Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: savagesusie
The problem is that this program was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court under the taxation powers of the 16th amendment, so it is constitutional. We would need to either have the superme court overrule their previous decision or pass a constitutional amendment barring the government from running a retirement/disability program. Both scenarios being as likely as Hillary admitting she is a criminal.

Sad to say but I think you would get more support for a constitutional amendment allowing the federal government to run such a program than prohibiting it. Of course that is how it should have been done in the first place.

Thanks to the 16th amendment and the Wickard vs Filburn decision there is little the federal government can't do. What we really need is constitutional amendments limiting the commerce clause back to only interstate commerce and limiting the Feds taxation powers.

68 posted on 12/30/2016 10:26:27 AM PST by OIFVeteran
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: OIFVeteran

>
Thanks to the 16th amendment and the Wickard vs Filburn decision there is little the federal government can’t do. What we really need is constitutional amendments limiting the commerce clause back to only interstate commerce and limiting the Feds taxation powers.
>

Like the Con con: let’s re-state what can/cannot be done w/ MORE verbiage, as Fedzilla has ignored the original text and the writings of the time.

Ummm...no thanks.

My $.02, the 16th should be ruled void outright. It, unlike other Amendments, does nothing to ‘over-turn’ other Amendments: 4th, 5th, 13th.

>
The problem is that this program was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court under the taxation powers of the 16th amendment, so it is constitutional
>

Yes, we all know how THAT game is played. Watched a re-run during the O’Care show. Power of taxation was NEVER the question/issue; the *AUTHORITY* of which the taxes are to pay FOR, on the other hand...

>
Sad to say but I think you would get more support for a constitutional amendment allowing the federal government to run such a program than prohibiting it. Of course that is how it should have been done in the first place.
>

Still NOTHING in A1S8 or any other A. stating different.

But, s* in one hand and hope in the other (of a return to a Republic) and see which one fills up first. For a site of ‘stalwart Conservatism’, we have a majority in the thread brain-storming how to keep the damn thing going longer!


76 posted on 12/30/2016 4:30:57 PM PST by i_robot73 ("A man chooses. A slave obeys." - Andrew Ryan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson