DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ADEQUATELY "SUPPORT" OUR CONSTITUTION?

Mech

I've read your last post a couple of times and I am still confused about some of your position. In any case, I would like to argue that you probably would do well never to abet Ican in what he is doing here.

Ican essentially is saying that he opposes the government using tax money to help people who need assistance. And mind you, there is no doubt in my mind that there are people in our country who need assistance for a variety of understandable reasons.

Ican is more interested in protecting the right of poor Bill Gates to accumulate as much wealth as possible than he is in protecting basic safety-net intervention by government for people who, often through no real fault of their own, need help in coping in this very, very complex and competitive economy/society.

He tried, unsuccessfully, to bolster his case by asserting that we have certain rights endowed upon us by a Creator - rights he sees as fortifying his position. He also wants to assert that "all men are born equal" so as to suggest that anyone needing help is in that position only because he/she did not live up to some artificial potential. In other words, he wants to blame the less fortunate for being less fortunate.

He is now suggesting that his interpretation of the Constitution, which he claims is superior to that of the Supreme Court, vindicates his position.

Mech, there is absolutely nothing wrong with dreams of grandeur. I have them; my guess is you have them: I suspect most people have them. But Ican's dreams of grandeur, as articulated in his many posts here and in Abuzz, are, in my opinion, among the lowest bits of scum ever to be touted as humanitarian and logical.

I despise it with every ounce of strength I can muster.

I'd sooner take a dip in a swimming pool filled with piss or wash my face in a basin filled with vomit than defend or further it in any way.

MY GUESS: Ican thinks I do not understand his position or I am deliberately distorting it.

I am not!

Listen to the music, Mech, not to the lyrics -- because the lyrics change whenever it suits this particular lyricists pleasure or purpose.

Listen to the music.

If you do -- you will never again post anything that gives even the slightest succor to this disgusting insult to humanity that Ican is peddling.

We can discuss the excesses and abuses of welfare - and the inefficiency of government - in another context.

Hummmmafter proofreading this piece, I realize that I have done yeoman's work in saying what I had to say. No matter how you decide to react, Mech, I thank you for serving as the opportunity for me to get this off my chest.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Ican essentially is saying that he opposes the government using tax money to help people who need assistance. And mind you, there is no doubt in my mind that there are people in our country who need assistance for a variety of understandable reasons.

Wrong! I am actually saying I object to the government doing this unconstitutionally. However, I am actually thinking it would be a horrific mistake and a major threat to the security of our republic, if it were made legal by constitutional amendment. The net outcome would dramatically increase the number of people who need assistance over that already increasing for reason of disobeying the law (e.g., the decline of the State of California; the collapse of the Roman Republic and its replacement by a tyranny).

Frank Apisa wrote:

Ican is more interested in protecting the right of poor Bill Gates to accumulate as much wealth as possible than he is in protecting basic safety-net intervention by government for people who, often through no real fault of their own, need help in coping in this very, very complex and competitive economy/society.

Wrong! I am more interested in the government protecting everyone's rights uniformly without discrimnination: the poor, the modest, and the rich. I believe that will better "help people who, often through no real fault of their own, need help in coping in this very, very complex and competitive economy/society." There exists a preponderance of evidence that for the most part government help serves to increase and not decrease the number of "people who, often through no real fault of their own, need help in coping in this very, very complex and competitive economy/society."

Frank Apisa wrote:

He tried, unsuccessfully, to bolster his case by asserting that we have certain rights endowed upon us by a Creator – rights he sees as fortifying his position.

Right Yes, I tried that. That would have fortified my position that failures by government to secure those rights are an evil tragedy.

Frank Apisa wrote:

He also wants to assert that "all men are born equal" so as to suggest that anyone needing help is in that position only because he/she did not live up to some artificial potential. In other words, he wants to blame the less fortunate for being less fortunate.

Wrong I don't want to assert any such things. I want to assert that preying on people, on any people, by any people, is wrong for any reason.

Frank Apisa wrote:

He is now suggesting that his interpretation of the Constitution, which he claims is superior to that of the Supreme Court, vindicates his position.

Wrong My interpretation of the federal Constitution is in complete harmony with the Supreme Court's decisions in Marbury v. Madison (1803) and United States v. Butler (1936) (among others). But those two cases vindicate only my claim that government transfers of money from some to others is unconstitutional.

Frank Apisa wrote:

... Ican's dreams of grandeur, as articulated in his many posts here and in Abuzz, are, in my opinion, among the lowest bits of scum ever to be touted as humanitarian and logical.

I despise it with every ounce of strength I can muster.

I'd sooner take a dip in a swimming pool filled with piss or wash my face in a basin filled with vomit than defend or further it in any way.

Right I believe you! You write as if you were an extremist union organizer who thinks that non-believers are evil if they reject his fanatical, fundamentalist, collectivist beliefs (i.e., yes, I dare say again, his religion).

It would be far more helpful to your fellow human beings if you dispensed with supporting that which only makes a grand show and pretense of helping "people who, often through no real fault of their own, need help in coping in this very, very complex and competitive economy/society." But, alas, it has proven to be only an effective way to buy votes and power. It costs you little to have the government take larger sums from others and lesser sums from you in order to delude yourself that you are really benefiting these people. Oh my, how charitable you are. Rolling Eyes

Actually try that metaphorical pool of yours! It might help clean you up a little.

Frank Apisa wrote:

MY GUESS: Ican thinks I do not understand his position or I am deliberately distorting it.

I am not!

Right I do guess that! I think you are behaving like a fool and/or a fraud and cannot determine the truth for yourself, regardless which of the two attributes dominates your thinking. You fail or refuse to recognize that compelled charity is an oxymoron.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Listen to the music, Mech, not to the lyrics -- because the lyrics change whenever it suits this particular lyricists pleasure or purpose. Listen to the music.

Wrong My "musics" are now my working hypotheses that all human beings are, by implication of their instincts for survival and altruism, born equally endowed with the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and that governments ought to be delegated only those powers necessary and sufficient to both secure those rights and to reduce collisions.

Both the musics and lyrics change or are modified as my ignorance is reduced and I detect ways to improve them. I claim the right to change my mind as my ignorance is reduced. I acknowledge the right of all human beings to change their minds as their ignorance is reduced. You are included!

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Ican essentially is saying that he opposes the government using tax money to help people who need assistance. And mind you, there is no doubt in my mind that there are people in our country who need assistance for a variety of understandable reasons.

Wrong! I am actually saying I object to the government doing this unconstitutionally. However, I am actually thinking it would be a horrific mistake and a major threat to the security of our republic, if it were made legal by constitutional amendment. The net outcome would dramatically increase the number of people who need assistance over that already increasing(e.g., The decline of the State of California; the collapse of the Roman Republic and its replacement by a tyranny).

Frank Apisa wrote:
Ican is more interested in protecting the right of poor Bill Gates to accumulate as much wealth as possible than he is in protecting basic safety-net intervention by government for people who, often through no real fault of their own, need help in coping in this very, very complex and competitive economy/society.

Wrong! I am more interested in the government protecting everyone's rights uniformly without discrimnination: the poor, the modest, and the rich. I believe that will better "help people who, often through no real fault of their own, need help in coping in this very, very complex and competitive economy/society." There exists a preponderance of evidence that for the most part government help serves to increase and not decrease the number of "people who, often through no real fault of their own, need help in coping in this very, very complex and competitive economy/society."

Frank Apisa wrote:
He tried, unsuccessfully, to bolster his case by asserting that we have certain rights endowed upon us by a Creator - rights he sees as fortifying his position.

Right Yes, I tried that. That would have fortified my position that failures by government to secure those rights are an evil tragedy.

Frank Apisa wrote:
He also wants to assert that "all men are born equal" so as to suggest that anyone needing help is in that position only because he/she did not live up to some artificial potential. In other words, he wants to blame the less fortunate for being less fortunate.

Wrong I don't want to assert any such things. I want to assert that preying on people, on any people, by any people, is wrong for any reason.

Frank Apisa wrote:
He is now suggesting that his interpretation of the Constitution, which he claims is superior to that of the Supreme Court, vindicates his position.

Wrong My interpretation of the federal Constitution is in complete harmony with the Supreme Court's decisions in Marbury v. Madison (1803) and United States v. Butler (1936) (among others). But those two cases vindicate only my claim that government transfers of money from some to others is unconstitutional.

Frank Apisa wrote:
... Ican's dreams of grandeur, as articulated in his many posts here and in Abuzz, are, in my opinion, among the lowest bits of scum ever to be touted as humanitarian and logical.

I despise it with every ounce of strength I can muster.

I'd sooner take a dip in a swimming pool filled with piss or wash my face in a basin filled with vomit than defend or further it in any way.

Right I believe you! You write as if you were an extremist union organizer who thinks that non-believers are evil if they reject his fanatical, fundamentalist, collectivist beliefs (i.e., yes, I dare say again, his religion).

It would be far more helpful to your fellow human beings if you dispensed with supporting that which only makes a grand show and pretense of helping "people who, often through no real fault of their own, need help in coping in this very, very complex and competitive economy/society." But, alas, it has proven to be only an effective way to buy votes and power. It costs you little to have the government take larger sums from others and lesser sums from you in order to delude yourself that you are really benefiting these people. Oh my, how charitable you are.

Actually try that metaphorical pool of yours! It might help clean you up a little.

Frank Apisa wrote:
MY GUESS: Ican thinks I do not understand his position or I am deliberately distorting it.

I am not!

Right I do guess that! I think you are behaving like a fool and/or a fraud and cannot determine the truth for yourself, regardless which of the two attributes dominates your thinking. You fail or refuse to recognize that compelled charity is an oxymoron.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Listen to the music, Mech, not to the lyrics -- because the lyrics change whenever it suits this particular lyricists pleasure or purpose. Listen to the music.

Wrong My "musics" are now my working hypotheses that all human beings are, by implication of their instincts for survival and altruism, born equally endowed with the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and that governments ought to be delegated only those powers necessary and sufficient to both secure those rights and to reduce collisions.

Both the musics and lyrics change or are modified as my ignorance is reduced and I detect ways to improve them. I claim the right to change my mind as my ignorance is reduced. I acknowledge the right of all human beings to change their minds as their ignorance is reduced. You are included!

BULLSHIT!!!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

BULLSHIT!!!

Another great pretender and self-deceiver has written yet another of his proclamations! No evidence is required! What he proclaims is true to him merely because he proclaims it.

One more time with intense feeling: You write as if you were an extremist union organizer who thinks that non-believers are evil if they reject his fanatical, fundamentalist, collectivist beliefs (i.e., yes, I dare say again, his religion).

Yes, I urge several dips in your metaphorical pool of "piss".

0 Replies

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Relevant Excerpts from the Majority opinion by Chief Justice Marshall

"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected."

"If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So, if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case, conformable to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformable to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case; this is the very essence of judicial duty."

"It is also not entirely unworthyof observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States, generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank."

"Thus, the particular phraeseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."

0 Replies

Ican, re "it can be argued"

I am not argueing that, merely presenting an oft used arguement that must be answered. And it must be answered in such a way that appeals to the majority of voters and legislaters Exclamation

And Me

You do mind, as do I, many, if not most, of the federal governments activities.

re Lear Jet,
If you wanted one you could have formed a company and bought one. I spent at least enough money to buy one but I bought the company instead. You could probably have gotten a Gov't insured loan for one with a reasonable business plan and a modest hope of repayment.

Personally I took "hang gliding" lessons once. I did not enjoy it sufficiently to make the buying and using one worth the costs to me. By extrapolation the costs of a Lear Jet, to me, would not be worth the time and trouble (costs). Shades of Adam Smith again. Surprised Question

0 Replies

Frank, In at least two subjects over the years Ican has helped me with some math which I needed to "prove a point". Although both of these were probability type questions he modified his stance when required to correspond more nearly with observations.

This in itself is damned unusual in my experience and opinion.

IMO he argues firmly, fairly and with conviction. And if you make a point he is willing to conceed it. But you must make the point fairly. Not unreasonable characteristics for a debater.

You seem to have failed to notice the modifications to his arguements over the years. Or you have noticed but not accepted it as a modification from a previous stance. IMO this is a true measure of education ie, the ability to modify opinions as facts become available is the mark of an educated person.

Now what about my last post (Sep 12) confused you Question

I am always eager (maybe a bit much so) to elucidate. Mech

0 Replies

United States v. Butler (1936)
Relevant excerpts of the opinion of the court written by Mr. Justice Roberts.

"It is inaccurate and misleading to speak of the exaction from processors prescribed by the challenged act as a tax, or to say that as a tax it is subject to no infirmity. A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the Constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another."

"There should be no misunderstanding as to the function of this court in such a case. It is sometimes said that the court assumes a power to overrule or control the action of the people's representatives. This is a misconception. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land ordained and established by the people. All legislation must conform to the principles it lays down. When an act of Congress is appropriately challenged in the courts as not conforming to the constitutional mandate, the judicial branch of the government has only one duty; to lay the article of the Constitution which is invoked beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former. All the court does, or can do, is to announce its considered judgment upon the ques- ... tion. The only power it has, if such it may be called, is the power of judgment. This court neither approves nor condemns any legislative policy. Its delicate and difficult office is to ascertain and declare whether the legislation is in accordance with, or in contravention of, the provisions of the Constitution; and, having done that, its duty ends."

"The question is not what power the federal government ought to have, but what powers in fact have been given by the people. It hardly seems necessary to reiterate that ours is a dual form of government; that in every state there are two governments; the state and the United States. Each state has all governmental powers save such as the people, by their Constitution, have conferred upon the United States, denied to the states, or reserved to themselves. The federal union is a government of delegated powers. It has only such as are expressly conferred upon it and such as are reasonably to be implied from those granted. In this respect we differ radically from nations where all legislative power, without restriction or limitation, is vested in a parliament or other legislative body subject to no restrictions except the discretion of its members."

"It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution."

"But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations."

"As Story says: 'The Constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.' "

"Again he says: 'A power to lay taxes for the common defence and general welfare of the United States is not in common sense a general power. It is limited to those objects. It cannot constitutionally transcend them.' "

"Until recently no suggestion of the existence of any such power in the federal government has been advanced. The expressions of the framers of the Constitution, the decisions of this court interpreting that instrument and the writings of great commentators will be searched in vain for any suggestion that there exists in the clause under discussion or elsewhere in the Constitution, the authority whereby every provision and every fair, implication from that instrument may be subverted, the independence of the individual states obliterated, and the United States converted into a central government exercising uncontrolled police power in every state of the Union, superseding all local control or regulation of the affairs or concerns of the states."

"Hamilton himself, the leading advocate of broad interpretation of the power to tax and to appropriate for the general welfare, never suggested that any power granted by the Constitution could be used for the destruction of local self-government in the states. Story countenances no such doctrine. It seems never to have occurred to them, or to those who have agreed with them, that the general welfare of the United States ( which has aptly been termed 'an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States,') might be served by obliterating the constituent members of the Union. But to this fatal conclu ... sion the doctrine contended for would inevitably lead. And its sole premise is that, though the makers of the Constitution, in erecting the federal government, intended sedulously to limit and define its powers, so as to reserve to the states and the people sovereign power, to be wielded by the states and their citizens and not to be invaded by the United States, they nevertheless by a single clause gave power to the Congress to tear down the barriers, to invade the states' jurisdiction, and to become a parliament of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are self-imposed. The argument, when seen in its true character and in the light of its inevitable results, must be rejected."

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

re Lear Jet,
If you wanted one you could have formed a company and bought one

That's almost what I did. I formed a company that provided flight instruction and charter service using piston engine, propeller airplanes. After several years I began to lust after flying a Learjet. Finally, after three more years, I succumbed to my lust. So I earned the necessary pilot certificates and bought one. Rather my company bought one with the 100% financing provided by another company (not mine) using my 100% owned piston engine, propeller airplanes as additional collateral. Yeah! I took a chance and bet the company (i.e., my collateral) 'cause I wanted to fly a Learjet at my charter passenger's expense. Lots of things had to go right. Not the least of which was adequate customer demand. It worked! Smile

0 Replies

Mech

Ican is a phony -- and you simply have not seen through him yet.

My guess is you will.

All it takes is what I suggested -- listen to the music, not the lyric.

He has as his objective -- and if I may, as his personal fantasy to make the plight of the wretched even more wretched than it is now. He wants to destroy the safety net programs others -- his moral and ethical betters, I might add -- have worked so hard to put into place.

You are being deceived by Ican, Mech.

I'm sorry, my friend, but I reject your characterization of what he has been and what he is.

His objectives are beneath contempt -- and so is he.

0 Replies

The turn toward collectivism and the transfer of money from some to others began here with what was then considered by the court a lawful exigency for violating the original well documented, intended meaning of the constitutional imperative Artile I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes ... and Excises, to ... provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; ... ."

Davis v. Steward Macine Co. (1937)
Relevant exerpts.

"The problem had become national in area and dimensions. There was need of help from the nation if the people were not to starve. It is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed [301 U.S. 548, 587] and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare. Cf. United States v. Butler ... "

United States v. Butler, supra, is cited by petitioner as a decision to the contrary. There a tax was imposed on processors of farm products, the proceeds to be paid to farmers who would reduce their acreage and crops under agreements with the Secretary of Agriculture, the plan of the act being to increase the prices of certain farm products by decreasing the quantities produced. The court held (1) that the socalled tax was not a true one ( 297 U.S. 1 , at pages 56, 61, 56 S.Ct. 312, 315, 317, 102 A.L.R. 914), the proceeds being earmarked for the benefit of farmers complying with the prescribed conditions, (2) that there was an attempt to regulate production without the consent of the state in which production was affected, and (3) that the payments to farmers were coupled with coercive contracts ( 297 U.S. 1 , at page 73, 56 S.Ct. 312, 322, 102 A.L.R. 914), unlawful in their aim and oppressive in their consequences. The decision was by a a divided court, a minority taking the view that the objections were untenable. None of them is applicable to the situation here developed.

(a) The proceeds of the tax in controversy are not earmarked for a special group.

(b) The unemployment compensation law which is a condition of the credit has had the approval of the state and could not be a law without it.

(c) The condition is not linked to an irrevocable agreement, for the state at its pleasure may repeal its unemployment law (section 903(a)(6), 42 U.S.C.A. 1103(a)(6), terminate the credit, [301 U.S. 548, 593] and place itself where it was before the credit was accepted.

(d) The condition is not directed to the attainment of an unlawful end, but to an end, the relief of unemployment, for which nation and state may lawfully coo perate.

... "

In 1936, this was not valid; In 1937 this is alleged to be valid:

(d) "The condition is not directed to the attainment of an unlawful end, but to an end, the relief of unemployment, for which nation and state may lawfully coo perate."

0 Replies

The current state of The State of California, "here we come". Once "Pandora's box" was opened, it was not going to be closed this decade and who knows in how many other decades before it is closed; if ever it be closed before the demise of our republic.

Davis v. Helvering (1937)
Relevant excerpts.

"First: The writer of this opinion ... thinks this course should be followed in adherence to the general rule that constitutional questions are not to be determined in the absence of strict necessity. In that view he is supported by Mr. Justice BRANDEIS, Mr. Justice STONE, and Mr. Justice ROBERTS. ...
Second: The scheme of benefits created by the provisions of Title II is not in contravention of the limitations of the Tenth Amendment.

Congress may spend money in aid of the 'general welfare.' Constitution, art. 1, 8; United States v. Butler, 297 ... Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, ... . There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, ... . The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground or certainly a penumbra in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law. [301 U.S. 619, 641] 'When such a contention comes here we naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress.' United States v. Butler, ... Nor is the concept of the general welfare static. Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the well-being of the nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times."

The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event.
...
Nor is the concept of the general welfare static. Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the well-being of the nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.

And there you have it: The great ?compassionate? leap by our Supreme Court to make an unlawful amendment of our constitution with the ultimate consequences, though perhaps unintended, nonetheless well known, in the historical causes of the decline and fall of republics, not to be ?compassionate? at all.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Ican objectives are beneath contempt -- and so is he.

The great pretender proclaims another beneath contempt proclamation, avoiding assiduously attack on arguments for attacks on the arguer.

Let's analyze the actual consequences of collectivist compassion regardless of the alleged intent of that collectivist compassion.

The human race is one race composed of folks possessing various cosmetic differences. For example, those called white are not white at all, but possess a light brown skin shade. Those called black are not black at all, but possess a dark brown skin shade. In between there are other folks possessing various other shades of brown skin.

Collectivist compassion applied by the compassionate collectivist, elected and appointed, officials of our government has led to separating all these folks according to their skin shade. In particular, they have singled out those folks possessing a dark brown skin shade for their special attention. What are the consequences?

Collectivist compassion has led to the destruction of the culture of more than a quarter of the dark brown skin shade. Desease, crime, children born to unmarried children and unmarried adults living on the money earned by others, followed by those so born replicating the destructive behavior of those who sired and conceived them. Hopelessness is epidemic among too many. Lack of will to become the best they can be has crippled too many.

How did compassionate collectivists produce these consequences among so large a percentage of people simply because of the shade of brown of their skin? Though clearly descriminated against by those of lighter brown skin shades, the forebearers of the darker brown skin shaded had nonetheless risen above their poor origins and contributed magnificently to the betterment of themselves and our whole nation! But nonetheless the compassionate collectivists through their relentless efforts convinced these folks that they were incapable of rising above their conditions without the help of compassionate collectivists. Instead of helping to "teach them to fish", the compassionate collectivists repeatdly and seemingly endlessly, gave them, out of the kindness of their hearts, a plethora of fish to compensate for what the compassionate collectivists perceived to be an incomparable set of handicaps.

For example, let us consider the Washington, D.C. public school system. The 13 years I attended those schools, dark, medium, and light brown shaded folks excelled. One high school, Dunbar High School, sent a high percentage of their graduates onto college without need for any college entrance exams whatsoever. A disproportionately high percentage of these students possessed the darker skin shades.

I attended Woodrow Wilson High School. My high school was the other high school that accomplished the same as Dunbar. However, our high school contained a disproportionately high percentage of students with the lighter skin shades.

You see? In those days, skin shade correlated little or not at all with student progress. But now, we witness what several decades of compassionate collectivist effort has produced. Today, while the performance of the students of Washington D.C. public schools does not correlate well with skin shade, their performance is one of the lowest in the nation. However, there is a disproportionately high percentage of students possessing the darker skin shades. The reason for that is a larger percentage of parents with the lighter brown skin shades than those with the darker brown skin shades have fled residences in Washington so that they could send their children to competent schools outside of D.C.. Too many of the parents with darker skin shades were successfully nurtured into hopelessness by the compassionate collectivists and did not any longer have the will and/or means to flee.

Now the compassionate collectivists are attempting to maintain current conditions in the D.C. public schools by demanding increased financial reward for incompetent administration and teaching. A large majority of the parents are, on their own, starting to awaken to the real consequences of listening to the compassionate collectivists. They are demanding vouchers so that they can afford to send their children to competent schools.

The compassionate collectivists are alleging that vouchers will deprive the public schools of much needed funds so they resist vouchers on that account. Well it's true that funds will be taken from the incompent public school system and spent in more competent school systems. Why is that not recognized to be a good thing by the compassionate collectivists? The compassionate collectivists claim that not every child will find an opportunity to get better educated in more competent school systems because of the limited capacity of the other systems (they apparently rule out the probable massive expansion of the other school systems once vouchers are provided). Where's the compassion in that doctrine? Penalize all until you can benefit all, thereby not benefiting any. That's worse than beneath contempt. That's worse than sick. That's downright evil.

So I say let's have more rigorous individualistic, elected and appointed officials so we can turn education of the public (notice I didn't say public education) around and save those kids from what will otherwise be a life of hopelessness. To let continue the current outrage is beneath contempt and so are the compassionate collectivists.

0 Replies

EUREKA!

Let's have charity vouchers. Yes, charity vouchers! The value of each tax payer's charity voucher shall be equal to 50% of his computed tax. The charity voucher shall be divisible and given to any one or more approved charities in the land.

You might ask: what about all that revenue the government will no longer receive? Since more than 50% of government expenditures are transfers of money from tax payers to others, including to other tax payers, let's simply cancel all such government money transfers and let the people decide how to best help "people who, often through no real fault of their own, need help in coping in this very, very complex and competitive economy/society."

0 Replies

Frank and Ican,
I think that we are all on the same wavelength here. We simply have about three different ideas on how to accomplish the goal, being that every human deserves a chance.

Government should be blind as it is too powerful to be entrusted to help anybody. A standing "farmers joke" is the quote "I'm from the government and they sent me to help you". Give that boy or girl a grubbing hoe and say "OK lets grub out the multiflora roses that you guys planted about all around here seventy some years ago".

Question, How much help are you going to get

Flying has become dangerous due to religious persons seizing aircraft and not following FAA rules regarding landing proceedures.

Question, How much safer has flying become? As far as I can see it has mostly become slower.

We have spent billions of dollars on the various aid to poor persons.
I have heard (I can't verify this now but it seems about right) that over 2/3 of the money that government (we) spent to reduce poverty went directly to persons far above the poverty level (admin employees, consultants and lawyers).

Question, Are there any persons that do not have a warm place to sleep, plenty of food, or a meaningful existence left in the US

There are many functions that government, especially federal, cannot do. It is just too big, awkward and inefficient. Kind of like me taking the big John Deere 250 hp 4WD tractor to cultivate Laura's flower garden.

I think that we are all agreed that the federal government has become entirely too cumbersome to perform it's assigned tasks with any semblance of fairness or efficiency.

Question, What can we do about it

Ican wishes to try to use the courts to accomplish a reasonable minimization. This IMO, promises to enrich some attorneys at our expense. Since about 85% of our elected representatives are active or temporarily inactive lawyers, this approach seems to offer little promise.

I prefer to cut off their water. My pickup,ready to drive to Icans tomorrow, is thirty four years old.
My work car is nineteen years old.
Our good clean car is sixteen years old.
I have not purchased a "depreciable asset" since 1968, (except for tax purposes). Probably Smile

this will not be effective but it's been challenging at least. Confused

So Frank, how would you go about returning "government to the people Question

In France in the 1770s the guillotine proved effective. Hopefully we can think of a workable more humane way of doing it. Sending people immediately to their just rewards just doesn't work for an athiest. Smile

Re the both of your last few posts. Sounds like a pissing contest to me. I have an electric fence that makes pissing contests much more sporting. C'mon down and we'll try it Exclamation

I'll referee!

0 Replies

Frank, Specifically addressing "The plight of the wretched"

It would be hard for me to imagine a system worse than the one we have now for "relieving the plight of the wretched"

It kills personal initiative. In this county a family of five will collect about $1800 a month in cash, food stamps, medical insurance, food banks, discounted produce, legal aid, and transportation vouchers.

Check my figures Ican. This works out to about $11.20 per hour for one person 40 hrs a week.

A factory job ( the three best ones in town) start hourly workers at $6.75 to $8.75 (with shift differentials) Some portion of health insurance is also paid. Some is deducted.

Two off the three factories are international companies the other is known throughout the US and Eastern Canada. They all have other plants, one in New Jersey, two in VA, several in Delaware and NC aand probably others that I am not aware of.

A county employee, (school bus driver) semi skilled, subject to drug testing, hazardous duty, and some personal liability, with three children draws as a wage an amount about equal to what he would draw on welfare. Then he has to pay taxes on it. Makes me glad that my kids are out of school. Who would be dumb enough to drive a school bus. Would you entrust your kids to him, based on the economics?

There are laws of economics. This seems to have completely escaped the notice of our federal employees, elected or otherwise.

It has been said, and I have no reason to doubt it, that the biggest single contributer to unemployment in the US is Unemployment Insurance.
If true, then obviously Federally subsidized Unemployment Insurance is counter productive.

The same could be said of farm subsidies, federal aid to education, housing projects, and the drug laws.

So Ican and I tend to agree that something is wrong with many things. I feel that in many cases this is a result of people confusing theories and wishes with facts. This feeling is responsible for my "red shift" discussions,. amongst others.

Ican seems to feel that the American people are worse off with the entitlement disbursement of our money than they would otherwise be.
This has been responsible for many of his "lawsuit threads".

I see his reiterated (ad nauseum Smile

) threads as an attempt to find a solution. I forgive him for believing that his way is best when of course mine is. And perhaps we shall never know. But IMO it's worth a shot.
Perhaps we may even generate a "revelation". Hopefully, M.

0 Replies

Ican, As your local mechanic I must inform you that directed tax vouchers for charity probably will never fly without one heck of a head wind. The head wind is what caused the problem in the first plase!

There are soup kitchens in Wash DC. They are run by several churches and the Salvation Army. They are charitable for sure. To an Athiest it doesn't matter but asking someone to risk his immortal soul in return for a sandwich seems a bit high priced to me.

Generally people are the most charitable towards those who agree the most with them. The black and Caribean Islanders communities which are those currently "most in need" are also the groups which are least likely to have sufficient wealthy champions to alleviate their situation very much.

The WASP, Jewish, and Asiatic communities which need aid the least are the ones with the most generous (tax deductable) donors.

So I am afraid that an extrapolation of donor directed charitable tax deductions will result in more and more disadvantaged persons and more and more endowments for Yale, Williams, and Harvard Colleges. in other words "plus ca' change, plus ca meme chose" pardon my French Confused

This naturally would be supported by New York and Washington lawyers, stockbrokers and the many bureaucrats hired to see that our contributions are actually contributions. Their kids will go to the Ivy League and similar schools anyways, may as well get a tax deduction along with it!

Ideas anyone!!!!!!

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Ican wishes to try to use the courts to accomplish a reasonable minimization. This IMO, promises to enrich some attorneys at our expense. Since about 85% of our elected representatives are active or temporarily inactive lawyers, this approach seems to offer little promise.

I've learned I can file and defend my lawsuit myself for relatively little cost. I'm guaranteed that right by current law. So are you. However, the chances of success with me proceding on my own are poor. I don't know what else I can lawfully do. So until a better idea comes along, I'm going with this one.

akaMechsmith wrote:

I prefer to cut off their water.

So do I. But I don't know how lawfully to do that directly. Any ideas you might have on that will be appreciated.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Joe, when you're ready, let's first discuss:

1. Whether or not the government periodically taking money from some and giving it to others, constitutes placing the some in involuntary servitude of the others .

2. Whether or not the government periodically taking a greater share of some of the dollars of income/revenue of some than the maximum government periodically takes from the dollars of others, constitutes a taking of private property for public use without just compensation.

I'd like to concentrate on your first point for now.

You've said: "I claim these unconstitutional government transfers of money compel some groups into involuntary servitude of other groups." As a result, you conclude that taxation (or some form of progressive taxation, I'm not exactly sure of the extent of your claim) actually violates the Thirteenth Amendment, because such taxation constitutes "involuntary servitude."

But you've also said that constitutional amendments should be interpreted according to the intent of "the drafters and adopters" of the amendments. Consequently, your interpretation of "involuntary servitude" must be consistent with the intent of the framers and adopters of the Thirteenth Amendment: otherwise, your interpretation of the amendment is improper and your conclusion is invalid.

Now, what proof do you have that the framers and adopters of the Thirteenth Amendment understood the term "involuntary servitude" to include citizens paying too great a portion of their incomes as taxes? Quite clearly, the answer is: none. Not only have you failed to produce any evidence to that effect, but it is simply not possible to find such proof, for the rather obvious reason that none exists.

The framers, adopters, and even disinterested bystanders understood the Thirteenth Amendment identically: it was designed to eliminate negro slavery. The term "involuntary servitude" was used as a means to forestall any possibility of resurrecting the institution of slavery under a different name. There was, in other words, no intent to outlaw two different things (slavery and involuntary servitude), but rather just one thing (slavery) in whatever guise it might take.

This point was forcefully brought home in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), where Justice Bradley stated that the congress, by means of the Thirteenth Amendment, intended to "enact all necessary and proper laws for the obliteration and prevention of slavery, with all its badges and incidents." But the court ruled that the amendment did not provide the basis for enacting laws designed to end racial discrimination. So, for instance, addressing the argument that the Thirteenth Amendment supported a statute outlawing discrimination in theaters and public accomodations, Bradley asked: "what has it [i.e. the statute] to do with the question of slavery?" In effect, the court, in 1883, said that the Thirteenth Amendment only dealt with the issue of slavery, and that has been the law up to the present.

And it's clear that, in so holding, the court was absolutely correct. The congressional debates, the newspaper coverage, the actions of the state legislatures -- all the evidence points inescapably to the same conclusion: everyone understood the intent behind the amendment to be the abolition of slavery, pure and simple. Any other interpretation that ignored this fact would be adding an interpretative gloss on the amendment that the framers and adopters unquestionably did not hold.

In other words, a reading of the term "involuntary servitude" in the Thirteenth Amendment to cover a situation where a free citizen is compelled to pay more taxes than some other citizen is directly contrary to the original intent of the framers and adopters of the amendment. Your interpretation, ican, is therefore, according to your own principles of constitutional interpretation, improper and invalid. Indeed, such an interpretation of the amendment would -- in your definition -- be an improper amendment of the constitution.

On your own terms, ican, this argument is completely unsustainable. You can either drop it, or admit that you yourself are not following the "original intent" of the constitution.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

On your own terms, ican, this argument is completely unsustainable. You can either drop it, or admit that you yourself are not following the "original intent" of the constitution.

Thank you. Your argument is persuasive. I stand by my criteria for interpretation, so the evidence you supplied compels me to accept the logic of your argument.

In my defense, I offer the following which does not refute your argument, but merely explains the cause of my error.

I used the contemporary definitions of involuntary and servitude, jumping to the conclusion (from their etymologies) those were the same definitions that were used at the time of the adoption of the 13th Amendment December 6, 1865.

Main Entry: in·vol·un·tary
Pronunciation: (")in-'vä-l&n-"ter-E
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English involuntari, from Late Latin involuntarius, from Latin in- + voluntarius voluntary
Date: 15th century
1 : done contrary to or without choice
2 : COMPULSORY
3 : not subject to control of the will : REFLEX
- in·vol·un·tari·ly /-"vä-l&n-'ter-&-lE/ adverb
- in·vol·un·tari·ness /-'vä-l&n-"ter-E-n&s/ noun

Main Entry: ser·vi·tude
Pronunciation: 's&r-v&-"tüd, -"tyüd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin servitudo slavery, from servus slave
Date: 15th century
1 : a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life
2 : a right by which something (as a piece of land) owned by one person is subject to a specified use or enjoyment by another

MY CONCLUSION

My conclusion that government transfer of money from some to others is unconstitutional still remains intact, however. But now I am reduced to the argument that the federal constitution does not delegate to the government the power to do that. In the above, Butler v. United States (1936) supports my claim, but Davis v. Steward Machine Co. (1937), and Davis v. Helvering (1937) and subsequent decisions contradict my claim.

Which of the cases is interpreting the federal constitution as originally adopted? I think it quite clear that Butler v. United States and previous decisions are in harmony with original intent; it is quite clear that Davis v. Steward Machine Co. , and Davis v. Helvering, and many subsequent decisions are not in harmony with original intent.

I look forward to your response.

0 Replies

DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ADEQUATELY "SUPPORT" OUR CONSTITUTION?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know