Want to cut taxes??

[Micky G. Jagger]

Forcing every male to belong to a militia, and having authority to nationalize those militias certainly wasn't limited government.

I thought limited government meant a government limited to the powers it was granted in a constitution.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Question: How many times was the term "limited government' used at the general convention that framed the U. S. Constitution?

Answer: According the the notes kept by James Madison, the term was never used.

 

[johnrocks]

Your interpretation of these Clauses is so loose that if that were the Founders intent, there would be no need for the Amendment process, hell, a Country in Karl Marx's image could meet such a loose interpretation of "General Welfare" and Hitler himself could embrace such a loose interpretation of "Common Defense", the Constitution was more restrictive than that,, it limited the power of the Federal government, it limited the power of the Executive and it sought checks and balances for a reason and we've gotten away from all that;imho;now, if 50% plus one supports something, it seems to be given the Constitutional seal of approval by most.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Your interpretation of these Clauses is so loose that if that were the Founders intent, there would be no need for the Amendment process, hell, a Country in Karl Marx's image could meet such a loose interpretation of "General Welfare" and Hitler himself could embrace such a loose interpretation of "Common Defense", the Constitution was more restrictive than that,, it limited the power of the Federal government, it limited the power of the Executive and it sought checks and balances for a reason and we've gotten away from all that;imho;now, if 50% plus one supports something, it seems to be given the Constitutional seal of approval by most.

The First U. S. Congress interpreted the Constitution so loosely that it was construed to vest advisory authority over religion in the President.

 

[johnrocks]

Your interpretation of these Clauses is so loose that if that were the Founders intent, there would be no need for the Amendment process, hell, a Country in Karl Marx's image could meet such a loose interpretation of "General Welfare" and Hitler himself could embrace such a loose interpretation of "Common Defense", the Constitution was more restrictive than that,, it limited the power of the Federal government, it limited the power of the Executive and it sought checks and balances for a reason and we've gotten away from all that;imho;now, if 50% plus one supports something, it seems to be given the Constitutional seal of approval by most.

The First U. S. Congress interpreted the Constitution so loosely that it was construed to vest advisory authority over religion in the President.

Like I heard Judge Napolitano say a while back, the Constitution started getting ignored and violated before the ink was dry or something like that


I would think that there would have to be parameters or what need is there in a Constitution if things are so broadly interpreted?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Your interpretation of these Clauses is so loose

Nope, you're wrong.

My interpretation isn't loose at all. It was obtained by a fair and objective application of the well established common law rules of construction, as they stood in 1788.

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

--Blackstone (1776)​

The usual and most know signification of "general" was "Comprehending many species or individuals." The usual and most know signification of "welfare" was "happiness."

Therefore, "general welfare" means "happiness of many individuals." Thus, Congress has power to tax and spend to provide for the "happiness of many individuals" of the United States.

It appears Congress has the power to tax and spend on anything it believes will make many individuals happy.

 

[johnrocks]

Your interpretation of these Clauses is so loose

Nope, you're wrong.

My interpretation isn't loose at all. It was obtained by a fair and objective application of the well established common law rules of construction, as they stood in 1788.

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

--Blackstone (1776)​

The usual and most know signification of "general" was "Comprehending many species or individuals." The usual and most know signification of "welfare" was "happiness."

Therefore, "general welfare" means "happiness of many individuals." Thus, Congress has power to tax and spend to provide for the "happiness of many individuals" of the United States.

It appears Congress has the power to tax and spend on anything it believes will make many individuals happy.

There were debates looming back then just like now, there were the Jeffersonian s and Hamiltonian s then like there are liberals and conservatives now debating on the size and scope of government , us bickering back and forth screeching "your wrong" is an opinion, the Hamiltonian s; have been winning the debate since at least the end of the Civil War and ;again; why I rarely debate an issue on it's "constitutionality" and instead focus on things from an economic angle, a philosophy of freedom and liberty,etc. and while that too can be debated, it just seems like a waste of time;for me anyway; to argue based on the Constitution when so many interpret it differently, I do one way, you do another and nothing we say is going to change the other's mind.

 

[saveliberty]

Your interpretation of these Clauses is so loose

Nope, you're wrong.

My interpretation isn't loose at all. It was obtained by a fair and objective application of the well established common law rules of construction, as they stood in 1788.

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

--Blackstone (1776)​

The usual and most know signification of "general" was "Comprehending many species or individuals." The usual and most know signification of "welfare" was "happiness."

Therefore, "general welfare" means "happiness of many individuals." Thus, Congress has power to tax and spend to provide for the "happiness of many individuals" of the United States.

It appears Congress has the power to tax and spend on anything it believes will make many individuals happy.

Your interpretation is retarded. Should you literally take the primary definition in every case, you end up with jibberish. As I demonstrated on several occassions in this thread, your liberal inclinations to substitute words to fit your interpretations are incorrect. Had there been only one author of the Constitution, you might have stood a better chance of forwarding your argument. As it is, you have simply given far more power to the federal goverment than the framers intended.

 

[octupus25]

Lower Taxes? For starters you eliminate the NEA and EPA. Neither is necessary.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Lower Taxes? For starters you eliminate the NEA and EPA. Neither is necessary.

It's not necessary to monitor and regulate air and water quality? Will our wonderful corporations just up and decide that they want to invest in ways to make production more environmentally friendly?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I am for cutting everything on the list, but lets take out military spending first. A complete non-necessity item. Or you might like my idea to take the ability to fund legislation away from Congress & the President, and eliminate the IRS and federal taxes all together.

"Provide for the common defense" is in the Constitution so good luck with eliminating that.

The idea of eliminating the IRS is a great idea but just remember that the last government person to move against large government entities was assassinated for it. No politician has the balls to do it and until the people march on DC with guns, pitchforks and torches it aint gonna' happen.

....And, your corporate-handlers DO appreciate your efforts.....SUCKER!!!!!​

"The billionaires give the activists lots of entertainment to distract them from this reality, especially in the form of sideshows, such as Glenn Beck's travesty at the Lincoln Memorial, designed to fan the flames of racial resentment while making Tea Partiers feel holy about it. At other times, the demonization or infantilization of the nation's first black president serves up the same charge of adrenaline to the fearful, angry throngs who seek to blame their troubles on anyone other than the corporatist manipulators in whom they've placed their trust."

 

[Oddball]

Lower Taxes? For starters you eliminate the NEA and EPA. Neither is necessary.

It's not necessary to monitor and regulate air and water quality? Will our wonderful corporations just up and decide that they want to invest in ways to make production more environmentally friendly?

Every state in the union has a pollution control/environmental protection agency...The federal EPA is an unnecessary and overly expensive redundancy.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Lower Taxes? For starters you eliminate the NEA and EPA. Neither is necessary.

It's not necessary to monitor and regulate air and water quality? Will our wonderful corporations just up and decide that they want to invest in ways to make production more environmentally friendly?

Every state in the union has a pollution control/environmental protection agency...The federal EPA is an unnecessary and overly expensive redundancy.

Yeah, and Louisiana's is bought and paid for by the petrochemical industry, and North Carolina's is owned by the pig farmers, the mining industry owns West Virginia's. Do you actually think it's a good idea to have 57 versions of environmental regulation and law? I remember a few years back that the Bush administration when California wanted automakers to adhere to more stringent standards. What happens to Virginia's and rights when the mining industry pollutes the Shenandoah River?

 

[Oddball]

Oh, and that's supposed to be some kind of evidence that a huge centralized federal agency is above such chicanery?

Come back when you have a real argument.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Oh, and that's supposed to be some kind of evidence that a huge centralized federal agency is above such chicanery?

Come back when you have a real argument.

The argument is that 57 different sets of laws regarding environmental protection is unfeasible in a nation where multinational corporations are the biggest polluters. Sorry, that little states rights dogmatic approach is a joke.

 

[Oddball]

What is unfeasable about making those corporations lobby state-by-state, rather than just centralizing their efforts on K Street?

Moreover, many environmental regs that are make sense in Oregon have no bearing whatsoever in Florida, and vice-versa, so what's the point in paying federal bureaucrats to enforce superfluous, irrelevant, and/or redundant regulations?

 

[johnrocks]

Federal is "bought and paid for too", just look at the PAC money of the politicians.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Your interpretation of these Clauses is so loose

Nope, you're wrong.

My interpretation isn't loose at all. It was obtained by a fair and objective application of the well established common law rules of construction, as they stood in 1788.

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

--Blackstone (1776)​

The usual and most know signification of "general" was "Comprehending many species or individuals." The usual and most know signification of "welfare" was "happiness."

Therefore, "general welfare" means "happiness of many individuals." Thus, Congress has power to tax and spend to provide for the "happiness of many individuals" of the United States.

It appears Congress has the power to tax and spend on anything it believes will make many individuals happy.

Should you literally take the primary definition in every case, you end up with jibberish.

I just follow the rules of construction, dude. If the result is absurd, I apply the rule that says,

As to the effects and consequence, the rule is, that where words bear either none, or a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from the received sense of them. Therefore the Bolognian law, mentioned by Puffendorf, which enacted "that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity," was held after a long debate not to extend to the surgeon, who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street with a fit.
-- Blackstone​

Your liberal inclinations to substitute words to fit your interpretations are incorrect.

Nope, you're wrong.

I follow the rules of construction. You follow your personal views.

Had there been only one author of the Constitution, you might have stood a better chance of forwarding your argument.

My argument that we should follow the rules of construction doesn't depend on the number of lawmakers were involved in making the instrument being interpreted.

As it is, you have simply given far more power to the federal government than the framers intended.

Your conclusion is worthless, dude. You didn't follow the rules of construction.

 

[antagon]

While national offense is certainly bloated beyond belief, I see a whole pile in that green part of the pie that isn't any of the feds' business to start with.

Housing? - Nope.
Health? - Nope.
Edumacation? - Nope.
Community Development? - Hardly.
Agriculture? - Nuh-uh.
Environment? - Not even.
Science and Energy? - Negative.

Like I keep saying and the chart backs up...It's not the taxes, it's the spending.

dude's hypocrisy strikes again. if you're so convinced that the government should not invest in its society, present a flowery picture of life in sri lanka and see if that is any more credible than your criticism of the US.

 

[johnrocks]

Your interpretation of these Clauses is so loose

Nope, you're wrong.

My interpretation isn't loose at all. It was obtained by a fair and objective application of the well established common law rules of construction, as they stood in 1788.

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

--Blackstone (1776)​

The usual and most know signification of "general" was "Comprehending many species or individuals." The usual and most know signification of "welfare" was "happiness."

Therefore, "general welfare" means "happiness of many individuals." Thus, Congress has power to tax and spend to provide for the "happiness of many individuals" of the United States.

It appears Congress has the power to tax and spend on anything it believes will make many individuals happy.

I just looked up some of Blackstone's works, he loved the Monarchy, he wrote "The King is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong: in him there is no folly or weakness."

I'll stick to the words of people like Madison and Jefferson, I'll even disagree WITH respect toward people like Hamilton or Adams but Blackstone....I'll pass, from what little I've read of that failure so far.