Posted on 12/05/2001 4:53:56 AM PST by Starmaker
Exactly where in the Constitution did you find that? As I stated, originally the Senate was to negotiate and make treaties, but before the Constitutional Convention ended, it was changed to say the President negotiates with the advise and consent of the Senate.
Left in its pure originally ratified form and intent, today the President would be negotiating treaties, but keeping the Senate informed at every step, asking if various amendments and wording would be a good idea, and accepting new wording. Consent would then be a given because the treaty would have been brought up to the Senate's liking in the first place.
However, through various precedents and Supreme Court rulings the role of the Senate has been legally reduced to that of yeah/nay with after-the-fact amendments. Given the progression, I can see the Supreme Court upholding Fast Track.
I'm not arguing whether Fast Track is a good thing or not -- it could be evil incarnate. What I am arguing is its Constitutionality.
If we're talking trade agreements, the ability of Congress to delegate any of its international commerce powers to the President has been upheld by the Supreme Court several times.
This is the same argument as from the IRS propaganda-for-kids page, and it's flawed.
Your average billionaire probably won't be buying that $30,000 car -- he'll be buying a $150,000 car or a $50,000,000 jet. How much tax did you pay on your ~$80,000 home? How much did BillG pay on his $65,000,000+ home? His property taxes alone for the first year were close to $600,000.
On a more down-to-earth level, I believe the IRS used the example both rich and poor taxed the same on a cheap tire. Poor average guy, he paid a bigger percentage of his income on taxes when buying that tire. However the truth is that the average guy will buy a $50 tire for his Neon, but the Porsche driver will be paying over $300 for a Pirelli PZero that will last for half as many miles.
The sales tax may or may not be great for the economy depending on what economic school you're in: it'll encourage saving and discourage spending.
TJ, Are you crazy? But for discussion sake, the reason that the head tax is the worst form of taxation ever devised is because government {made up of relatively wealthy people} decides what it will spend taxpayer's money for. Including the renumeration provided to those who make up the government. As they raise taxes, they also raise their own pay to compensate for their losses. As they do this, the poorest, who had to pay the same amount and still do, become unable to pay. And, the taxman cometh regardless. It has been the reason for heroic "robbing hoods" for time imememorial, and the chaos that ensues.
"Now you are back to the envy/fairness issue. Very liberal George."
How does the stating of simple fact make me "liberal" or "envious"? I NEVER intimated that there was anything wrong with what what those facts are. I only stated that the wealthy use more of government's creations than do the poor.
I'm not entirely clear on what your dreams are other than your recurring theme that some people "owe" more for living in that constitutional republic than others.
Okay, just for the sake of arguement, I will say that people "owe" to the government depending on the value of what the government protects from "assault" by thieves and the like. You might say that your private army might be cheaper, but then so would a lot of other people's, and we end up with the feudal fiefdoms of yore, and the chaos that entailed.
As I wrote earlier, there is NO such thing as a "fair" tax! But, as I have written also, a flat tax based on income with no deductions and/or exemptions would be the most equitable form of taxation. Allowing for equal opportunity to succeed or fail due to competence. I can understand "old money" being rabidly opposed to such an idea, and in favor of a head tax which has nothing at all to do with competence. By the way, the tax based on enumeration was not to be used unless the government had to pay off debt. There probably was a reason for that. Peace and love, George.
Q, You need to remember that there is a difference between treaties and "ordinary run of the mill" laws. The problem is that DG, and others want to reverse the duties of the presidency and Congress in the making of LAWS, not treaties. It is an effort to parlaimentarianize the U.S. of A. form of representative constitutional government. If they were making these "agreements" as "treaties", there would be no constitutional question. But they are NOT! We should maybe ask, "WHY NOT??" Peace and love, George.
That is utterly false. I never said that, and I don't believe it.
Here's the problem, George. Words have meanings. The Constitution is actually a very short document, but that doesn't mean it is a simple document.
You believe that you understand every word of it and its meaning, but, no offense, you are wrong.
One hundred people can look at the same words or clause and each come to a different conclusion as to what it means, or how it should be applied.
Take for example the Fourth Amendment. It protects us against unreasonable searches, right? Does the Constitution define what "unreasonable" is?
That is but one example.
You can crap all over those people who have pored over Supreme Court opinions, The Federalist Papers, and legal treatises dealing with the language of the Constitution, the underlying principles involved, and its potential application to new situations, but they might just understand the Constitution better than you.
I can read Gray's Anatomy, but that doesn't make me a physician.
Q, Which is exactly why it is a bad system. Tax systems should NOT be used to further some socialist agenda over another. Peace and love, George.
Not at all. You simply ignore the principle that the law must be applied to the facts. That requires legal reasoning.
Sometimes it's obvious. Other times you have to reach back and make a determination of what the law was intended to accomplish.
Much of the law isn't in a text. It isn't in a statute. It's called Common Law, and much of our legal system is based on it.
There may be many reasons to despise lawyers, but you shouldn't base it upon a misunderstanding of what Law actually is.
The problem is that any tax will by its nature influence the people to spend or save their money one way or another. Even if an agenda isn't being advanced (fairness is an agenda too), one will be felt.
DG, Exactly WHAT is "false" about that statement?? Consider the words "like", and "{HIGHLY educated}" in your analysis. I am not "crapping" on the people you mention. If they {whoever they are} "interpreted" the words in the Constitution to mean other than what the writers intent was, they crapped upon themselves. IMHO, the "federalists" were a bunch of centralized government and possibly even Monarchist oriented folks. I personally am a RABID anti-federalist. Along the order of Thomas Jefferson, who won the Presidency against the Federalists. In fact, President Clinton defined "federalism" for modern times by executive order. I used to get a real kick out of the Federalist web site that had a picture of Thomas Jefferson proudly on their main page. Peace and love, George.
Basically, look at this, especially the part that reads:
"...1928 case in which the Court, speaking through Chief Justice Taft, upheld congressional delegation to the President of the authority to set tariff rates that would equalize production costs in the United States and competing countries."Setting tariff rates is specifically granted to Congress in the Constitution ("Duties, Imposts and Excises"), yet it is allowed to be delegated to the President.
The clause granting the power of tariff to Congress is only a couple above the commerce clause. The other two items in the commerce clause besides foreign governments (states and indians) have been delegated already to some extent in the form of the Interstate Commerce Commission (now Department of Transportation) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Q, But you're wrong. A true flat tax based on income, from whatever source derived, with no deductions, and/or exemptions does not do that. It gives equal economic opportunity to all. The income tax codes of today are written with "fairness" in mind with the graduated aspect, and with social engineering in mind through the deduction and exemptions allowed. A true flat tax would put an end to that. In Maryland today, more than one third of "income" is not taxed {The numbers are in the billions} due to deductions and exemptions given by politicians on any given day to those who ask and/or demand "fairness". Meanwhile, those who pay taxes on the remaining two thirds must pay a higher rate of taxation in order to make up for the "loss" of revenue due to deductions and exemptions. Make ALL pay the same rate on income from whatever source derived. Why for instance, should millions {billions?} of dollars of income made by interest and/or stock dividends not be taxed at the same rate as the income of a ditchdigger? No deductions and/or exemptions. Peace and love, George.
Q, That is exactly why the idea of 9 politically appointed bureaucrats sitting on the supreme court should NOT be allowed to "interpret" the words of the Constitution to fit their particular whims at any given time in history. Taft, and his coherts should have been impeached by Congress THEN!! It would have at least awakened people {including judges} of the dangers involved in allowing the current Supreme Court to make such un-Constitutional rulings. Because, now there is "case law" {not law at all, but the opinion of those 9 justices serving at the point in time the ruling was made}. So, we now have judges rulings having the color and force {that's guns} of law without legitimacy {unconstitutional}. Should that be allowed? Suppose 5 of those nine happen to be pure evil, at any given time, or can be persuaded to evil easily in order to not "appear" to be "patriotic" in the current philosophy of the day. This is NOT good. Peace and love, George.
I must be, I exhibit one of the classic symtoms. "Thinking that doing the same thing that has been tried before and failed, when tried again will produce a different outcome".
That is, that after talking to you and observing that you have absolutely no chance of rational thinking on this issue, I have continued to engage you in the conversation.
You aren't capable , IMO, of getting past your "politics of envy" in any way that would allow clear thought on the subject.
But I know you won't be mad at me Georgie, because you love me, right? LOL
Peacey weasy to youe tooy Georgie porgie. :-)
Unfortunately, that's our system. But from the embarassing Dred Scott case to Brown v. Board of Education, it's the same court.
There's a huge amount of law around the concept of judicial review, so I'll only skim. While it isn't expressly granted in the Constitution, the practice has existed in the judicial system since before the U.S., and was an assumed power by the FFs who have written on the subject.
Judicial review comes in part from the idea the it's the court's job to decide on the operation of laws when two laws conflict -- interpreting laws, which is what judges do. Thus:
If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents." (Marshall)If the Supreme Court did not have this power, then Congress could pass quite unconstitutional laws at its pleasure. Imagine that Congress authorized a secret panel that could try you in absentia for any made up crime and order you shot on the street at next opportunity. What's to stop them from violating the Constitution in this way if they felt they could get away with it?
Good reading. This statement has been entered into the Congressional Record.
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.