AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

The 10th Amendment confines it to doing NOTHING
except within the jurisdiction that has been granted to it.

It had no jd to tax peoples' incomes until the 16th Amendment;

the latter did NOT authorize it to tax on a discriminatory basis.

Additionally, gov 't is required to render equal protection
of the laws; there is no exception for matters of taxation.
(see 5th n 14th Amendments)

Limbaugh, and other conservative talk radio voices, along with Fox and the WSJ editorial page have been doing precisely this type of hateful 'populist' rhetoric for years. Their audience is immense. The behaviors we saw so commonly at Palin rallies originate here.

Anti-intellectualism, though a phenomenon with deep historical roots in American society, can be seen to wax and wane through different periods of time. The present is one of those periods when it is as strong and pervasive as one might ever wish to see it become. The daily commentary from agents like Limbaugh, in their repetitive denigration of intelligence and educational achievements, along with their celebration of the opposite of those things as being representative of "real America" or "the best of America" is how we got to Sarah Palin as a contender for VP and, no doubt, President.

They say or imply they seek to institute government programs the government has not been empowered to institute by the Constitution of the USA--"the supreme law of the land." They say or imply they seek to make our income tax laws more discriminatory and even less "uniform throughout the United States" than they are now. They say or imply they seek to transfer wealth from those who have earned it to those who have not earned it. What they say or imply they seek constitutes an abandonment of the rule of law until they first seek a constitutional amendment to empower them to seek what they say or imply they seek.

Equal protection doesn't mean that all laws have to be equal. If we accept your meaning then manslaughter would be "unequal" to murder. Equal protection only means the laws have to be applied equally. There is no reading of the 14th that says that laws can't be different for different circumstances. Income is a circumstance that is different for different people. The law is applied equally to all with the same circumstance so clearly meets the "equal protection" clause.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
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.

Poor ican. You fail to understand that a FLAT rate of income tax rather than a progressive rate would place a far greater disproportionate burden on the middle class (than it would on the richer classes) with respect to funding our public purse.

The tax on each and every dollar of income must according to the Constitution of the USA be the same (i.e., uniform) regardless of the source or location from which the dollar of income is derived.

No one is saying all laws have to be equal. That's ridiculous. For that to be achieved, only one law and its exact copies could exist.

What is being said is that no law can be legal that discriminates among persons or things under that laws jurisdiction. Taxes on incomes are taxes on dollars of income. The tax on each and every dollar of income must according to the Constitution of the USA be the same (i.e., uniform) regardless of the source or location from which the dollar of income is derived.

The Constitution of the United States of America
Article I.
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 defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Definition of imposts
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=imposts&x=28&y=10
Main Entry: 1im·post Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: impst
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Medieval Latin impositum, from neuter of Latin impositus, past participle of imponere to put upon, impose -- more at IMPOSE
1 : something imposed or levied : TAX, TRIBUTE, DUTY
2 : the weight carried by a horse in a handicap race

Definition of uniform
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8
Main Entry: 1uni·form Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: yünfrm
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): sometimes -er/-est
Etymology: Middle French uniforme, from Latin uniformis, from uni- + -formis -form
1 : marked by lack of variation, diversity, change in form, manner, worth, or degree : showing a single form, degree, or character in all occurrences or manifestations <the Shasta dam ... will keep the flow of the Sacramento relatively uniform throughout the year -- American Guide Series: California> <Great Russian itself has dialects, though generally speaking for so widespread a language it is remarkably uniform -- W.J.Entwhistle & W.A.Morison>
2 : marked by complete conformity to a rule or pattern or by similarity in salient detail or practice : CONSONANT, ALIKE <how far churches are bound to be uniform in their ceremonies -- Richard Hooker>
3 : marked by unvaried and changeless appearance (as of surface, color, or pattern) <so many uniform red hills -- Willa Cather>
4 : consistent in conduct, character, or effect : lacking in variation, deviation, or unequal or dissimilar operation <the constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization -- R.B.Taney>
synonym see LIKE, STEADY

. . . For now, I'll run with marriage being a fundamental right. As I understand the algorithm for equal protection analysis, the next question is, is homosexuality a suspect class, a quasi-suspect class, or neither? According to Wikipedia, which unfortunately cites no cases besides US v. Carolene Products, we have to ask four questions to answer this:

1. Is homosexuality immutable? Answer: In real life, there's a continuum between mutable and immutable, on which homosexuality is closer to immutable. For most homosexuals, for most practical purposes, the characteristic is immutable, although it is somewhat less so than race, sex, national origin, and legitimacy of birth.
2. Have homosexuals as a group suffered a long history of discrimination? The answer to that one is easy. Yes, they have.
3. Are homosexuals politically powerless? I'd have to answer that one with a "no". Homosexual activists have been able to change public opinion and voting behavior in their favor. It's hard to argue that they didn't in practice have access to the conventional political process.
4. Are homosexuals a distinct, insulated group? That's an easy one again. Yes, they are.

When I look at these four points, it seems that sexual orientation is a similar classification as sex: it is not a suspect class, but it's a quasi-suspect class. So any discrimination based on the classification needs to withstand intermediate scrutiny: The law has to be substantially related to an important government interest.

Do you agree so far? And, if it's not too much trouble, can you give me a list of the most important post-Carolene Products cases where the Supreme courts lays down its procedure for testing what constitutes a suspect class, and what constitutes a quasi-suspect class? I tried to find them on Wikipedia and FindLaw, but couldn't find anything but US v. Carolene Products. That can't be all there is, can it?

(I anticipate, perhaps incorrectly, that you're inclined to take the short cut some state Supreme Courts have taken: that it doesn't matter what kind of classification sexual orientation is, because prohibiting same sex marriages doesn't even withstand the rational basis test. If you don't mind, I'd like you not to use this short cut, and later deal separately with the level of scrutiny that gay marriage bans withstand or not. I'd like to think this through as thoroughly as practicable.)

One principle of conservatism is no taxation without representation. I think another is that those who pay the taxes should be the ones with the voice in what those taxes will be. I know it is not feasible, but sometimes I think the policy should be set with the vote from our elected representatives being proportional based on the number of actual tax payers they represent.

It's pretty hard to be reactionary in an opinion that I've held for decades.

Ican, I know you and I disagree to some extent on taxes, but cannot an argument be made for two or more brackets so long as the taxes are imposed uniformly on adjusted gross income in each? If we must have brackets, they could still be applied uniformly throughout the land. As a conservative I do have a problem with punishing the successful with those higher brackets, however.

More than one bracket violates our Constitution. The tax on anything must be uniform throughout the USA. An income tax is a tax on dollars of income. To be uniform, the tax on each dollar of income must the same regardless of how that dollar of income is derived. To change that rule of law, our Constitution must be amended. I think such an amendment would make matters worse than a uniform tax with one bracket. This is true because it would enable politicians to legally take income from those in the higher bracket and use it to lower the tax rate in the lower bracket, and thereby buy the votes of those in the lower bracket.

It would be more effective if the wealthy created a private charity or charities to help those who would otherwise be too poor to pay the uniform tax. Such a charity could also help the too poor to learn how to become less poor. Besides private charities are well motivated to decrease the number of their clients who need their help, whereas government charities are well motivated to increase the number of their clients who need their help. If you do not believe that, check the percentage of the population that was dependent on government charity when Johnson was president and the number dependent on government charities at the end of 2007.

As we have previously discussed, I would prefer a uniform flat tax in which everybody pays the same percentage across the board from the poorest to the richest. The poorest of the poor would still not pay taxes because of a uniformly applied standard exemption on the first X dollars of earnings, but most would have at least some legitimate stake in the process and I think that would be a healthier system than the way taxes are structured now. Those who risk little or nothing by a tax increase and who stand to benefit from it are always going to be for it.

A uniform exemption looks legal on its face. But it is not legal because it creates two brackets for dollars of income where one is required by current law (i.e., the Constitution of the USA): that which is exempt and that which is not.

Also, manipulation of the size of that uniform exemption enables Congress to buy the votes of those voters for which that exemption is most significant.

One principle of conservatism is no taxation without representation. I think another is that those who pay the taxes should be the ones with the voice in what those taxes will be. I know it is not feasible, but sometimes I think the policy should be set with the vote from our elected representatives being proportional based on the number of actual tax payers they represent. Again, I know it probably not feasible, but again the process should not allow Citizen B to vote himself a share of Citizen A's lawfully and ethically gained money.


I agree that "the process should not allow Citizen B to vote himself a share of Citizen A's lawfully and ethically gained money." I think the poor can be helped by private charities, not by government charities. They are kept poor by government charities. Additionally, government charities are illegal.

Foxfyre wrote:

It's pretty hard to be reactionary in an opinion that I've held for decades.

Well, that may be.

But it doesn't change the fact that your idea was one of two centuries ago - a reaction of (then) conservatives against democracy.

It worked, when you look back in history, for quite some time. (Of course the idea per se is much older - you certainly know that.)