55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 04:18 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
marked by complete conformity to a rule

uniform "geographically"

They DO meet the definition since all taxes are applied uniformly throughout the US.

You meet the definition of "crazy"
Quote:
Foolish or impractical; senseless
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 04:21 pm
@parados,
[
parados wrote:
Every tax provision in the list ican is a "tax cut". So obviously you think Bush violated the constitution then by giving tax cuts. Shouldn't we get back to the constitution and put those taxes back in place since the cut was unconstitutional?

The list includes more than tax provisions!

I think Obama violated the Constitution by authorizing federal expenditures that give money lawfully earned by some persons to other persons who did not lawfully earn that money.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 04:26 pm
@ican711nm,
I never said it didn't.

I only pointed out that every tax provision is a tax cut.

Every government expenditure is money taken from people by taxes and giving it to others. Since the government can NOT spend money except what is lawfully appropriated the government does not give money to anyone unlawfully. Every dollar given out by the government is done so lawfully.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 04:33 pm
@parados,
So you think that if non-uniform taxes "are applied uniformly throughout the US", they are then thereby made uniform according to the founders meaning assigned to that word?

Sigh, do I really have to again post excerpts from Madison's and Hamilton's federalist papers
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm
that make it quite clear that the founders did not mean what you say they meant by the word uniform as used in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution?

InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 04:44 pm
About the decriminalization of drugs in regard to social conservative ideas, a social conservative, apt to be informed by some kind of a Judeo/Christian anti-vice morality, is more than likely to vote against any kind of decriminalization of drugs. The issue of allowing states or local governments the right to make their own policy in regard to drugs is a states' rights issue not a social conservative issue per se. States' rights issues are neither necessarily liberal nor conservative. Rather, either side will exploit the advantages of states' rights as it is convenient to their ends in regard to the decriminalization of drugs and other issues.

Back in May California Gov. Schwarzenegger stated that it was time to study the idea of legalizing and taxing marijuana for recreational use in his state.

Would the social conservatives here vote for the legalization and taxation of marijuana in their state?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 04:46 pm
@ican711nm,
This 'founders' argument is really pretty silly. No sane person, and I must allow that the vast majority of founders were likely sane though clearly, some who invoke their name are not, would ever think that any set of rules made at a certain point in history would remain fixed for all eternity.

This is simply a red herring developed by a group of exceedingly greedy Scrooges.

ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 04:50 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
marked by complete conformity to a rule"

That's not a complete definition of uniform that you quoted!

The complete definition from which you quoted is:
"2 : marked by complete conformity to a rule or pattern or by similarity in salient detail or practice."

Neither uniform non-uniformity, or non-uniform uniformity meet that definition for all dollars of income taxed.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 04:51 pm
@ican711nm,
Could you quote EXACTLY what they said ican?
Laughing

I'll bet that it doesn't support your argument any more then the rest of your garbage supports it.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 04:55 pm
@ican711nm,
LOL.. And where does the constitution use the word "dollar"?

The constitution states "uniform throughout United States"

The United States is a geographical location.
The phrase means uniform throughout a geographical location. The United States does NOT mean "dollar".

Taxes are the same in practice throughout the US.
Taxes are the same in rules throughout the US
Taxes are the same in pattern throughout the US.
Taxes are the same in salient details throughout the US.

All of the above statements are true until you can show me how they are false. Because the above statements are true your claim is not based on the words of the constitution at all.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 04:58 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
This 'founders' argument is really pretty silly.

The founders argument isn't silly. Ican's claim that the founders had such an argument is silly. They made no such argument as ican is making. He is making his claim about the founders up. He is LYING to put it bluntly. Don't fall for his stupid claims that he can't back up.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 04:59 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
No sane person, and I must allow that the vast majority of founders were likely sane though clearly, some who invoke their name are not, would ever think that any set of rules made at a certain point in history would remain fixed for all eternity.

You are correct! That's why the founders included in the Constitution the legal rules for amending--that is, changing--the Constitution:

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

If you were to read Article V carefully you would likely notice that neither the courts, the congress, or the president are authorized to legally amend the Constituion.

parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 05:04 pm
@ican711nm,
The 16th amendment was passed when a graduated income tax was ALREADY declared constitutional by the courts. It was assumed by those that passed that amendment that there was no need to deal with the phrase "uniform throughout the US" because no sane person at the time or since reads it the way you are ican.

Until you can provide evidence of the courts ruling what you claimed then the constitution DOES take precedence and the court is the final say on the meaning of the constitution.

Quote:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,
The courts have the power to decide what the law means. They did so. You are ignoring the constitution ican.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 05:04 pm
@parados,
As a matter of fact, I'd like to see ican provide evidence that he has support from the legal community, but especially from Constitutional lawyers, that what he claims have any support - even from one individual?
parados
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 05:07 pm
@cicerone imposter,
This is a 'tax protester' argument CI. It is bullshit when they use it and bull **** when ican uses it. Some guy probably made $100,000 selling this idea to people like ican and then went to jail when he didn't pay taxes.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 05:31 pm
@parados,
I remember reading about these people who claim the Constitution doesn't allow our government to tax its citizens, and many have already been prosecuted and put into jail. There's a sucker born every minute...
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 05:51 pm
@parados,
Quote:
The founders argument isn't silly.


I didn't say that the founders' arguments were silly, Parados. There are two little ' around founders, not one which would have illustrated a plural possesion.

What I was suggesting is that this argument, as put forward by so many is silly in that I can't imagine that all the founders didn't realize/understand that theirs was but a guideline that would need to be interpreted, massaged to fit the needs of the day.

That's been happening even since Marbury vs Madison, has it not?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 05:56 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Don't fall for his stupid claims that he can't back up.


How likely is that to happen? After all the Ican postings I've seen, I'd find it exceedingly difficult to accept him giving his name or age without a signed deposition.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 06:00 pm
@JTT,
And it would have to be notarized.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 06:05 pm
@parados,
Yes, I can quote exactly what the founders wrote in the Federalist Papers! For example:

Quote:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed36.asp
Hamilton No. 36
Let it be recollected that the proportion of these taxes is not to be left to the discretion of the national legislature, but is to be determined by the numbers of each State, as described in the second section of the first article. An actual census or enumeration of the people [or enumeration of dollars of income in the case of income taxes] must furnish the rule, a circumstance which effectually shuts the door to partiality or oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have been provided against with guarded circumspection. In addition to the precaution just mentioned, there is a provision that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States.''

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp
Madison No. 41
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp
Madison No. 45
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 06:09 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Even then, I'd want a birth certificate and a note from his mother.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 01/24/2025 at 12:53:36