|
TomCB
|
|
You sir (Imran Siddiqui) , are truly amazing
1) Most parts of the Constitution are anything but vague. I know you like to ignore words that clash with your "logic" but sorry, you can't.
Take the 10th amendment for instance.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
This is very clear.
It states that unless the Constitution gives the federal government the power, or denies that power from the states, that power belongs to the states or to the people.
The Constitution is replete with powers of the respective branches.
Those powers are the limit of each branch, not a starting point.
There is no other way you can read this honestly.
Just checking, anyone care to point out where the power to create a federally run retirement plan is written.........
And don’t even drag out the “general welfare” clause. Under that argument, the rest of the Constitution can be ignored at the whim of the reader.
Thought so.
BTW, my "reading" of the Constitution is hardly unique. As a matter of fact, I had a conversation with law professor (ok, we were both drinking at the party, so our conversation was, ah, different) and all he had to say about the 10th amendment was that it was never brought before the Supreme Court and therefore could not be considered.
I think it is time to have it “considered”.
2) Only cases brought to the supreme court (appealed to) can be decided by the supreme court.
My point of collusion is simply that both parties like the system. It allows them to dole out money to their respective donors. They stay in power and we all get screwed.
It takes a huge amount of money and time to drag a case through the courts, and then the Supreme court still has to decide that it will hear it or let the lower courts ruling stand.
MAYBE a few people can amass the wealth required for that, but I would wager no one on these boards.
Back when Microsoft was beating the feds in court, I used to hear people get upset that Mr. Gates is so rich that he can fight "city hall".
I informed those people that I was more upset that it took a man of such wealth to fight "city hall".
Try reading what I wrote this time.
I never said anything about the Supreme court limiting itself. I said that the Supreme court is not being giving the option of ruling on cases that would limit government.
3) Sounds like you have a tax fetish. Ok. I’ll play. The Constitution already gave The Congress the power to "lay and collect" taxes.
The 16th Amendment just allows incomes to be taxed as well. An amendment was required because no where in the Constitution does it even suggest that incomes could be taxed, although other things, like
"... duties, imposts and excises..." are clearly allowed.
You may want to look at amendments 13, 15, 19, 23, 24 and 26, where the phrase "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Is added. This was required because the Constitution does not otherwise bestow such enforcement powers upon the Congress.
So, the whole tax thing is Constitutional, even if it harms exactly those people that create wealth in this country.
4) You must be hoping that people do not look up your claims and just take them for granted. The link (I just checked) was regarding Succession and had nothing that I could find about the Dept of Defense)
5) Actually, I am an economist.
Loose fiscal policy is spending without regards to debt level, and tight is not spending, it is as in "tight with the purse strings", so, your statement speaks volume about YOUR understanding or economics.
BUT AGAIN, you show that you do not know how to comprehend what is written in front to you.
What I said was that the Congress gave away it's obligation to control the value of money, leaving tax and spending policy as the only ways to impact the system.
You are wrong on so many levels I found it hard to follow you, so I will just explain how each group effects the currency.
The Federal Reserve can lower or raise interest rates.
Raising is done to make borrowing money more expensive and should lower inflation since less currency should be entering the system.
Inflation being the increase of money in circulation, making each dollar (or whatever) less valuable.
Read about the hyper inflation scores of countries have experienced in the last century.
Lowering the interest rates makes money cheaper to borrow, which should in turn put more into the system, which can cause inflation since there would be more of it.
However, it about the only way to stimulate the economy, other than MASSIVE tax cuts.
BTW, other than the tax cuts in the 80’s, we have not scene MASSIVE tax cuts.
And those tax cuts increased revenue to the fed government 3 fold. It was the doubling of non military spending that caused the huge increase in debts.
Even the total military budgets did not equal the increase debt level.
NOW, Congress can raise taxes, but this would not remove money from circulation, it would just change who was spending it, just like lowering taxes leaves it in the private sector for private use.
That is the extent of Congress ability to influence the system, when in fact, they are Constitutionally obligated to have total control over the value of money.
The recession we are currently going through is a prime example.
The Fed raised interest rates, making money more expensive to borrow, thus lowering private investment, and causing the slow down in the economy.
NOW, why would anyone do that?
Well, there was a HUGE amount of paper wealth being created in the markets. If this "fake" wealth was removed and put somewhere else too quickly, it could have caused MASSIVE inflation.
So the Fed, by raising interest rates, lowered the amount of currency in the system but at a huge cost in jobs (because of the economic slowdown) prevented the chance of a sharp increase in inflation.
Was inflation going to increase? No one knows, and since it takes 6-18 months before a Fed move to have impact, we will never know.
NOW, back to Congress.
Should the economy grow enough to absorb any increase in currency, then there should not be inflation (under our current system), and that is where taxes come in.
Lowering taxes increases the size of the economy since the money goes into private investment and increases private net worth.
However, cut taxes too much, or don't cut spending, and you risk debt. The more debt, the more money the Congress must borrow, leaving less for the private sector, again, without causing inflation anyway.
As far as exports are concerned.
Less valuable “dollars” makes foreign goods more expensive, and a stronger (or more valuable) “dollar” makes exports cost more on the other end.
BTW. If you ever buy a house, get your mortgage when the market is in the toilet.
When not going into the market the money is going into either precious metals, or bonds, and bonds provide the money for.......mortgages.
If more money is going into bonds, the rate of return is lower, and that is good for long term borrowers.
6) Executive Agencies. The whole orders thing is exactly what is wrong with them. They create rules that have the force of law. When in fact they themselves are not Constitutionally legal creatures.
Notice, I am not saying that the EVIL IRS in illegal.
I am saying that the Congress had NO legal authority to just create it.
A Constitutional amendment was required.
This was done.
Now it needs to be done with EVERY agency.
I am sure most would not be tolerated by “the several states” in their current form.
(Heavy Sigh)
The founders called it a living document because it could be changed and added on to, not because anyone can decide what they want it to say.
Also, because each Supreme court can interpret it as that generation thinks it should be. That is also why the Supreme court gets half of each year off, so that they can "walk among us".
You should read your history a bit more. Didn't you know that Abraham Lincoln did not go to law school and even today in Texas you don't have to even pass the bar or go to law school in order to represent a client in court.
You should make a fine lawyer.
You already have the arrogance that you know better than anyone because you have actually walked into a law school.
Tell me, did they teach you to ignore words you don't like in law school, or did you learn that before?
I have noticed that you stop fighting a point after I point this out and that word ruins your "argument".
I was also surprised by your “attack” on liberals. I have a communist friend that also ignores words that don’t agree with him and just stops debating a point when he has clearly lost.
My sincerest apologies for thinking you were of similar thinking as my friend.
|
14-01-2003 07:33
The SUPREME COURT has decided to limit itself! No one has worked in collusion with anyone to keep the judicial branch out of the mix. The SCOTUS ruled to strictly apply the 'Cases and Controversy' measure.
.
|
|