Free-Market Capitalism never loses?

[Lagboltz]

I already answered the constitutional position. Here's one more specific to the morality of it.

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. " -Thomas Jefferson

It's sinful and tyrannical.

Thomas Jefferson was from a wealthy family. It doesn't surprise me that he would say that. I am from the middle class. Me and my 90% of the US population don't think much of monetary moral philosophy that comes from the wealthy.

 

[Andy]

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which disallows the right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” - Lagboltz 2008.

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

The constitution was not written as a list of "DO NOT"s that if not listed there, meant congress can do anything.

Instead, the constitution was written as a list of "DO"s. Thus, if something was listed, meant federal government had the right and duty to do them. Automatically, if any issue or item was not listed in the constitution, it was assumed the federal government did NOT have the right to do them.

This is what it meant when is said in the 10th Amendment "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."

Stated plainly, federal government does not have the right to do it, if the constitution does not say specifically that it does have the right to do it.

 

[Andy]

Thomas Jefferson was from a wealthy family. It doesn't surprise me that he would say that. I am from the middle class. Me and my 90% of the US population don't think much of monetary moral philosophy that comes from the wealthy.

What you are saying, is that you don't care what the constitution says. Don't be surprised when your rights are violated by the very people you elect. Also, don't be surprised when the country flushes down the drain. When you don't respect the principals and morals that made America great, then it will become a garbage can. Nearly every dictator in history, came to power this exact way. Evil men allowing others to trample them in the name of 'greedy rich' and so on.

It's so funny to read some of Hitler's first speeches and see the parallel to what I hear in the news today.

 

[Lagboltz]

This is what it meant when is said in the 10th Amendment "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."

Stated plainly, federal government does not have the right to do it, if the constitution does not say specifically that it does have the right to do it.

The 16th amendment says that Congress has the right to tax. Furthermore the phrase that says "without apportionment" was interpreted by the Supreme court (in the Brushaber case) to mean Progressive taxation was allowed.

 

[Lagboltz]

What you are saying, is that you don't care what the constitution says. Don't be surprised when your rights are violated by the very people you elect. Also, don't be surprised when the country flushes down the drain. When you don't respect the principals and morals that made America great, then it will become a garbage can. Nearly every dictator in history, came to power this exact way. Evil men allowing others to trample them in the name of 'greedy rich' and so on.

It's so funny to read some of Hitler's first speeches and see the parallel to what I hear in the news today.

I do respect the constitution. What I am disagreeing with is your interpretation of it. Jefferson lived in a different era, and the supreme court has the power to decide how the constitution applies to today's life.

 

[Andy]

The 16th amendment says that Congress has the right to tax. Furthermore the phrase that says "without apportionment" was interpreted by the Supreme court (in the Brushaber case) to mean Progressive taxation was allowed.

I understand this. I submit it's against what the founding fathers of our country believed. I support the constitution as it was intended, not as it has been twisted into being. I'm not suggesting, that under the current situation it is illegal to have a progressive tax. I'm suggesting that it should be illegal.

The idea what one man should be unequally taxed over another, is morally wrong. Sinful and tyrannical. But hey, socialism is great. Let's embrace it more.

 

[Lagboltz]

I understand this. I submit it's against what the founding fathers of our country believed. I support the constitution as it was intended, not as it has been twisted into being. I'm not suggesting, that under the current situation it is illegal to have a progressive tax. I'm suggesting that it should be illegal.

The idea what one man should be unequally taxed over another, is morally wrong. Sinful and tyrannical. But hey, socialism is great. Let's embrace it more.

The founding fathers lived at the birth of the country. The demographics now are completely different than they were over 200 years ago. What they said back then was great wisdom for their time, but it is hard to imagine how that great wisdom applies to today

 

[Andy]

I do respect the constitution. What I am disagreeing with is your interpretation of it. Jefferson lived in a different era, and the supreme court has the power to decide how the constitution applies to today's life.

I'm reading it. Not "interpreting" it. Let's READ it again together.

"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."

No, actually the court does not. It's assumed that power, but that was not it's original purpose. Just like the Florida Supreme Court tried to "interpret" what the law meant when it said the vote must be certified within seven days of the election.

 

[Andy]

The founding fathers lived at the birth of the country. The demographics now are completely different than they were over 200 years ago. What they said back then was great wisdom for their time, but it is hard to imagine how that great wisdom applies to today

Well it's funny how all the problems the founding fathers crafted the constitution to avoid, have all sprung up now that we have gotten away from it. It's also funny how all the problems common to other countries who did it differently, have all occurred here, now that we're following their path.

Rome is a perfect example. We're doing exactly what they did... and shockingly, we're have the same results! Amazing.

So, you can claim oh... it would not work if we still followed the founding fathers... but yet there are other countries doing things the way the founding fathers would advocated... and they are doing much better than we are. Strange huh? Not so strange to me.

 

[Lagboltz]

I'm reading it. Not "interpreting" it. Let's READ it again together.

"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."

No, actually the court does not. It's assumed that power, but that was not it's original purpose. Just like the Florida Supreme Court tried to "interpret" what the law meant when it said the vote must be certified within seven days of the election.

OK. You (we) are reading it. You or I can interpret it, but not in a legally binding way. Only the courts can interpret what the words mean. And, that is what I will abide by. The quote you give refers to state rights. I am talking about federal taxation, and that was clearly spelled out.

I'm not sure if we are connecting. You seem to be saying that the Supreme Court does not have the power to interpret constitutional law.

 

[Lagboltz]

Well it's funny how all the problems the founding fathers crafted the constitution to avoid, have all sprung up now that we have gotten away from it. It's also funny how all the problems common to other countries who did it differently, have all occurred here, now that we're following their path.

Rome is a perfect example. We're doing exactly what they did... and shockingly, we're have the same results! Amazing.

So, you can claim oh... it would not work if we still followed the founding fathers... but yet there are other countries doing things the way the founding fathers would advocated... and they are doing much better than we are. Strange huh? Not so strange to me.

I'm not saying we are or should change the constitution, I am saying that we definitely are following the constitution. It is just the interpretation that is evolving to meet the ever changing society America is now, compared to the rural society it was back at the constitution's inception.

 

[GenSeneca]

You seem to be saying that the Supreme Court does not have the power to interpret constitutional law.

They do not have the power to "interpret" or decide the intent of the laws that have been written, their only function is to uphold, or overturn, the laws that have been written as they were written.

I am saying that we definitely are following the constitution.

Not as its written...

It is just the interpretation that is evolving to meet the ever changing society America is now, compared to the rural society it was back at the constitution's inception.

I hear this same thing all the time.... its not something you picked up by reading our founders words on the subject though... so where did you come to understand that as being the case??

If the constitution can be interpreted and re-interpreted at will, rather than followed as written, the document is totally worthless and completely subject to the whims of whomever is in the seat of power.

 

[Lagboltz]

They do not have the power to "interpret" or decide the intent of the laws that have been written, their only function is to uphold, or overturn, the laws that have been written as they were written....etc.

I think we must have a different interpretation of the word "interpret".
The Supreme court has interpreted countless cases regarding the Constitution. Everyone is familiar with Roe vs. Wade, a ruling on the meaning of the 14th Amendment. The Miranda ruling interprets the meaning of the 5th Amendment. There are countless decisions regarding the interpretation of the 1st amendment.

If you wish to substitute the word "meaning" for the word "interpret" I would abide by that, but the word, "interpret" is commonly used in the context of constitutional law.

 

[Andy]

OK. You (we) are reading it. You or I can interpret it, but not in a legally binding way. Only the courts can interpret what the words mean. And, that is what I will abide by. The quote you give refers to state rights. I am talking about federal taxation, and that was clearly spelled out.

I'm not sure if we are connecting. You seem to be saying that the Supreme Court does not have the power to interpret constitutional law.

I'm not saying we are or should change the constitution, I am saying that we definitely are following the constitution. It is just the interpretation that is evolving to meet the ever changing society America is now, compared to the rural society it was back at the constitution's inception.

I can point to a dozen examples of how principals of the constitution when it was written, can apply to current day modern countries, and they work. Gun rights in Switzerland. Free-market Capitalist health care in India. Property rights in China. Low taxes in Russia. In every instance and more, the ideals found in the Constitution, written over 200 years ago, work perfectly today.

The theory that the constitution must evolve with society, if patently false. In fact, the very point of a constitution is to not evolve. It's to anchor the government in solid grounds and limitation. To remove those anchors, is exactly why we're in the position we're in. An overbearing, rights trampling, over spending, corrupt government of career politicians, is exactly what the constitution was designed to prevent.

I think we must have a different interpretation of the word "interpret".
The Supreme court has interpreted countless cases regarding the Constitution. Everyone is familiar with Roe vs. Wade, a ruling on the meaning of the 14th Amendment. The Miranda ruling interprets the meaning of the 5th Amendment. There are countless decisions regarding the interpretation of the 1st amendment.

If you wish to substitute the word "meaning" for the word "interpret" I would abide by that, but the word, "interpret" is commonly used in the context of constitutional law.

Yes, to 'interpret' the constitution is to allow the premeditated murder of children unable to yet commit a crime, is exactly the kind of "interpretation" that we should not have.

Perhaps you can explain to me how a law stating that the vote must be certified in 7 days, meant 'as much time as you need to recount'? Was this an 'interpretation' or a change in meaning?

It's funny, but Obama himself seems to disagree with you. He stated clearly he wished that the constitution had been "reinterpreted" to mean something different than what it currently says. How then is 'interpreted' to not mean changing the meaning?

 

[Lagboltz]

I can point to a dozen examples of how principals of the constitution when it was written, can apply to current day modern countries, and they work. Gun rights in Switzerland. Free-market Capitalist health care in India. Property rights in China. Low taxes in Russia. In every instance and more, the ideals found in the Constitution, written over 200 years ago, work perfectly today.

The theory that the constitution must evolve with society, if patently false. In fact, the very point of a constitution is to not evolve. It's to anchor the government in solid grounds and limitation. To remove those anchors, is exactly why we're in the position we're in. An overbearing, rights trampling, over spending, corrupt government of career politicians, is exactly what the constitution was designed to prevent.

Patently false? You are stating your opinion as if it were a fact. Are you saying that there should be no interpretation? OK. Let's call it by a different name: The Supreme Court "clarifies" the constitution. If you don't accept that, then we might as well accept threats of death to the president as a right given by the first Amendment.

Yes, to 'interpret' the constitution is to allow the premeditated murder of children unable to yet commit a crime, is exactly the kind of "interpretation" that we should not have.

It seems that you are now admitting that the constitution is interpreted, but you don't like what the interpretation is. That is all I am saying -- that the Supreme Court must clarify the constitutional meaning when someone challenges the law, and says he is doing something legal.

Perhaps you can explain to me how a law stating that the vote must be certified in 7 days, meant 'as much time as you need to recount'? Was this an 'interpretation' or a change in meaning?

It's funny, but Obama himself seems to disagree with you. He stated clearly he wished that the constitution had been "reinterpreted" to mean something different than what it currently says. How then is 'interpreted' to not mean changing the meaning?

Why do you say Obama disagrees with me? I will accept that you don't personally like the way the constitution has been interpreted in certain cases, and there are areas that I nor Obama nor many others don't like.

Let's go with your example:
"... to 'interpret' the constitution is to allow the premeditated murder of children..."

and consider mine:
"To not 'interpret' the constitution is to allow child pornography on the internet."

A few centuries ago the framers of the constitution couldn't foresee the internet, so child pornography should be allowed by the first amendment -- according to your logic.