acts of Congress without an amendment to the Constitution between 1934 and 1964. From the Founding Fathers standpoint this whole procedure was illegal.
95. Is it Constitutional for federal funds to be used in the financing of local schools?
No. The Founding Fathers warned against the funding of schools by the Congress. In fact, education in the U.S. has seriously deteriorated since federal funding began. James Madison equated the Federal funding of schools as extremely dangerous and said it was almost as bad as funding and controlling the churches of the nation.
96. Should the members of state and educational associations be required by law to pay dues to the National Educational Association?
No. The NEA is a private lobby with an annual budget of nearly $60 million dollars. It succeeded in getting the states to pass a law requiring the educators in state associations to pay dues to the NEA. These laws should be repealed. Teachers find themselves compelled to pay dues to this private organization which often advocates policies that are inimical to the best interests of American education.
97. Should stockholders be required to pay income taxes on their dividends when the corporation has already been subject to a corporate tax?
No. The stockholders are the owners of the company. They have already paid around 48% tax on the company's earnings. The residue should be distributed among the stockholders as funds on which the required tax has already been paid.
98. Should the Federal Government pass laws providing for the control of guns?
No. The Founders left gun control under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state. They felt it was extremely dangerous to allow the federal government to "infringe" on the right to bear arms even in the slightest degree.
99. Should the Seventeenth Amendment be repealed?
The Founders would undoubtedly say yes. They set up a House of Representatives to represent the people and set up a Senate to represent the individual states. Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures and were the watchdogs of states rights. The Seventeenth Amendment took away the authority of the state legislatures to appoint senators. and therefore required senatorial candidates to appeal to the people in a popular election. This resulted in the senators frequently ignoring states rights in an effort to get more money for their states just as congressmen do. States' rights have been seriously deteriorating since the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted in 1913. It destroyed an important element of balance which the Founders built into the Constitution.
100. Should the Bureau of Land Management be abolished?
Yes. This bureau has been rapidly phasing out the traditional grazing rights of ranchers and setting up impossible regulations on land which should have been turned over to the states when they were admitted into the Union.
101. Can you find out how the government spends its money?
Yes. A complete breakdown of government spending is published each year by the Government Printing Office. This is required by the Constitution.
Now, as nearly as we can ascertain from the writings of the Founding Fathers, this is about the way they would have answered each of these 101 questions. We have also tried to reflect the line of reasoning which their writings portray when similar questions were raised in their own day.
It is believed their point of view deserves careful consideration in view of the rather calamitous consequences which modern Americans have encountered as a result of following a different line of thinking. The socialist or collectivist formula has not worked for Americans; nor any one else for that matter.
It is believed this generation of Americans could earn the eternal gratitude of their descendants if they would immediately undertake to restore the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.
Gee, I don't know... piss you off?
So,what is the real answer? Why did you post this to news, when it isn't " news " and what did you hope would result by your posting this ?
What are you, the friggin' Thought Police?
And by the way, there's no "space" preceding a question mark.
I agree. I'd add that the problems with SS and 90% of our other problems are caused by the legislature just passing laws, instead of presenting an amendment that allows, defines, and limits the powers of the legislative act. The discussion of issues on the scale of Constitutional Amendment brings the good minds out and draws public attention to the powers being granted.
I asked a simple question, which didn't merit the kind of poszt you wrote to me.
Give her *nopardons*, her own handle begs it, and her rudeness deserves it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.