Romney versus Obama: Who's Closer to the Constitution?

[longknife]

2012 Presidential Race -

By Douglas V. Gibbs @ Political Pistachio: 2012 Presidential Race - Romney versus Obama: Who's Closer to the Constitution?

The United States Constitution is the basis of my political stance on the issues. Therefore, when trying to decide who to vote for, the first piece of criteria for me is simply: Which candidate's platform is closest to that document? I understand that none of the candidates are going to come as close as I do when it comes to understanding the Constitution. Perfection is not possible.

That said, when it comes to determining who to vote for in regards to the United States Presidency, the decision is actually quite easy.

A couple years ago I was waiting at a tire shop for my car and struck a conversation with a gentleman that was waiting with me. The political discussion was about the coming mid-term election, and during the conversation I pulled out a couple of Pocket Constitutions and began going over a couple things with my lobby-mate.

Nearby, a woman listened intently to our conversation. She remained quiet during most of the way through the discussion until finally she could not wait anymore. "Excuse me," she said.

I acknowledged her with eye contact, and she said, "Since you are a Constitution guy, then you must be very excited that President Obama is a Constitutional Scholar."

"Ma'am," I responded, "I don't think he is a Constitutional Scholar."

"Sure he is," she said. "He taught classes on the Constitution, and everything."

"A squirrel can call itself a rabbit all it wants, but that doesn't make it a rabbit."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary




Forum copyright policy, to be found HERE, prohibits posting of pieces in their entirety.

~Oddball

 

[Avorysuds]

Umm, neither are?

 

[g5000]

There are Pocket Constitutional scholars right here on the forum who do not know what "equal protection of the laws" means.

Memorizing it and knowing what it means are two entirely different things.



.

 

[Wry Catcher]

2012 Presidential Race -

By Douglas V. Gibbs @ Political Pistachio: 2012 Presidential Race - Romney versus Obama: Who's Closer to the Constitution?

The United States Constitution is the basis of my political stance on the issues. Therefore, when trying to decide who to vote for, the first piece of criteria for me is simply: Which candidate's platform is closest to that document? I understand that none of the candidates are going to come as close as I do when it comes to understanding the Constitution. Perfection is not possible.

LOL, our Constitution isn't clear in many respects and I suspect that was the intent. You claim perfection in understanding it? Tell me then, what limits are there to the Second Amendment? Please define for me "arms" as used by the signers.

That said, when it comes to determining who to vote for in regards to the United States Presidency, the decision is actually quite easy.

A couple years ago I was waiting at a tire shop for my car and struck a conversation with a gentleman that was waiting with me. The political discussion was about the coming mid-term election, and during the conversation I pulled out a couple of Pocket Constitutions and began going over a couple things with my lobby-mate.

Nearby, a woman listened intently to our conversation. She remained quiet during most of the way through the discussion until finally she could not wait anymore. "Excuse me," she said.

I acknowledged her with eye contact, and she said, "Since you are a Constitution guy, then you must be very excited that President Obama is a Constitutional Scholar."

"Ma'am," I responded, "I don't think he is a Constitutional Scholar."

"Sure he is," she said. "He taught classes on the Constitution, and everything."

"A squirrel can call itself a rabbit all it wants, but that doesn't make it a rabbit."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary




Forum copyright policy, to be found HERE, prohibits posting of pieces in their entirety.

~Oddball

I await your response.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do you mean the Constitution as it currently stands on the issues?

Or what?

 

[Oddball]

Umm, neither are?

^^^
This.

Oboingo and Vinnie Vitalis aren't even on the same continent, when it comes to following the model of the republic as set forth in the Constitution.

 

[g5000]

Romney versus Obama: Who's Closer to the Constitution?

False premise. Without a specific issue mentioned, the question implies only one is always closer to the Constitution on all matters, and the other one always is not.

Name an issue and where each one stands on it.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are Pocket Constitutional scholars right here on the forum who do not know what "equal protection of the laws" means.

Memorizing it and knowing what it means are two entirely different things.



.

What do you think it means?

 

[g5000]

There are Pocket Constitutional scholars right here on the forum who do not know what "equal protection of the laws" means.

Memorizing it and knowing what it means are two entirely different things.



.

What do you think it means?

Very simple. If the federal government creates a law, everyone must be equally protected by it.

So, for example, if the federal government creates a candy distribution benefit, no one can be excluded from receiving the candy benefit just because they are part of a group hated by another group.

If some bigoted Pocket Constitutional scholar comes along and says, "Show me where a right to free candy is in the Constitution" to justify denying candy to a group they hate, which they frequently do, they would be demonstrating their vast ignorance of the Constitution.


.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Romney versus Obama: Who's Closer to the Constitution?

False premise. Without a specific issue mentioned, the question implies only one is always closer to the Constitution on all matters, and the other one always is not.

Name an issue and where each one stands on it.

.

No it doesn't, it implies that one is closer more often than the other. Only an idiot would try to turn a commutation of conditionals into a false dichotomy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are Pocket Constitutional scholars right here on the forum who do not know what "equal protection of the laws" means.

Memorizing it and knowing what it means are two entirely different things.



.

What do you think it means?

Very simple. If the federal government creates a law, everyone must be equally protected by it.

So, for example, if the federal government creates a candy distribution benefit, no one can be excluded from receiving the candy benefit just because they are part of a group hated by another group.

If some Pocket Constitutional scholar comes along and says, "Show me where a right to free candy is in the Constitution" to justify denying candy to a group they hate, which they frequently do, they would be demonstrating their vast ignorance of the Constitution.


.

Really?

Can you explain graduated income tax under that theory?

 

[g5000]

Romney versus Obama: Who's Closer to the Constitution?

False premise. Without a specific issue mentioned, the question implies only one is always closer to the Constitution on all matters, and the other one always is not.

Name an issue and where each one stands on it.

.

No it doesn't, it implies that one is closer more often than the other. Only an idiot would try to turn a commutation of conditionals into a false dichotomy.

Unless specific examples are shown and proven, it is an ipse dixit fallacy to claim either one is "closer to the Constitution".

.

 

[g5000]

What do you think it means?

Very simple. If the federal government creates a law, everyone must be equally protected by it.

So, for example, if the federal government creates a candy distribution benefit, no one can be excluded from receiving the candy benefit just because they are part of a group hated by another group.

If some Pocket Constitutional scholar comes along and says, "Show me where a right to free candy is in the Constitution" to justify denying candy to a group they hate, which they frequently do, they would be demonstrating their vast ignorance of the Constitution.


.

Really?

Can you explain graduated income tax under that theory?

Easy peasy. Everyone who earns the same pay you do is taxed the same amount as you. The federal government cannot give you a higher tax rate for an irrational reason, such as you being left-handed or a vegetarian or black or gay, etc., etc., etc.

If you qualify for them, you get to take the same deductions as everyone else. You cannot be denied the mortgage interest rate deduction if you paid mortgage interest.



.

 

[martybegan]

Very simple. If the federal government creates a law, everyone must be equally protected by it.

So, for example, if the federal government creates a candy distribution benefit, no one can be excluded from receiving the candy benefit just because they are part of a group hated by another group.

If some Pocket Constitutional scholar comes along and says, "Show me where a right to free candy is in the Constitution" to justify denying candy to a group they hate, which they frequently do, they would be demonstrating their vast ignorance of the Constitution.


.

Really?

Can you explain graduated income tax under that theory?

Easy peasy. Everyone who earns the same pay you do is taxed the same amount as you. The federal government cannot give you a higher tax rate for an irrational reason, such as you being left-handed or a vegetarian or black or gay, etc., etc., etc.

If you qualify for them, you get to take the same deductions as everyone else. You cannot be denied the mortgage interest rate deduction if you paid mortgage interest.



.

Nice try, tough guy. Equal protection would be paying the SAME amount of taxes. Since when is your income a discrimitory factor in deciding equal protection?

 

[g5000]

Really?

Can you explain graduated income tax under that theory?

Easy peasy. Everyone who earns the same pay you do is taxed the same amount as you. The federal government cannot give you a higher tax rate for an irrational reason, such as you being left-handed or a vegetarian or black or gay, etc., etc., etc.

If you qualify for them, you get to take the same deductions as everyone else. You cannot be denied the mortgage interest rate deduction if you paid mortgage interest.



.

Nice try, tough guy. Equal protection would be paying the SAME amount of taxes. Since when is your income a discrimitory factor in deciding equal protection?

"Equal protection of the law" means protection against irrational discrimination.

Progressive taxation is not irrational discrimination. Quite the opposite.

No less a personage than Thomas Jefferson himself argued for progressive taxation, as did other Founders.

So, for example, if the law set the tax rate at 90 percent, a poor person would have no money upon which to live after paying their taxes. However, a high income earner making many millions of dollars a year would have more than enough to survive on even at a 90 percent tax rate.

Therefore, it can be shown that a 90 percent tax rate on a poor person is extremely discriminatory.

.

 

[Ravi]

Really?

Can you explain graduated income tax under that theory?

Easy peasy. Everyone who earns the same pay you do is taxed the same amount as you. The federal government cannot give you a higher tax rate for an irrational reason, such as you being left-handed or a vegetarian or black or gay, etc., etc., etc.

If you qualify for them, you get to take the same deductions as everyone else. You cannot be denied the mortgage interest rate deduction if you paid mortgage interest.



.

Nice try, tough guy. Equal protection would be paying the SAME amount of taxes. Since when is your income a discrimitory factor in deciding equal protection?

Everyone pays the same amount of taxes on the first $10,000 dollars they earn as an employee.

Everyone pays the same amount of taxes on the first $1,000,000 dollars they earn as an employee.

There is no inequality in the progressive tax code.

You could argue that deductions are unfairly given to some and not others, but the basic tax rate is the same for any employed person.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

False premise. Without a specific issue mentioned, the question implies only one is always closer to the Constitution on all matters, and the other one always is not.

Name an issue and where each one stands on it.

.

No it doesn't, it implies that one is closer more often than the other. Only an idiot would try to turn a commutation of conditionals into a false dichotomy.

Unless specific examples are shown and proven, it is an ipse dixit fallacy to claim either one is "closer to the Constitution".

.

The problem with that absurd argument is that the blog the OP quoted actually provides a specific example. That makes you wrong, doesn't it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Very simple. If the federal government creates a law, everyone must be equally protected by it.

So, for example, if the federal government creates a candy distribution benefit, no one can be excluded from receiving the candy benefit just because they are part of a group hated by another group.

If some Pocket Constitutional scholar comes along and says, "Show me where a right to free candy is in the Constitution" to justify denying candy to a group they hate, which they frequently do, they would be demonstrating their vast ignorance of the Constitution.


.

Really?

Can you explain graduated income tax under that theory?

Easy peasy. Everyone who earns the same pay you do is taxed the same amount as you. The federal government cannot give you a higher tax rate for an irrational reason, such as you being left-handed or a vegetarian or black or gay, etc., etc., etc.

If you qualify for them, you get to take the same deductions as everyone else. You cannot be denied the mortgage interest rate deduction if you paid mortgage interest.



.

They can give me a higher tax rate based on my marital status though, can't they?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Easy peasy. Everyone who earns the same pay you do is taxed the same amount as you. The federal government cannot give you a higher tax rate for an irrational reason, such as you being left-handed or a vegetarian or black or gay, etc., etc., etc.

If you qualify for them, you get to take the same deductions as everyone else. You cannot be denied the mortgage interest rate deduction if you paid mortgage interest.



.

Nice try, tough guy. Equal protection would be paying the SAME amount of taxes. Since when is your income a discrimitory factor in deciding equal protection?

"Equal protection of the law" means protection against irrational discrimination.

Progressive taxation is not irrational discrimination. Quite the opposite.

No less a personage than Thomas Jefferson himself argued for progressive taxation, as did other Founders.

So, for example, if the law set the tax rate at 90 percent, a poor person would have no money upon which to live after paying their taxes. However, a high income earner making many millions of dollars a year would have more than enough to survive on even at a 90 percent tax rate.

Therefore, it can be shown that a 90 percent tax rate on a poor person is extremely discriminatory.

.

Not according to SCOTUS because, as written, the 14th Amendment applies only to the states, not the federal government.

By the way, Jefferson argued in favor of a lot of things, including tossing out the constitution and starting over every few years.

 

[g5000]

No it doesn't, it implies that one is closer more often than the other. Only an idiot would try to turn a commutation of conditionals into a false dichotomy.

Unless specific examples are shown and proven, it is an ipse dixit fallacy to claim either one is "closer to the Constitution".

.

The problem with that absurd argument is that the blog the OP quoted actually provides a specific example. That makes you wrong, doesn't it?

He provides an example which is an attempt to cover up the fact that both Obama and Romney believe the government (state or federal) can force you to buy a commercial product.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Obama is right. Which makes Romney right.

So they are equal in that respect.

The blogger then says there is a list "a mile long" of other examples, but provides none. If they are as weak as his mandate one, then he has nothing.



.