What to cut: The Federal Budget

[Bern80]

If that were the case then they could have skipped all the enumerated stuff. They didnt.

The powers of Congress were framed to be ambiguous, and it wasn't by accident.

Except the list that follows the clause is rather UNambiguous. It's quite specific.

 

[Bern80]

Another possible way to cut the federal budget would be the introduction of some type of balanced budget ammendment. Instead of politicizing over what programs will or won't be cut, simply introduce into a law a rule that government may not spend more than X (however that may defined).

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

If that were the case then they could have skipped all the enumerated stuff. They didnt.

The powers of Congress were framed to be ambiguous, and it wasn't by accident.

Except the list that follows the clause is rather UNambiguous. It's quite specific.

Huh? The powers of Congress are set forth in a number of clauses.

 

[Bern80]

The powers of Congress were framed to be ambiguous, and it wasn't by accident.

Except the list that follows the clause is rather UNambiguous. It's quite specific.

Huh? The powers of Congress are set forth in a number of clauses.

Um no. The powers of the legislative branch are pretty much all in article one.

I don't find the document ambiguous at all. I don't know if you've been duped by the living document crowd into thinking it is or not. I don't know if people think there supposed to find something between the lines or what, but my belief is that framers intended for the citizens to understand the powers their government had and for that power to be limited which doesn't leave a lot room for ambiguity.

 

[KissMy]

Cut all government employee salaries in half since they make double what the private sector makes. If those assholes have a problem with the cuts & want to quit then send them packing. There are plenty of unemployed ready & willing to replace them.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Except the list that follows the clause is rather UNambiguous. It's quite specific.

Huh? The powers of Congress are set forth in a number of clauses.

The powers of the legislative branch are pretty much all in article one.

Yep. They are set forth in a number of clauses in Article One Section Eight.

I don't find the document ambiguous at all.

It's well established that the Powers of Congress can, and have been, reasonably interpreted by reasonable men to mean different things.

I don't know if you've been duped by the living document crowd into thinking it is or not. I don't know if people think there supposed to find something between the lines or what, but my belief is that framers intended for the citizens to understand the powers their government had and for that power to be limited which doesn't leave a lot room for ambiguity.

What rules of construction, if any, do you use to guide your efforts to interpret the Constitution to ensure that your construction is fair, objective and just?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Cut all government employee salaries in half since they make double what the private sector makes.

You lie.

 

[KissMy]

Cut all government employee salaries in half since they make double what the private sector makes.

You lie.

NO! You are the lier! You POS government worker. Its time to STFU!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

[Samson]

Can you not change the subject when the answer to the question undermines your case?

I didn't change the subject. You said I should look at what happened after the Dems took control of congress. I asked which bills were passed after the Dems took congress that led to the deepest post-war recession starting in December of 2007?

And while you're at it, which legislation after dems took office in January 2007 caused the housing market to begin to crash in May of 2006?

But now I remember our previous discussions, and I have no doubt you'll just duck,weave and namecall instead of facing facts.

You're changing the subject. What happened to the economy between 2001 and 2006?

What is the most effective Red Herring:

1. Actually changing the subject?
2. Arguing about changing the subject?

The thread is about cutting the federal budget. We could be in the greatest economy in the history of the USA, and cutting the federal budget would still be a relevant topic.

And, unfortunately for Rabbi, its not a partisan thread: The Cato Institue criticises the Greatest Republican Statesman of our time, House Minority Leader John Boehner:

called for reducing non-security discretionary spending to 2008 levels. Unfortunately, this category represents a relatively small portion of the overall federal budget, and would only be about $100 billion less than what the president wants to spend.

Although $100 billion is a lot of money, it’s puny in comparison to the nearly $4 trillion the government will spend next year. As the Washington Times notes, Boehner’s proposal ignores the biggest items in the federal budget:

Still, Mr. Boehner would leave a lot of spending - entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, as well as defense, homeland security and veterans funding - untouched, which means Congress would have the near-impossible task of squeezing $100 billion in savings out of the rest of the budget.

Fuckin' Boehner is nothing but Dem-Lite.

 

[KissMy]

Deer Valley, Arizona is littered with new office space that has been vacant since being built. Our stupid, stupid, stupid Federal Government is now paying for a new 200,000 office building to be built among the other hundreds of vacant industrial parks, office & retail space

 

[Samson]

Deer Valley, Arizona is littered with new office space that has been vacant since being built. Our stupid, stupid, stupid Federal Government is now paying for a new 200,000 office building to be built among the other hundreds of vacant industrial parks, office & retail space

John McCain must be rolling in his grave!!!

 

[Bern80]

Yep. They are set forth in a number of clauses in Article One Section Eight.

And you find that section ambiguous?

It's well established that the Powers of Congress can, and have been, reasonably interpreted by reasonable men to mean different things.

Yes it has. The question is did it happen because the document was just too ambiguous to understand or because politicians and/or the courts were less honest in their interpretations of it, or in some cases just plain ignored? For example, even though it clearly doesn't mean this, even by Hamilton's admission, some people think the general welfare clause actually means government can do whatever it deems to be in the general welfare.

What rules of construction, if any, do you use to guide your efforts to interpret the Constitution to ensure that your construction is fair, objective and just?

I don't know that there are rules of construction per se. I may not be clear on what you're asking. Are you asking what rules should be used in interpretating it or what rules should be used to write it? But we can look at historical documents like the federalist papers or the speeches of Hamilton mentioned to derive intent. I think you invoke a little common sense and historical perspective. We know people came here to flee overly powerful, tyrannical governments. We know that in creating this country that is something the framers wanted to avoid. America was meant to be a country of the people so it makes little common sense that they intended for clauses in the constitution to be interpreted such that they give the central government and abundance of power over people's lives.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Yep. They are set forth in a number of clauses in Article One Section Eight.

And you find that section ambiguous?

I find much of it ambiguous.

some people think the general welfare clause actually means government can do whatever it deems to be in the general welfare.

How exactly did they arrive at that conclusion?

I don't know that there are rules of construction per se.

In 1788, there were well established common law rules of constriction that applied to constitutions and statutes. The official and unofficial documents generated in the process of making the Constitution contain many references to rules of construction.

But we can look at historical documents like the federalist papers or the speeches of Hamilton mentioned to derive intent.

We could just apply the well established common law rules of construction. There is no evidence whatsoever that the men who participated in framing and giving legal effect to the Constitution believed their intent would be ascertained by looking at historical documents like the federalist papers or the speeches of Hamilton. However, there is an abundance of evidence that they took for granted that the established common law rules of construction would be applied to the Constitution.

I think you invoke a little common sense

Most words are ambiguous, in the sense that they have more than one meaning. What common sense rules of construction should we apply to decide which particular signification of a word should be assigned to a word in the Constitution?

We know people came here to flee overly powerful, tyrannical governments.

Name one man who participated in the making of the Constitution who also came here to flee an overly powerful tyrannical government.

 

[Bern80]

Yep. They are set forth in a number of clauses in Article One Section Eight.

And you find that section ambiguous?

I find much of it ambiguous.

How exactly did they arrive at that conclusion?

In 1788, there were well established common law rules of constriction that applied to constitutions and statutes. The official and unofficial documents generated in the process of making the Constitution contain many references to rules of construction.

We could just apply the well established common law rules of construction. There is no evidence whatsoever that the men who participated in framing and giving legal effect to the Constitution believed their intent would be ascertained by looking at historical documents like the federalist papers or the speeches of Hamilton. However, there is an abundance of evidence that they took for granted that the established common law rules of construction would be applied to the Constitution.

I think you invoke a little common sense

Most words are ambiguous, in the sense that they have more than one meaning. What common sense rules of construction should we apply to decide which particular signification of a word should be assigned to a word in the Constitution?

We know people came here to flee overly powerful, tyrannical governments.

Name one man who participated in the making of the Constitution who also came here to flee an overly powerful tyrannical government.

I suggest we try a little experiment then. Here is the first part of Article 1 Section 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;

What exactly do you find ambiguous here?

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

And you find that section ambiguous?

I find much of it ambiguous.

How exactly did they arrive at that conclusion?

In 1788, there were well established common law rules of constriction that applied to constitutions and statutes. The official and unofficial documents generated in the process of making the Constitution contain many references to rules of construction.

We could just apply the well established common law rules of construction. There is no evidence whatsoever that the men who participated in framing and giving legal effect to the Constitution believed their intent would be ascertained by looking at historical documents like the federalist papers or the speeches of Hamilton. However, there is an abundance of evidence that they took for granted that the established common law rules of construction would be applied to the Constitution.

Most words are ambiguous, in the sense that they have more than one meaning. What common sense rules of construction should we apply to decide which particular signification of a word should be assigned to a word in the Constitution?

Name one man who participated in the making of the Constitution who also came here to flee an overly powerful tyrannical government.

I suggest we try a little experiment then. Here is the first part of Article 1 Section 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;

What exactly do you find ambiguous here?

What rules of interpretation do you want me to use?

 

[The Rabbi]

What rules of interpretation do you want me to use?

 

[Steve Hanson]

Deer Valley, Arizona is littered with new office space that has been vacant since being built. Our stupid, stupid, stupid Federal Government is now paying for a new 200,000 office building to be built among the other hundreds of vacant industrial parks, office & retail space

Same shit in our area. There is no governor on government. It motors on full throttle. I really believe we need some private oversite on government. What it costs would more than pay for itself in savings.

 

[Steve Hanson]

What rules of interpretation do you want me to use?

Good old Harry is trying to bundle more of his pets in military budget bills. What a snake.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

This provision appears to establish three objectives and a means of achieving them.

The first object is payment of debt incurred by the United States. The second object is to provide for the common defense of the U. S. The third is to provide for the general welfare of the U. S.

The means to achieving the three objectives is the power of Congressional to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.

Are you familiar with the dispute regarding whether the General Convention in Philadelphia had authority to recommend a completely new frame of government; And Madison's argument, in one of the Federalist Papers, that the means may be expanded to enable accomplishment of the object?

 

[The Rabbi]

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

This provision appears to establish three objectives and a means of achieving them.

The first object is payment of debt incurred by the United States. The second object is to provide for the common defense of the U. S. The third is to provide for the general welfare of the U. S.

The means to achieving the three objectives is the power of Congressional to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.

Are you familiar with the dispute regarding whether the General Convention in Philadelphia had the authority to recommend and completely new frame of government, and Madison's argument, in one of the Federalist Papers, that the means may be expanded to enable accomplishment of the object?

Wow. Bern80 is just owning you. You can't even answer a simple question.