Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
Liberals WROTE the constitution fool. If we left it up to your kind, we would still be a colony.
You are showing an incredible lack of intellectual integrity if you are going to pretend the liberal you are is anything like the liberals then.
It's what defines liberals and conservatives.
Julia Childs spied for Stalin?
Oh..and Conservatives had very little to do with the constitution.
The Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal.
Well except for things like social security, medicare, most of our entitlement programs, federally funded schools, a dispraportionate tax code.....other than things like that, yeah, nothing at all.
Having the power to collect taxes does not give the government the power to use said tax revenue to do whatever they feel like. So no, simply collecting taxes does not allow government to do any of those things. I didn't say collecting taxes was unconstitutional. I said collecting a dispraportionate amount from one group (i.e. the liberal mantra of taxing the rich) over another is.
You are not listening. How much or whom they tax is not the issue. It is WHAT they use the tax money on. And WHAT they can do with said tax revenue is most certainly restricted by the constitution. Specifically in article 1 section 8.
I would agree. But that definition isn't even close to what liberalism is today.
I understand it just fine. I guess I just wasn't aware that it is not possible for judges not render unconstitutional decisions.
It's what defines liberals and conservatives.
conservatives from Jefferson forward have voted against liberal taxes and big government, liberals have done the opposite. Its been in all the papers to the extend that only a blind fool or Rdean could miss it. Sorry
The Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal.
So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
Liberals WROTE the constitution fool. If we left it up to your kind, we would still be a colony.
You are showing an incredible lack of intellectual integrity if you are going to pretend the liberal you are is anything like the liberals then.
Of course they are. Conservatives of today were the confederates of yesterday (many still are).
Liberals of today are like the liberals of yesterday.
Look at scientists. 6% of scientists are Republican. The majority are Democrat. Conservative, liberal. What ever the political party, conservatives have always tried to stop progress, stop science, fight education, fight human rights, everything opposite of liberals. It's what defines liberals and conservatives.
What restrictions?
Congress has very broad powers.
Like government can really only tax for the purpose of funding it's obligations per the constitution like the specific powers and obligations listed in section 8. In other words, if it isn't there, government can't do it.
Ah..so you support getting rid of the Air Force and various military departments. A strict reading of the Constitution does not provide for a professional standing army under federal control either. Only militias and only when needed to repulse land invasions and quell rebellion..and funding to be determined every 2 years. Only the navy is a permanent fixture. By the way it's defense..not a military capable of attack that the Constitution makes provisions for..
So all those overseas military bases..all the funding that goes to various "allies" would be "bye bye".
Along with various "R&D" projects, the CIA, NSA, and lots of other letters in the alphabet.
The enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8, would be a good start.
I see nothing there that outlaws liberalism.
Well except for things like social security, medicare, most of our entitlement programs, federally funded schools, a dispraportionate tax code.....other than things like that, yeah, nothing at all.
Having the power to collect taxes does not give the government the power to use said tax revenue to do whatever they feel like.
Having the power to collect taxes does not give the government the power to use said tax revenue to do whatever they feel like.
Yes, it does, for several reasons.
1) Without the power to spend, the power to tax has no meaning or function.
2) If the power to tax did not, in this specific instance, include the power to spend, there would be no need for the limiting clauses which specify that Congress can levy taxes only to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Levying taxes, in itself, does none of these things; only spending the revenue so gathered can pay debts, provide for the common defense, or provide for the general welfare. The two must go together or the enumerated power makes no sense at all.
These clauses are very broad, but not unlimited; Congress cannot, for example, levy a tax in order to provide every Congresscritter with a vacation home at public expense, as that does not pay any debts nor provide for the common defense or general welfare.
All of the programs you listed, except the income tax, amount to spending public money to provide for the general welfare of the United States, and/or levying taxes to pay for such spending (Social Security is both).
The Supreme Court, as you probably know, backs this view. The first enumerated power is a separate enumerated power. It is not dependent on the remaining ones, which are also separate and independent powers. There is one other enumerated power that is very broad, and that is the power to regulate interstate commerce. Just about everything the government does that conservatives object to is allowed by one or the other of these two clauses, and they were written into the government from the founding.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."
But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
They do have the power to spend. It simply isn't a power to spend on whatever they feel like.
bullshit.....U.S. Constitution Under Siege over Libya, Taxes, Health Care - TIMESo why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?
They do have the power to spend. It simply isn't a power to spend on whatever they feel like.
No, it's the power to spend only to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
I'm aware of Madison's views. However, although he's sometimes called the "Father of the Constitution," he didn't write the document alone. It was a compromise among competing interests and ideas, and Alexander Hamilton -- who was diametrically opposed to Madison on this issue -- had at least as much input into its final form as Madison did.
Here's another bit of evidence, besides common sense and the interpretations by the Supreme Court. It would have been perfectly possible to create a much more limited tax-and-spend power that did precisely what you are saying this one was supposed to do. We find a good example in the Confederate Constitution, which is almost identical to the U.S. Constitution but in which a few passages were rewritten, and this was one of them:
"The Congress shall have the power . . . To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States."
Note that here, we find again an implicit understanding that the power to tax is also the power to spend, but both are limited much more strictly than in the U.S. Constitution. First, the Congress is authorized to tax (and spend) to pay the nation's debts and provide for the common defense, but beyond that only to "carry on the government," to which the most likely interpretation is "do everything else authorized in this document." And second, a specific restriction is applied involving promoting industry.
If the intent of the framers was to empower Congress only to tax and spend sufficiently to carry out the other enumerated powers, that would have been so stated. It was not difficult to put into words, and these were highly literate men, some of whom were accomplished legal draftsmen. That they did not do this means that they did not intend to.
We sometimes forget that the constitutional convention was called not to limit an oppressive government but to strengthen a government that was so weak and inept it could not get the job done. Limitations were placed in the document because it is unthinkable among liberals that government be created without such limitations. They are necessary for the protection of liberty. But the idea was to create a strong government, not a weak one, and the framers included some very powerful empowering language, as well as restraints.
It WAS so stated in the U.S. Constitution. Madison can not be blamed if people like yourself are so uneducated as to not know the purpose of semi-colon is.(as in how it can say the same thing without the need to actually right out the words). That semi-colon is essentially taking the place of the words 'the above are as follows'.
It WAS so stated in the U.S. Constitution. Madison can not be blamed if people like yourself are so uneducated as to not know the purpose of semi-colon is.(as in how it can say the same thing without the need to actually right out the words). That semi-colon is essentially taking the place of the words 'the above are as follows'.
Oh, please. If you were really as well educated as you seem to think you are, you would know that it is the colon, not the semicolon, that means "the above are as follows." A semicolon means nothing of the sort. It simply separates clauses of a sentence that might form a complete sentence in themselves, or items in a list, or major portions of a sentence that are divided internally by commas.
Also, you might have at least observed that every single one of the enumerated powers in Article I Section 8 ends in a semicolon except for the very last one. Are they ALL general powers further subdivided and explained by those below?
is a punctuation mark with several uses. The Italian printer Aldus Manutius the Elder established the practice of using the semicolon to separate words of opposed meaning and to indicate interdependent statements.[1] "The first printed semicolon was the work of ... Aldus Manutius" in 1494.[2] The earliest general use of the semicolon in English was in 1591;[citation needed] Ben Jonson was the first notable English writer to use it systematically. The modern uses of the semicolon relate either to the listing of items or to the linking of related clauses.
A semi-colon is used to link that which comes after it to that which comes after it.
Madison explained it best in what I quoted in stating that if it really is YOUR interpretation this is correct then the enumerated powers shouldn't even be there in the first place. What point is there in being more specific in what government is allowed to spend money on, if all they really have to do is adhere to a broad interpretation of the clause itself?
