AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

You really don't know anything about securities, do you. And now I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know anything about money either. Is there any end to the subjects about which you are willing to opine and about which you know nothing?

Haha, no. There is no end.

Cycloptichorn

Joe, ''You really don't know anything about securities, do you. And now I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know anything about money either. Is there any end to the subjects about which you are willing to opine and about which you know nothing? "

Of course, PRINTED MONEY are one kind of SECURITIES.

ican = okie, okie = ican; same garbage and BS that eludes reality. I wonder how they manage to survive in this world with their cockamamie ideas on almost everything?

That's a rather surprising position for you to take, Foxfyre, considering your stance on the issue of gay marriage. You argue that marriage laws don't discriminate against gays because gays can always marry somebody of the opposite sex. And if they don't marry, it's because they choose not to marry. So why is that any different from the non-union workers in this situation? After all, the government isn't "locking them out," since non-union workers can always join a union. And if they don't work, it's because they choose not to work.

No. But the constitution empowers Congress to tax, and to spend tax revenue for the general welfare. The Supreme Court, drawing on a tradition of constitutional interpretation going back to Alexander Hamilton, has held that this is an independent grant of power, and that it's up to Congress to decide what the general welfare is. If Congress determines that financial support for the poor furthers the general welfare, then all is well as far as the constitution is concerned.

I suspect the point will forever be lost on you, because you insist on falsely believing that all the other founding fathers agreed with Madison's view of the welfare clause. But they did not. Hamilton -- and early commentaries on the Constitution such as Joseph Story's -- held pretty much the view that modern caselaw reflects as well. So the New Deal Supreme Court didn't come up with a new interpretation of the welfare clause. It merely enacted Hamilton's interpretation over Madison's. You won't find a judge of any standing in constitutional who still defends Madison's interpretation. That includes the conservative, originalist judges such as Scalia and Thomas.

No one was arguing that the federal government is REQUIRED by the constitution to provide relief or benefits to people. Because Congress is authorized to spend money for the general welfare, Congress MAY provide relief or benefits to people. See Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/course/readings/301us619.htm

Excerpt from syllabus:

2. The scheme of "Federal Old-Age Benefits" set up by Title II of the Social Security Act does not contravene the limitations of the Tenth Amendment. P. 640.

3. Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." P. 640.

The nutty wagon has topped the hill and is pickin' up speed at a seemingly impossible rate.

Rightwing Conservatives: Where God stores his surplus stupidty.

Helvering v. Davis
No. 910

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

301 U.S. 619

May 5, 1937

May 24, 1937

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

EXCERPT:

Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. 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, supra. 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. [p*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, supra, p. 67. Cf. Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, ante, p. 308; United States v. Realty Co., 163 U.S. 427, 440; Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580, 595. 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 wellbeing of the Nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.

The purge of nationwide calamity that began in 1929 has taught us many lessons. Not the least is the solidarity of interests that may once have seemed to be divided. Unemployment spreads from State to State, the hinterland now settled that, in pioneer days gave an avenue of escape. Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398, 442. Spreading from State to State, unemployment is an ill not particular, but general, which may be checked, if Congress so determines, by the resources of the Nation. If this can have been doubtful until now, our ruling today in the case of the Steward Machine Co., supra, has set the doubt at rest. But the ill is all one, or at least not greatly different, whether men are thrown out of work because there is no longer work to do or because the disabilities of age make them incapable of doing it. Rescue becomes necessary irrespective of the cause. The hope behind this statute is to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house, as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey's end is near.

Congress did not improvise a judgment when it found that the award of old age benefits would be conducive to the general welfare. The President's Committee on Economic Security made an investigation and report, aided by a research staff of Government officers and employees, and by an Advisory Council and seven other advisory [p*642] groups. [n2] Extensive hearings followed before the House Committee on Ways and Means, and the Senate Committee on Finance. [n3] A great mass of evidence was brought together supporting the policy which finds expression in the act. Among the relevant facts are these: the number of persons in the United States 65 years of age or over is increasing proportionately as well as absolutely. What is even more important, the number of such persons unable to take care of themselves is growing at a threatening pace. More and more, our population is becoming urban and industrial, instead of rural and agricultural. [n4] The evidence is impressive that, among industrial workers, the younger men and women are preferred over the older. [n5] In times of retrenchment, the older are commonly the first to go, and even if retained, their wages are likely to be lowered. The plight of men and women at so low an age as 40 is hard, almost hopeless, when they are driven to seek for reemployment. Statistics are in the brief. A few illustrations will be chosen from many there collected. In 1930, out of 224 American factories investigated, 71, or almost one third, had fixed maximum hiring age limits; in 4 plants, the limit was under 40; in 41, it was under 46. In the other 153 plants, there were no fixed limits, but in practice few were hired if they were over 50 years of age. [n6] With the loss of savings inevitable in periods of idleness, [p*643] the fate of workers over 65, when thrown out of work, is little less than desperate. A recent study of the Social Security Board informs us that one-fifth of the aged in the United States were receiving old-age assistance, emergency relief, institutional care, employment under the works program, or some other form of aid from public or private funds; two-fifths to one-half were dependent on friends and relatives, one-eighth had some income from earnings, and possibly one-sixth had some savings or property. Approximately three out of four persons 65 or over were probably dependent wholly or partially on others for support. [n7]

We summarize in the margin the results of other studies by state and national commissions. [n8] They point the same way. [p*644]

The problem is plainly national in area and dimensions. Moreover, laws of the separate states cannot deal with it effectively. Congress, at least, had a basis for that belief. States and local governments are often lacking in the resources that are necessary to finance an adequate program of security for the aged. This is brought out with a wealth of illustration in recent studies of the problem. [n9] Apart from the failure of resources, states and local governments are at times reluctant to increase so heavily the burden of taxation to be borne by their residents for fear of placing themselves in a position of economic disadvantage as compared with neighbors or competitors. We have seen this in our study of the problem of unemployment compensation. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. A system of old age pensions has special dangers of its own if put in force in one state and rejected in another. The existence of such a system is a bait to the needy and dependent elsewhere, encouraging them to migrate and seek a haven of repose. Only a power that is national can serve the interests of all.

Whether wisdom or unwisdom resides in the scheme of benefits set forth in Title II it is not for us to say. The answer to such inquiries must come from Congress, not the courts. Our concern here, as often, is with power, not with wisdom.

Counsel for respondent has recalled to us the virtues of self-reliance and frugality. There is a possibility, he says, that aid from a paternal government [p*645] may sap those sturdy virtues and breed a race of weaklings. If Massachusetts so believes and shapes her laws in that conviction, must her breed of sons be changed, he asks, because some other philosophy of government finds favor in the halls of Congress? But the answer is not doubtful. One might ask with equal reason whether the system of protective tariffs is to be set aside at will in one state or another whenever local policy prefers the rule of laissez faire. The issue is a closed one. It was fought out long ago. [n10] When money is spent to promote the general welfare, the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by Congress, not the states. So the concept be not arbitrary, the locality must yield. Constitution, Art. VI, Par. 2.

I have not said that ALL the Founders agreed on anything. When I say 'the Founders' I mean the same thing I mean when I say 'the Republicans' or 'the Democrats' or 'the numbnuts' or any other group of which a majority share a commonly agreed view of something. I cannot think of a single group ever in which there was not some disagreement on how to proceed with this or that or what to do about this or that. I can't think of another soul in the entire world that I have agreed with on every single thing nor disagreed with about every single thing. Can you?

You would deny me the ability to reasonably use a consensus from history to illustrate a point, even as you use modern consensus to support yours.

I believe Scalia and Thomas WOULD rule as Constitutional a Congressional initiative to begin phasing out huge, expensive, and increasingly unwieldly entitlement programs and, as expediently and mercifully as possible, returning the responsibility, if any, for those to the states. I think Scalia and Thomas WOULD rule as Constitutional Congress passing legislation that forbade any new law that would direct the people's money to any individual or group or special interest.

You prefer to look at the modern mushy liberal view of these things as the way it is and what I should accept without question. I prefer to look at the way it once was, acknowledge the virtues inherent in that, and hope for us to wake up and return to some semblance of that model.

New driver, same wagon.

That's right. The marriage laws in every state now apply the exact same rules without prejudice to all persons regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, socioeconomic standing, politics, gender, or sexual orientation. There is no law that says you have to be heterosexual or homosexual or belong to any group or pay dues to some organization or even like your intended spouse in order to have the right to get married however.

A law that does require people to pay dues to and enrich and empower some group in order to exercise a necessary component of one's Constitutionally protected right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, however, is something quite different, and something that should not be allowed to stand by anybody who values and loves freedom, liberty, and believes in the concept of unalienable rights.

A government who requires union membership in order to work under a government contract has the power to require union membership in order to work. The mark of the beast? Who knows.

A dollar bill--or a multidollar bill--is PRINTED MONEY. From the following definitions, a dollar bill--or a multidollar bill--is one kind of note and therefore is one kind of security.

Congress had the discretion to establish social security and medicaid programs and thus Congress has the discretion to disestablish those same programs. The present congress, however, does not have constitutional authority to tie the tax and spending hands of future congresses through ordinary legislation. Future congresses are only bound by the limitations placed on them by the Constitution.

The federal government is not providing "for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" when it gives its tax revenue to persons or organizations that did not lawfully earn it.

The federal government is not providing "for the common defense of the United States" when it gives its tax revenue to persons or organizations that did not lawfully earn it.

The federal government is not providing "for the general welfare of the United States" when it gives its tax revenue to persons or organizations that did not lawfully earn it.

Congress DID NOT HAVE the discretion to establish social security and medicaid programs and Congress DOES HAVE the discretion to disestablish those same programs.


Wisdom circa 1778: Alexander Fraser Tytler, better known as Lord Woodhouselee (1747 " 1813)

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage."

By American voters in the past generally restraining voting "themselves money from the public treasure," the USA's constitutional republic has lasted 220 years. However, if we do not reverse our current trend of voters voting "themselves money from the public treasure," the USA's constitutional republic is doomed. Dictatorship, here we come!

Then I suggest you write to your favorite conservative think tank and ask them to give your theory its day in court. Don't be surprised if Scalia's and Thomas's judgment surprises you though.

So how long do you give the good ole US of A, Ican, ten years, twenty, half a century?

funny how you think it's okay to receive an education that you did not lawfully earn funded by the lawful earnings of others simply because you got charity from a local government rather than the federal government.

you want it both ways don't you?

it's only an unconstitutional transfer of wealth when somebody else benefits. i see you now.