Posted on 12/05/2001 4:53:56 AM PST by Starmaker
E2, LOL again! In this case, Congress {if they give "G" Fast Track authority} has given over to politically appointed bureaucrats their constitutionalally appointed DUTY!! It may happen despite my efforts as you say, but I SHALL continue to opose this giving over power, legitimately {under the law} mandated to Congress, to small groups of politically appointed bureaucrats. Sorry. Peace and love, George.
Congress does not micromanage the nation's affairs. It delegates it to agencies it creates. It retains oversight of these agencies, but it becomes the Executive Branch's constitutional obligation to enforce those laws enacted by Congress.
What the Commerce Department is doing is following those instructions. That includes negotiating trade agreements.
You need to separate your objection to trade agreements from a philosophic and economic standpoint from that of a constitutional objection. The latter, no matter what you think about the wisdom of such agreements, has no merit.
Don't give it another thought, he must have said it with "peace and love" so it doesn't count as an insult. :-)
Guys, What IS "oversight" when Congress can't even debate the issues on the floors of the house, much less amend these, according to it's proponents, necessary "free" trade agreements?? Keep bumping the thread. Thanks! Peace and love, George.
Can Congress constitutionally set its own rules regarding debate?
TJ, Yes. IMHO, The best is what the U.S. of A. Constitution requires between the states of the union. No tariffs allowed. But, Our Constitution uses less than two paragraphs to accomplish that. THAT is free trade, as well as fair trade. The politically appointed bureaucrats making today's "free" trade authors use thousands and thousands of pages of rules and regulations given the color and force {that's guns} of law WITHOUT LEGITIMACY to CONTROL trade with and between godgov's favored nations and select {licensed} traders. NOTHING is free in these "free" trade agreements, made up by politically appointed bureaucrats, that they want to give {Actually withold until after the vote} to Congress for an up or down vote. In other words, these agreements must not be able to stand the light of day even among those who make up "the best government money can buy". NO FAST TRACK!!!! Peace and love, George.
DG, In this case, I would say NO! Because, for one branch of government in collusion with another branch of government to transfer to each other powers mandated to each branch respectvely by the Constitution would nullify the law as written. Unconstitutional. I would welcome constitutional arguements that show that powers mandated to one branch can be abdicated to another branch of government, and vice versa. Peace and love, George.
We pretty much agree on that, but the constitution gives the government the right to charge tariffs in order to raise the money needed to operate the federal government. I would favor a return to only the constitutional powers of the government which could easily be funded by a small, consistent (same for all parties) tariff which would enable us to eliminate the income tax. (which the founders specifically forbade)
Just my opinion.
Your argument is a little absurd. Congress could negotiate the treaty the same way the executive branch does: through the appointment of a trade commissioner.
Your expansionist view of the commerce clause is precisely the path followed by an expansionist court to destroy the concepts of separation of powers, federalism, and federal powers that are limited, express and enumerated.
The practical danger of your expansionist view of the constitution is illustrated by Clinton who used the Commerce Department and trade negotiations as a cash for trade deal with the Chinese.
My experience as a lawyer who has actually read the side agreements on NAFTA together with the WTO agreements and Bush Sr.'s Rio Declaration is that few people have any idea what the agreements contain. Are you aware, for example, that NAFTA and the WTO agreement embrace the Rio Declaration with its radial environmental positions such as "sustainable agriculture"?
Trade agreements have serious, long-term consequences for this nation and ought to be subjected to the lense of public debate and scrutiny. The process should be transparent, not one of "fast track" as is presently the case.
TJ, You and a LOT of other folks like this idea and/or a national sales tax. But, the problem as I see it is that the tax on any given item IS "the same for all parties". This makes the tax burden on a $1.00 candy bar the same for me as for Perot and Gates. It also makes the tax burden on a $30,000 dollar car the same for me as Perot and Gates, making just the taxes alone prohibitive from me acquiring the car. Let alone the price of the car. IMHO, A true flat tax based on income with NO exemptions and/or deductions {except possibly the first ten thousand from ALL taxpayers equally} would be the fairest and most equitable form of taxation.
Along with getting rid of paying godgov rent on that which we already own in the form of property taxes, and all other taxes would allow for the equal opportunity of movement up and/or down the economic ladder based on competence and initiative alone {with a little luck either way}. Allowing for rich sluggards to become paupers and energetic poor folks to become rich with equal opportunity. Just my dream. Peace and love, George.
The idea for the tariff belongs to the founders, not me. The idea of a "flat" tariff, being the same for all countries, belongs to me although I'm sure I'm not the originator of it. It removes mischief from the government activities.
The idea for a national sales tax to replace an income tax belongs to others, not me. I never advocated it. The relative merits of that proposal are for debate on a different thread.
The idea that a direct tax on individuals was bad and was to be avoided belongs to the founders also. They were correct in my opinion. The income tax and it's attendant problems and government intrusion was one of the single worst policies to be foisted on the american people.
But, the problem as I see it is that the tax on any given item IS "the same for all parties". This makes the tax burden on a $1.00 candy bar the same for me as for Perot and Gates. It also makes the tax burden on a $30,000 dollar car the same for me as Perot and Gates,
Gee George, it sounds like you are trying to make the case for the graduated income tax even though you just proposed a flat tax. That particular evil idea is the construct of communists, it can be found in their manifesto. Envy is a terrible thing George.
A true flat tax on individuals would take the total cost of government and devide it by the number of citizens and send them all a bill.
Thanks for the bump as always friend.
(2)A true flat tax on individuals would take the total cost of government and devide it by the number of citizens and send them all a bill."
-------------------------
TJ, Nah. #1, I wrote a "true flat tax based on income", and that is indeed what I meant. IMHO, the Graduated aspect of our income tax is 10% of the problem with our current income tax. It used to be worse. At one time, if I made $10,000, I would pay something like $3,000 in taxes. But, if I happened to make $100,000 in the same given year, the tax bite became levied at 90% on anything above a certain amount. Something like $3,000 dollars if I remember right. So, I would have been severely punished for working hard and/or being lucky enough to make that $100,000. I figured by the time I payed federal, state, and local taxes, I would have to take out a loan to survive. Even a dumy like me can see that that don't make no sense. I am NOT envious of other people's wealth, nor am I anti-wealth. I would in fact like to be filthy rich. But, I ain't got the heart to take other people's money in order to be so.
The other 90% of the problem with our present income tax is deductions and exemptions that actually make a mockery of the graduated aspect of the income tax. Ross Perot for example paid something like 3.5 million in taxes one year on income of 60 million at a "32%" bracket rate. While I still paid approximately one-third of my income for income taxes {local, state and federal}. President Clinton paid something like $25,000 on income of $250,000 the same year in the same income bracket. Had to be deductions and exemptions that afforded them this break. With a legitimate flat tax, the amount would be somewhere between 10-15% I figure.
And #2, is a "head tax" or tax based on "enumeration" that is mentioned in the Constitution, and, IMHO, the worst form of taxation ever devised. Folks in East Baltimore would be responsible for the same amount per family head as in Martha's Vineyard. Nah. I still say that both the tax proposals {Dick Armey's "flat income tax, and The other guy's national sales tax} on the board are written by wealthy men for wealthy men and their money handlers and designed to keep them that way despite their level of competence. While at the same time making sure that the middle class pays the brunt of the burden and essentially getting rid of the middle class and leaving US with lower and upper classes with no ladder in between. I've been called everything ranging from socialist down for advocating this {as I see it most equitable form of taxation. Ain't NO tax system "fair"} true flat tax based on income. But, I still dream. Peace and love, George.
devide= divide
Note to self,,,spell check catches typos.
My argument isn't based on the Commerce Clause at all. And I have to laugh at those that say that Congress could appoint someone to do the negotiation for them.
They already did. It's called the Commerce Department.
Unless you or anyone else here is prepared to argue that Congress cannot create agencies to carry out the laws which it has enacted, then you have no argument.
Please explain why you have that opinion.
Folks in East Baltimore would be responsible for the same amount per family head as in Martha's Vineyard.
So what? Why is that a problem?
Everyone should receive the same exact sevices (defence of our rights) and pay the exact amount as everyone else. What precisely makes that "the worst" form of taxation ever devised.
BTW, thanks a ton for explaining to me the effects of the graduated tax, I never could figure that out. < /sarcasm>
No such constitutional argument can be successfully made. But what you have failed to do is to convince me (or the courts for that matter) that an internal rule adopted by Congress limiting the number of amendments which members may propose to a particular bill is an abdication of power to the Executive Branch.
Congress makes such rules all the time.
Congress cuts off debate by rule on every single bill it considers.
If they didn't do so, no bill would ever pass except by unanimous consent because opponents would simply keep introducing amendments to bills.
This whole discussion is a straw man issue. You oppose any trade agreement.
That's the real issue, and to use a phony issue about the Constitution is an insult to the Constitution itself.
Sound Constitutional to you?
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.