If you could start a country right now, what would it look like?

[Avatar4321]

I suppose that it would depend on the people wouldn't it? After all, no state can run without the consent of the governed.

 

[Avatar4321]

In that case, how do you fix the one we have?

Mike

Same way as the last 225 years......

Elect people smarter than me.

Except that after 225 years aren't we getting to the point that it is hard to say that's working well?

Mike

So we just scrap the system that has produced the greatest recorded civilization in history?

Wouldn't the wiser course be to restore the system to where it was the most effective? IE Prior to the progressive changes to the Constitution.

Besides, our Constitution is meant to govern a moral and upright people. Maybe we should start being a moral and upright people before we talk about changing the system. Because I can guarentee you that if we change the system while we are not a moral and upright people, we are not going to have positive results.

 

[Texanmike]

Same way as the last 225 years......

Elect people smarter than me.

Except that after 225 years aren't we getting to the point that it is hard to say that's working well?

Mike

So we just scrap the system that has produced the greatest recorded civilization in history?

Wouldn't the wiser course be to restore the system to where it was the most effective? IE Prior to the progressive changes to the Constitution.

Besides, our Constitution is meant to govern a moral and upright people. Maybe we should start being a moral and upright people before we talk about changing the system. Because I can guarentee you that if we change the system while we are not a moral and upright people, we are not going to have positive results.

Well if you read my proposal, I suggest that we start over with the Constituion as our base but we put safeguards in to prevent it from spiraling out of control again.

I agree the Constitution is man's best attempt at the preservation of liberty to date but that doesn't mean it can't be improved on.

Mike

 

[Immanuel]

Except that after 225 years aren't we getting to the point that it is hard to say that's working well?

Mike

So we just scrap the system that has produced the greatest recorded civilization in history?

Wouldn't the wiser course be to restore the system to where it was the most effective? IE Prior to the progressive changes to the Constitution.

Besides, our Constitution is meant to govern a moral and upright people. Maybe we should start being a moral and upright people before we talk about changing the system. Because I can guarentee you that if we change the system while we are not a moral and upright people, we are not going to have positive results.

Well if you read my proposal, I suggest that we start over with the Constituion as our base but we put safeguards in to prevent it from spiraling out of control again.

I agree the Constitution is man's best attempt at the preservation of liberty to date but that doesn't mean it can't be improved on.

Mike

There are/were safeguards in the Constitution. There are/were people that figured ways around those safeguards. Putting more safeguards in a second Constitution would only lead to other people finding ways around those safeguards.

I, for one, and I know this will get me in trouble with some conservatives, believe that although the Constitution is pretty damned good there is at least some room for explanation (i.e. the right to privacy and how it applies to killing human beings) or improvement, for instance the 16th amendment.

Immie

 

[Texanmike]

So we just scrap the system that has produced the greatest recorded civilization in history?

Wouldn't the wiser course be to restore the system to where it was the most effective? IE Prior to the progressive changes to the Constitution.

Besides, our Constitution is meant to govern a moral and upright people. Maybe we should start being a moral and upright people before we talk about changing the system. Because I can guarentee you that if we change the system while we are not a moral and upright people, we are not going to have positive results.

Well if you read my proposal, I suggest that we start over with the Constituion as our base but we put safeguards in to prevent it from spiraling out of control again.

I agree the Constitution is man's best attempt at the preservation of liberty to date but that doesn't mean it can't be improved on.

Mike

There are/were safeguards in the Constitution. There are/were people that figured ways around those safeguards. Putting more safeguards in a second Constitution would only lead to other people finding ways around those safeguards.

The safeguards didn't work.

I, for one, and I know this will get me in trouble with some conservatives, believe that although the Constitution is pretty damned good there is at least some room for explanation (i.e. the right to privacy and how it applies to killing human beings) or improvement, for instance the 16th amendment.

Immie[/QUOTE]

I agree. I don't like the 16th amendment though. Well I don't mind it if everyone has skin in the game but the system we have now allows people to vote on how to spend everyone else's money.

Mike

 

[Immanuel]

Well if you read my proposal, I suggest that we start over with the Constituion as our base but we put safeguards in to prevent it from spiraling out of control again.

I agree the Constitution is man's best attempt at the preservation of liberty to date but that doesn't mean it can't be improved on.

Mike

There are/were safeguards in the Constitution. There are/were people that figured ways around those safeguards. Putting more safeguards in a second Constitution would only lead to other people finding ways around those safeguards.

The safeguards didn't work.

I, for one, and I know this will get me in trouble with some conservatives, believe that although the Constitution is pretty damned good there is at least some room for explanation (i.e. the right to privacy and how it applies to killing human beings) or improvement, for instance the 16th amendment.

Immie

I agree. I don't like the 16th amendment though. Well I don't mind it if everyone has skin in the game but the system we have now allows people to vote on how to spend everyone else's money.

Mike

The safeguards worked as well as any safeguards man can create worked. They were not infallible nor are they something we should trash and attempt to better. Someone will always find a way around any safeguards we create.

I think maybe you misunderstood what I was saying about the 16th Amendment. I don't like it either. Not that I have a problem with being taxed or taxation. I think the Internal Revenue Code sucks and should be trashed.

Progressive taxation is a complete and utter failure. Time to try either a flat tax or the "Fair Tax".

Immie

 

[Texanmike]

There are/were safeguards in the Constitution. There are/were people that figured ways around those safeguards. Putting more safeguards in a second Constitution would only lead to other people finding ways around those safeguards.

The safeguards didn't work.

I, for one, and I know this will get me in trouble with some conservatives, believe that although the Constitution is pretty damned good there is at least some room for explanation (i.e. the right to privacy and how it applies to killing human beings) or improvement, for instance the 16th amendment.

Immie

I agree. I don't like the 16th amendment though. Well I don't mind it if everyone has skin in the game but the system we have now allows people to vote on how to spend everyone else's money.

Mike

The safeguards worked as well as any safeguards man can create worked. They were not infallible nor are they something we should trash and attempt to better. Someone will always find a way around any safeguards we create.

I think maybe you misunderstood what I was saying about the 16th Amendment. I don't like it either. Not that I have a problem with being taxed or taxation. I think the Internal Revenue Code sucks and should be trashed.

Progressive taxation is a complete and utter failure. Time to try either a flat tax or the "Fair Tax".

Immie

Do you know where progressive taxation comes from or why it exists?

Mike

 

[pinqy]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The argument being made is that somehow the supposed General Welfare clause ( of which there is none) allows the Government via the Congress to do anything at all as long as they just say " it is the general welfare of the Country".

First off it does not say that, secondly Congress KNOWS it does not say that.

Wait, so when you quote the General Welfare clause: "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" you're saying that part doesn't actually exist and doesn't say Congress can provide for the general welfare?

I agree that the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce clause should have been more narrowerly defined and should be more narrowerly observed, but that doesn't make them not exist.

 

[rdean]

At least with liberals, you start out with science, art, culture, humanity, invention, and literature.

With conservatives, you start out with what? Slavery? What else have they accomplished? I can't think of anything. Funny, neither can they.

 

[Immanuel]

The safeguards didn't work.



I agree. I don't like the 16th amendment though. Well I don't mind it if everyone has skin in the game but the system we have now allows people to vote on how to spend everyone else's money.

Mike

The safeguards worked as well as any safeguards man can create worked. They were not infallible nor are they something we should trash and attempt to better. Someone will always find a way around any safeguards we create.

I think maybe you misunderstood what I was saying about the 16th Amendment. I don't like it either. Not that I have a problem with being taxed or taxation. I think the Internal Revenue Code sucks and should be trashed.

Progressive taxation is a complete and utter failure. Time to try either a flat tax or the "Fair Tax".

Immie

Do you know where progressive taxation comes from or why it exists?

Mike

I know why it exists. I can't say as I know where it comes from.

It exists because liberals think that it is fair to punish those who are rich for nothing more than being rich. They think that it is wrong for a rich person to transfer his/her wealth to his/her children.

I also know that by their own words, progressive taxation is an abject failure.

They claim that Progressive Taxation reduces the disparity between the rich and the poor. In the same breath they will tell you that the disparity between the rich and the poor is getting worse.

Doesn't that spell abject failure to you? Maybe it is time to try something different for a change?

Immie

 

[tonystewart1]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The argument being made is that somehow the supposed General Welfare clause ( of which there is none) allows the Government via the Congress to do anything at all as long as they just say " it is the general welfare of the Country".

First off it does not say that, secondly Congress KNOWS it does not say that.

Wait, so when you quote the General Welfare clause: "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" you're saying that part doesn't actually exist and doesn't say Congress can provide for the general welfare?

I agree that the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce clause should have been more narrowerly defined and should be more narrowerly observed, but that doesn't make them not exist.

There really is not a general welfare clause. The part of the constitution that "general welfare" appears in is an introduction to the enumerated powers of congress. Any body who has studied any history knows that what we have today is not what our founding fathers wanted.

They wanted a fed govt with just enough power to perform the limited duties the constituion gave them. The bulk of the power was reserved for the states. Thats why the constituion does not have enumerated powers for the states.

 

[Texanmike]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The argument being made is that somehow the supposed General Welfare clause ( of which there is none) allows the Government via the Congress to do anything at all as long as they just say " it is the general welfare of the Country".

First off it does not say that, secondly Congress KNOWS it does not say that.

Wait, so when you quote the General Welfare clause: "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" you're saying that part doesn't actually exist and doesn't say Congress can provide for the general welfare?

I agree that the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce clause should have been more narrowerly defined and should be more narrowerly observed, but that doesn't make them not exist.

The general welfare clause is not an empowering clause. It is a limiting clause. It is there because Congress is not able to lay and collect taxes excises etc, to build personal bankrolls or, for that matter, to move money from one state to another. It is clear if you observe the structure of article 1 section 8.

If it were a private organization (homeowner's association is a good example) and read something like:

The homeowners association board shall have the power to collect dues, levy fines and penalties to pay for upkeep of the grounds and provide for the general welfare of the community.

In that case the the homeowners association is allowed to collect dues, levy fines and penalties. They cannot do it for just any reason though, they must do it to provide for the upkeep of the grounds and provide for the general welfare of the community. They are limited in the reasons they may collect funds. They cannot collect dues for the purpose of improving their own private property or for the purpose of going on vaction.

There is no authority granted by the "general welfare clause" as many claim.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

The safeguards worked as well as any safeguards man can create worked. They were not infallible nor are they something we should trash and attempt to better. Someone will always find a way around any safeguards we create.

I think maybe you misunderstood what I was saying about the 16th Amendment. I don't like it either. Not that I have a problem with being taxed or taxation. I think the Internal Revenue Code sucks and should be trashed.

Progressive taxation is a complete and utter failure. Time to try either a flat tax or the "Fair Tax".

Immie

Do you know where progressive taxation comes from or why it exists?

Mike

I know why it exists. I can't say as I know where it comes from.

It exists because liberals think that it is fair to punish those who are rich for nothing more than being rich. They think that it is wrong for a rich person to transfer his/her wealth to his/her children.

I also know that by their own words, progressive taxation is an abject failure.

They claim that Progressive Taxation reduces the disparity between the rich and the poor. In the same breath they will tell you that the disparity between the rich and the poor is getting worse.

Doesn't that spell abject failure to you? Maybe it is time to try something different for a change?

Immie

Actually, it comes from the father of modern capitalism himself. Adam smith in the wealth of nations. It was his answer to aristocracies, which he considered a bane of society. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but it's kind of a hot button issue that I hear a lot of conservatives throw out there without knowing the origin.

Take a look at the wealth of nations, its an interesting read and provides insight. I don't think that Smith had the benefit of seeing progressive taxation in practice and I disagree with the effect he proposes it will have. I also think that it was as much a response to regressive taxation as anything. I think that if he saw the way the system he proposed actually worked he would advocate a flat tax, but that's just me.

I have often wonderd why the equal protection argument isn't used to protest progressive taxation.

Mike

 

[Immanuel]

Do you know where progressive taxation comes from or why it exists?

Mike

I know why it exists. I can't say as I know where it comes from.

It exists because liberals think that it is fair to punish those who are rich for nothing more than being rich. They think that it is wrong for a rich person to transfer his/her wealth to his/her children.

I also know that by their own words, progressive taxation is an abject failure.

They claim that Progressive Taxation reduces the disparity between the rich and the poor. In the same breath they will tell you that the disparity between the rich and the poor is getting worse.

Doesn't that spell abject failure to you? Maybe it is time to try something different for a change?

Immie

Actually, it comes from the father of modern capitalism himself. Adam smith in the wealth of nations. It was his answer to aristocracies, which he considered a bane of society. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but it's kind of a hot button issue that I hear a lot of conservatives throw out there without knowing the origin.

Take a look at the wealth of nations, its an interesting read and provides insight. I don't think that Smith had the benefit of seeing progressive taxation in practice and I disagree with the effect he proposes it will have. I also think that it was as much a response to regressive taxation as anything. I think that if he saw the way the system he proposed actually worked he would advocate a flat tax, but that's just me.

I have often wonderd why the equal protection argument isn't used to protest progressive taxation.

Mike

Thanks for the information.

I have never claimed that Adam Smith was right about anything let alone all things.

In a perfect world, I suppose taxation would be fair for everyone and I am not so certain that it is not fair that the rich do pay a higher percentage than the poor; although, I would definitely balk at the idea that this higher percentage be punitive in nature.

However, I believe that if one looks at our current system of taxation, one cannot help but see that it has been a complete failure and will continue to be so.

Immie

 

[pinqy]

There really is not a general welfare clause. The part of the constitution that "general welfare" appears in is an introduction to the enumerated powers of congress. Any body who has studied any history knows that what we have today is not what our founding fathers wanted.

The phrase appears twice in the Constitution. First in the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In the preamble, it clearly sets out general welfare as one of the goals to be accomplished. Next is Article I, Sec 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Note that both "Common Defence" and "General Welfare" are in both the preamble and I-8 as the purpose for the constitution and the enumerated powers.

So the debate becomes, as it was in the beginning and remains, whether the enumerated powers are meant to be a comprehensive list limiting the Fed govt to those specific goals, or as a non-exclusive list of areas. Complicating matters is the fact that even the most ardent of it being a comprehensive and limiting list are fine with both the expansion of the Army beyond the clear intent and with the inclusion of the Air Force, which is certainly not authorized under a strict reading of the enumerated powers.

Personally, I hold that the enumerated powers are not strictly limiting, but that due to the post-Civil War climate and the shift in power to the Fed government over the states, that Congress has gone beyond even the broadest interpretation of intent.

"General Welfare" MUST have a meaning, and there are only two possible meanings:
1. That the purpose of some of the enumerated powers is to enhance the general welfare (through the post office and patent office).
2. That it covers things not specifically mentioned in enumerated powers whose purposes are to be beneficial to the states as a whole beyond the power of the individual states to acheive.

Number 1 doesn't make too much sense (because incllusion of the phrase wouldn't be necessary), and it would also require that "Common Defence" be limited to 2 year appropriations for the Army and the maintenance of the Navy. Border Patrol, Coast Guard, and Air Force would not be allowed by a reading limiting Common Defence to the enumerated powers. And you can't have it both ways: to say the Common Defence encompasses more than the enumerated powers but General Welfare does not.

Healthcare, in my opinion, other than general regulation for inter-state relations, does not meet the requirements for General Welfare in that the states can and should be able to handle health care in their own states.

 

[whitehall]

We enjoy the protection, confort and prosperity of the greatest Country ever seen on God's green earth and some people are still confused about the political debate that has raged for 200 years. The short answer is that only the radical left wants to build a new Country. The right wing wants to preserve the Constitution and the Republic.

 

[Immanuel]

We enjoy the protection, confort and prosperity of the greatest Country ever seen on God's green earth and some people are still confused about the political debate that has raged for 200 years. The short answer is that only the radical left wants to build a new Country. The right wing wants to preserve the Constitution and the Republic.

It is funny because whenever I see people talking about tearing this country apart it saddens me to no end. I love America. I love everything about it including its diversity of political opinion. I hate it when I see conservatives make the statement that California or New York should be booted from the union and not just because I am a native Californian.

However, it was brought to my attention last night, that the man that many are seeking to make America's next Republican President, is the same man that was pushing for Texas to secede last year.

On Tape, Perry Quipped Texans "Thinking About" Secession — 2012 Presidential Election | The Texas Tribune

Immie

 

[Avatar4321]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The argument being made is that somehow the supposed General Welfare clause ( of which there is none) allows the Government via the Congress to do anything at all as long as they just say " it is the general welfare of the Country".

First off it does not say that, secondly Congress KNOWS it does not say that.

Wait, so when you quote the General Welfare clause: "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" you're saying that part doesn't actually exist and doesn't say Congress can provide for the general welfare?

I agree that the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce clause should have been more narrowerly defined and should be more narrowerly observed, but that doesn't make them not exist.

That clause isn't a specific grant of power. It has been narrowly defined. The problem is many want to ignore that narrow definition to include anything they want.

 

[Jarhead]

A lot of naked women running around.

 

[Texanmike]

There really is not a general welfare clause. The part of the constitution that "general welfare" appears in is an introduction to the enumerated powers of congress. Any body who has studied any history knows that what we have today is not what our founding fathers wanted.

The phrase appears twice in the Constitution. First in the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In the preamble, it clearly sets out general welfare as one of the goals to be accomplished. Next is Article I, Sec 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Note that both "Common Defence" and "General Welfare" are in both the preamble and I-8 as the purpose for the constitution and the enumerated powers.

So the debate becomes, as it was in the beginning and remains, whether the enumerated powers are meant to be a comprehensive list limiting the Fed govt to those specific goals, or as a non-exclusive list of areas. Complicating matters is the fact that even the most ardent of it being a comprehensive and limiting list are fine with both the expansion of the Army beyond the clear intent and with the inclusion of the Air Force, which is certainly not authorized under a strict reading of the enumerated powers.

Personally, I hold that the enumerated powers are not strictly limiting, but that due to the post-Civil War climate and the shift in power to the Fed government over the states, that Congress has gone beyond even the broadest interpretation of intent.

"General Welfare" MUST have a meaning, and there are only two possible meanings:
1. That the purpose of some of the enumerated powers is to enhance the general welfare (through the post office and patent office).
2. That it covers things not specifically mentioned in enumerated powers whose purposes are to be beneficial to the states as a whole beyond the power of the individual states to acheive.

Number 1 doesn't make too much sense (because incllusion of the phrase wouldn't be necessary), and it would also require that "Common Defence" be limited to 2 year appropriations for the Army and the maintenance of the Navy. Border Patrol, Coast Guard, and Air Force would not be allowed by a reading limiting Common Defence to the enumerated powers. And you can't have it both ways: to say the Common Defence encompasses more than the enumerated powers but General Welfare does not.

Healthcare, in my opinion, other than general regulation for inter-state relations, does not meet the requirements for General Welfare in that the states can and should be able to handle health care in their own states.

I don't know if you saw my post earlier but I'll give you the short summary. The general welfare clause is a limiting phrase. It is the second part of the first enumerated power "To lay and collect taxes......" and it limits the reason that the federal government can lay and collect taxes. If you look at article 1 Section 8 after the phrase Congress shall have the power there are 18 lines that begin with a capitalized To. Those are the enumerated powers. The general welfare clause falls in a portion of the sentence which clearly limits what the purpose of raising taxes is.

It is the same as saying "congress can tax you to pay the debts, pay for national defense and general welfare of the United States".


Mike