AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

What is being said is that no law can be legal that discriminates among persons or things under that laws jurisdiction.

Again, ican: Where does the constitution say that the federal government cannot discriminate among persons or things?

Since you insist on interpreting the constitution literally, you have to live with the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment only binds the states, and that the Fifth Amendment doesn't explicitly talk about equal protection.

Alternatively, you could allow for a less than literal interpretation of the constitution, and allow for the fact that the Supreme Court's case law matters. Then you could argue that the Supreme Court's precedents have discovered an equal protection component in the Fifth Amendment, which does bind the Federal government. But then you would also have to recognize the rest of the federal constitutional case law, under which categorization by income is subjected to only a rational basis test.

But what you're trying to do is have it both ways: You want to be literal about the constitution about permissible classifications under the equal protection clause, but not about whom the constitution obliges to grant equal protection of the law. And that's just disingenuous.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Thomas:

I posted a dissenting judicial opinion on the Prop 8 thread:

Thanks, Debra!

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Historically, socialism either leads to a dictatorship like nazism or communism, or to a general reduction of the economic condition of all people living within its range--except those governing/dictating that socialism. Whereas, capitalism leads to a general increase in the economic condition of all the people living within its range.

A good example is the United Kingdom, isn't it?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Again, ican: Where does the constitution say that the federal government cannot discriminate among persons or things?

Constitution of the USA, 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."

The Constitution as amended is primarily a statement about what can be done by the federal government. However, statements in Article I, sections 9 and 10, and Amendments I thru XV, XVII thru XIX (but XVIII was repealed by XXI), XXII, XXIV, XXVI, and XXVII do specify some of what cannot be done by the federal government.

If the Constitution does not say something can be done, then it cannot be done. Also if Articles or Amendments to the Constitution contain statements that say the federal government cannot do something then that something cannot be done by the federal government. So the more relevant question is actually: Where does the constitution say that the federal government can discriminate among persons or things? Or even more relevant to our discussion here, Where does the constitution say that the federal government can discriminate among persons or things when levying an income tax?

In Article I, Section 8, 1st paragraph it says: "all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Therefore non-uniform duties, imposts, and excises are not permitted throughout the United States. Therfore, a tax on dollars of income (an impost) from "whatever source derived" per Amendment XVI, must be the same tax on each and every dollar of income.

0 Replies

This piece by Neal Gabler is, for a daily paper, exceptionally bright and valuable as analysis of how the future of american conservatism will be determined by its past...it's real past.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gabler30-2008nov30,0,1009632.story

2 Replies

@blatham,

Neal Gabler, like so many Democrats does not understand that some who vote Republican do so only because they think Democrats are more prone to not supporting the Constitution of the USA than are Republ;icans. These Republicans are true conservatives in that they wish to conserve the Constitution of the USA as "the supreme law of the land." They are therefore opposed to discriminatory income tax rates and government redistribution of wealth. They are infavor of uniform income tax rates and a free market redistributing wealth on the basis of fair competition.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

This piece by Neal Gabler is, for a daily paper, exceptionally bright and valuable as analysis of how the future of american conservatism will be determined by its past...it's real past.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gabler30-2008nov30,0,1009632.story

This sentence sums up the modus operandi of the conservative movement:

Quote:

You demonize the opposition and polarize the electorate to win.

It's truly amazing how the ignorant mob on the right falls for this divide & conquer strategy over and over and over again.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Quote:

You demonize the opposition and polarize the electorate to win.

It's truly amazing how the ignorant mob on the right falls for this divide & conquer strategy over and over and over again.

Debra, it's incredible how you of the ignorant mob on the left do not understand how you continue to repeatedly criticize the ignorant mob on the right for doing exactly what the ignorant mob on the left did to win the election in November.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Quote:
You demonize the opposition and polarize the electorate to win.

It's truly amazing how the ignorant mob on the right falls for this divide & conquer strategy over and over and over again.

Debra, it's incredible how you of the ignorant mob on the left do not understand how you continue to repeatedly criticize the ignorant mob on the right for doing exactly what the ignorant mob on the left did to win the election in November.

Ican711nm: The Democrat Party did not resort to divide and conquer tactics to win the presidency. The win was the result of Republican hypocrisy: saying one thing, and doing the opposite. See the following, for example:

"I'm a uniter, not a divider"

Quote:

George W. Bush talks with David Horowitz about going from patrician to populist -- and from party boy to presidential front-runner. . . .

Second, I showed the people of Texas that I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another.

Some people figured it out that the Republicans are not the do-gooders that they claim to be. However, some people--like you--still wear their blinders and still embrace the party of hypocrits. If the Republicans are truly the ones whom you trust to comply with the Constitution--why didn't they fix that income tax problem you've been wailing about? After all, they had control of both the executive branch and the legislative branch for many years.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra,

I do not embrace wealth redistribution by the federal government, like you folks on the left and too many of the folks on the right do.

I do not embrace discriminatory income taxes that tax some dollars of income at different rates than other dollars of income, like too many folks on both the left and on the right do..

I do not embrace federal government charities like too many folks on both the left and on the right do.

I do embrace private charities unlike too many folks on the left do not.

I do embrace the support of the Constitution of the USA unlike too many folks on the left and right do not.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=support&x=26&y=9

Main Entry: 1sup·port
...
2 a (1) : to uphold by aid, countenance, or adherence : actively promote the interests or cause of
...
ADVOCATE
...
b (1) : to provide means, force, or strength that is secondary to : back up
...
4 a : to hold up or in position : serve as a foundation or prop for : bear the weight or stress of : keep from sinking or falling
...
6 : to maintain in condition, action, or existence
...
synonyms SUSTAIN, PROP, BOLSTER, BUTTRESS, BRACE
...

Quote:

Article VI
...
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Gabler references historian Richard Hofstadter's famous essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" but the better reference would have been Hofstadter's book "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life". This book details and documents the very long history of populist demoagoguery which preceded, and laid the groundwork for, McCarthy and then all the modern exemplars of it, such as Limbaugh and Horowitz etc.

This illustration I have up on my blog is taken from a web page of an LA conservative talk radio host who plays immediately before Limbaugh in the LA market. It's a typical example of the poisonous and divisive appeals to peoples' worst instincts and propensities.

http://bernielatham.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/antichrist1.jpg?w=447&h=255

1 Reply

@blatham,

Blatham, your preceding post is also a typical example of the poisonous and divisive appeals to peoples' worst instincts and propensities. Yes, there are hysterical Republicans who are terrified of the probable distructive consequences of replacing our Constitutional Democracy with a Socialist redistribution of wealth system. Yes, there are hysterical Democrats who are extremely resentful of the probable constructive consequences of retaining our capitalist free enterprise Constitutional Democracy .

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Blatham, your preceding post is also a typical example of the poisonous and divisive appeals to peoples' worst instincts and propensities.

1) skinhead posts picture of a prominent jew portrayed as a rat
2) a third party decries the portrayal as poisonous and divisive
3) Ican charges that the third party and the skinhead are equal

0 Replies

Ran across this short collection of quotes by Thomas Jefferson that struck me as particularly appropriate for this thread most particularly at this time:

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe .
Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

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

Very Interesting Quote in light of the present financial crisis, it's interesting to read what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Ran across this short collection of quotes by Thomas Jefferson that struck me as particularly appropriate for this thread most particularly at this time:

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Thomas Jefferson

There is no evidence Jefferson ever said this.
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_democracy_will_cease_to_exist

It seems this one is incorrect as well
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Private_Banks_(Quotation)

I haven't confirmed others.

It seems the "quotes" are appropriate in showing that conservatives are willing to believe anything that supports their world view even if it is not factually correct.

1 Reply

@parados,

It seems that most of what liberals quote shows that liberals are willing to believe anything that supports their world view even when what they quote is factually incorrect.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Perhaps more apropo to this lne of thought is that certain liberals seem more likely to put the focus on who was the author of a statement and then derail the discussion by building a straw man around that rather than consider the truth or error of the statement itself.

Some might comment that the quote itself is most likely erroneously attributed to Jefferson, but but Jefferson would/would not have agreed with it because. . . .
or
the statement will/won't hold up to closer scrutiny because. . . .

Do you suppose any of our 'liberal' members will ever be able to honestly discuss anything in that way or is ad hominem or trying to discredit conservative members all we will ever be able to expect?

Conservatives at times also engage in ad hominem or intentionally try to discredit what they believe to be an erroneous concept or source, but I do think one mark of modern American Conservatism is that conservatives do know what they think and can articulate it and defend it without use of either ad hominem or need to discredit anybody. I know a few liberals who can do that too, but they sure seem to be rare.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Conservatives at times also engage in ad hominem or intentionally try to discredit what they believe to be an erroneous concept or source, but I do think one mark of modern American Conservatism is that conservatives do know what they think and can articulate it and defend it without use of either ad hominem or need to discredit anybody. I know a few liberals who can do that too, but they sure seem to be rare.

You really should expand your readings - and acquaintances.

0 Replies

Ican writes

Quote:

In Article I, Section 8, 1st paragraph it says: "all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Therefore non-uniform duties, imposts, and excises are not permitted throughout the United States. Therfore, a tax on dollars of income (an impost) from "whatever source derived" per Amendment XVI, must be the same tax on each and every dollar of income.

I understand what you're saying here, Ican, but I still am not sure that I agree with it. If the government deems that say the first $5000 (or whatever) of income produced in a calendar year will not be taxed, and the exemption applies equally across the board, then I would define the tax as uniform.

Also I don't think they had income taxes in mind in the phrase "duties, imposts, and excises'.

Quote:

The glossary from the U.S. Treasury Dept’s International Trade Data System http://www.itds.treas.gov/printglossaryfrm.html defines duty as “a tax levied by a government on the import or export of goods,” imposts as “a tax, especially an import duty,” and excise taxes as “taxes on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods, or upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, or upon corporate privileges,” which, they explain, in current usage covers about everything besides income taxes. It seems like the writers of the Constitution were throwing in all sorts of synonyms to cover the bases, although in the usage of the 18th century the words may have had other subtle differences.

http://library.duke.edu/blogs/answerperson/2004/10/04/taxes-duties-imposts-and-excises/

I think the rationale is that you can't levy a different federal tax in Texas than you levy in New York, etc. but doesn't specify how the uniform tax will be structured. So, when hubby and I return from a trip, our traveling companions have to pay duties on the diamond watches, the case of rare wine, the fur coat etc. that they bring back while customs doesn't mess with the key chains and other cheap trinkets that we declare.

Likewise, while I prefer a flat tax--the same percentage applied to all income--I don't see a Constitutional problem with a threshhold of income being exempt or certain income being exempt so long as that is uniformly applied everywhere. Again I would like to be able to hire the neighbor boy to come over a pull weeds or pick up the fallen apples in our back yard now and then without having to do a lot of paperwork for taxes.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Taxing some dollars of income at a zero rate, while taxing the rest of the dollars of income at the same positive rate is not a uniform income tax.

All what you are advocating requires is a constitutional amendment that permits a uniform zero tax rate for some dollars of income, while the rest of all dollars of income are taxed at a different uniform rate.

The danger of such a tax system is it permits the federal government to buy votes by increasing the dollars of income taxed at a zero rate.

Government secures the lawful freedoms of all residents of the USA. Consequently, all residents of the USA should pay tax in direct proportion to the value to them of that security they receive. Each person's income is one measure of the value of that security to each person. Thus a uniform income tax rate is a fairer measure of that direct proportion than any non-uniform tax rate.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know