Top 10 Federal Government autrocities

[Contumacious]

Gee, I don't know when or where I said that trust government bureaucrats

You did when you said you trust the Federal Government to identify natural rights and gave them the power to force States to comply with their will. That is a huge amount of trust. And they have done nothing over the last 235 years but prove they can and will abuse that power.

bwahahahahaha

so are you the local stand up comedian in Minot?

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

#10: Tax withholdings from paycheck - Hides true cost of government, people should have to actually write a check to know what government costs

Nonsense; anyone wishing to know ‘what the government costs’ may do his own research.

#9: Progressive income tax - Instrument of political power, a tool for politicians to set classes against each other for the same reason Marxists use it.

Un-documented paranoid nonsense.

#8: New London (Supreme Court) - government can confiscate land for it's own interest and not the people's, dramatically undercuts right to property.

Kelo is among the more misunderstood of recent Court cases. The actual meaning of the ruling was lost as both liberals and conservatives contrived their own meanings to serve their respective political agendas.

The case had nothing to do with the ‘little people’ at odds with ‘evil corporate monsters.’ At issue only was the definition of ‘public use,’ and if the City’s development plan met the public use requirement. Indeed, Ms. Kelo was requesting the Court make her case an exception to the established definition:

…this is not a case in which the City is planning to open the condemned land--at least not in its entirety--to use by the general public. Nor will the private lessees of the land in any sense be required to operate like common carriers, making their services available to all comers. But although such a projected use would be sufficient to satisfy the public use requirement, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the general public." Id., at 244. Indeed, while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose." See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 158-164 (1896). Thus, in a case upholding a mining company's use of an aerial bucket line to transport ore over property it did not own, Justice Holmes' opinion for the Court stressed "the inadequacy of use by the general public as a universal test." Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U. S. 527, 531 (1906).9 We have repeatedly and consistently rejected that narrow test ever since.
The majority, therefore, merely followed the precedent established in Fallbrook and rejected the petitioners’ argument for a literal requirement. The petitioners could just as well have been a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation subject to the same eminent domain taking.

Consequently:

The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City's development plan serves a "public purpose." Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field.
So again, the Court acknowledges precedent and accedes to the local jurisdiction’s definition of a public purpose.

With regard to opposition from the right, the irony being the ruling is a victory for local jurisdictions (as opposed to mandates from the Federal level), illustrates the Court’s respect for the legislative process (as opposed to ‘legislating from the bench’), and acknowledges the free market is a better model for economic development (as opposed to government policy).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-108P.ZO

#7: Roe v. Wade - Crown jewel of legislating from Bench and making up rights

Then you’ll need to also add District of Columbia v Heller to your list, where the Court ‘made up’ the right of the individual to possess a firearm.

Didn’t think so.

#6: No Child Gets Ahead - Government not going to be challenged by itself, critical to the success of the other atrocities

No idea what you’re talking about here (not that it makes any difference…).

#5: Direct election of Senators - Killed State rights

You advocate repealing the 17th Amendment simply because you believe it will give the GOP a permanent majority in the Senate; your concern is partisan, having nothing to do with ‘rights,’ state or otherwise.

#4: Elimination of the 9th and 10th Amendments - Constitutional Authority no longer required

Both Amendments remain in effect – that you don’t like how they’ve been interpreted is immaterial. And the Congress does indeed continue to function per Constitutional authority.

#3: Creation of Federal Reserve/Leaving Gold Standard - License to steal from the American People

Oh, brother.

#2: Income Tax/War on Drugs - End of privacy and instrument of unbridled government power, and both come with the assumption of guilt.

Didn’t you say privacy rights were ‘made up’? Or is it as with most on the right, your issue with privacy rights occurs only where abortion is concerned.

And the #1 Federal Government atrocity...

Social Security/Medicare/Obamacare - Make all Americans dependent on government for their basic needs, they got you by the gonads after this, people.

More undocumented ignorance and hysteria.

The first two programs have been ruled as Constitutional, the last is currently under review and its constitutionality is yet to be determined.

You exhibited your ignorance of Constitutional case law in most cases, provided no documentation in support of your positions in all cases, and failed to provide an explanation as to how you’ll rectify each ‘atrocity.’

Consequently your little ‘Top Ten’ list rates a big, giant FAIL.

 

[kaz]

Gee, I don't know when or where I said that trust government bureaucrats

You did when you said you trust the Federal Government to identify natural rights and gave them the power to force States to comply with their will. That is a huge amount of trust. And they have done nothing over the last 235 years but prove they can and will abuse that power.

bwahahahahaha

so are you the local stand up comedian in Minot?

.

The commerce clause was added to protect interstate commerce. The founders didn't want States putting up barriers to trade, like tariffs, internal to the country. The Federal government uses it to restrict trade and to control intr"a"state commerce. If I grow pot in my back yard. It's not interstate commerce, it's not even commerce, it doesn't establish trade. Yet the commerce clause is how the US makes drugs illegal. This week an appeals court ruled that Obamacare can require Bubba who lives in a small town to buy healthcare or get fined by the government. Based on what power? The commerce clause, it's interstate commerce. Dogfighting a federal crime? Intrastate commerce.

Now, you want the Federal government to protect Natural rights. They won't protect them, they will control them and they will go far beyond natural rights. That is obvious if you are paying any attention at all. Wake up Virginia, the Constitution was created for basic functions like defending the American people from foreign invasion, and the Constitution was written to strictly limit government power because of the threat they post to our freedom you are blind to. Using Federal power to protect rights? Please, buy a clue. All history says that you give them power over our bodies they will abuse it to the limit. You are so naive.

 

[Contumacious]

You did when you said you trust the Federal Government to identify natural rights and gave them the power to force States to comply with their will. That is a huge amount of trust. And they have done nothing over the last 235 years but prove they can and will abuse that power.

bwahahahahaha

so are you the local stand up comedian in Minot?

.

The commerce clause was added to protect interstate commerce. The founders didn't want States putting up barriers to trade, like tariffs, internal to the country. The Federal government uses it to restrict trade and to control intr"a"state commerce. If I grow pot in my back yard. It's not interstate commerce, it's not even commerce, it doesn't establish trade. Yet the commerce clause is how the US makes drugs illegal. This week an appeals court ruled that Obamacare can require Bubba who lives in a small town to buy healthcare or get fined by the government. Based on what power? The commerce clause, it's interstate commerce. Dogfighting a federal crime? Intrastate commerce.

Now, you want the Federal government to protect Natural rights. They won't protect them, they will control them and they will go far beyond natural rights. That is obvious if you are paying any attention at all. Wake up Virginia, the Constitution was created for basic functions like defending the American people from foreign invasion, and the Constitution was written to strictly limit government power because of the threat they post to our freedom you are blind to. Using Federal power to protect rights? Please, buy a clue. All history says that you give them power over our bodies they will abuse it to the limit. You are so naive.

You are preaching to the choir.

Happy Fourth.

.

 

[kaz]

bwahahahahaha

so are you the local stand up comedian in Minot?

.

The commerce clause was added to protect interstate commerce. The founders didn't want States putting up barriers to trade, like tariffs, internal to the country. The Federal government uses it to restrict trade and to control intr"a"state commerce. If I grow pot in my back yard. It's not interstate commerce, it's not even commerce, it doesn't establish trade. Yet the commerce clause is how the US makes drugs illegal. This week an appeals court ruled that Obamacare can require Bubba who lives in a small town to buy healthcare or get fined by the government. Based on what power? The commerce clause, it's interstate commerce. Dogfighting a federal crime? Intrastate commerce.

Now, you want the Federal government to protect Natural rights. They won't protect them, they will control them and they will go far beyond natural rights. That is obvious if you are paying any attention at all. Wake up Virginia, the Constitution was created for basic functions like defending the American people from foreign invasion, and the Constitution was written to strictly limit government power because of the threat they post to our freedom you are blind to. Using Federal power to protect rights? Please, buy a clue. All history says that you give them power over our bodies they will abuse it to the limit. You are so naive.

You are preaching to the choir.

Happy Fourth.

.

I'm preaching to the choir? How does that make sense? My whole point was that handing government the job of protecting "natural rights" is going to be used as a tool to endlessly restrict and violate our natural rights. If you were the choir, you'd get that and never advocate it. Natural rights are best protected regarding the Federal government by keeping the Federal government out of it. It's like putting a child molester in charge of protecting children. No matter what logical argument you can build, they don't want to protect children's rights and that's why they won't.

 

[KissMy]

Government negligence & incompetence is what destroyed the economy. Government gives a false sense of security that allows criminals to prey upon its citizens who have let down their guard trusting in the security of their government.

How many criminals has the SEC jailed over the past 10 years? How many in the last 20 years? - The answer is 1.

Now - How many high priced government employees does the SEC have with fat ass pensions for life? The answer is 3,748 costing us $1.4 Billion a year or $376,000 per employee per year.

Are you getting your monies worth? Hell No!!! Not unless you are Bernie Madoff.

 

[ShackledNation]

I agree with that list although I think you should have included something about the abolition of Congress's authority to declare war.