So I was following the link to another hotair.com post by LaLo and thought I would check out this Ed Morrissey guy. Lots of fun stuff, but this one caught my eye.
Especially with so many people jumping on the Constitution Is King bandwagon (and claiming they have always been on it). Oh really? Then how come soooo many US citizens get an "F" score on this test? Could they be following notable "Constitutional scholars" Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann???
Great news: Elected officials know less about the Constitution than the public
Posted by Ed Morrissey, January 14, 2011
So claims the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which just concluded a five-year study on the American public’s knowledge of its foundational legal document. The bad news: the general public gets an F, with just a 54% average on the 33-question civics test. The worse news: those who identified themselves as public officeholders scored an average of five points worse than the general public.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/14/g … he-public/
Good to see you're getting an education! The study didn't say how many of those questioned were liberals but I'm willing to bet they were the least knowleable. After all it's liberals that have a more favorable view of socialism.
I just took the quiz on the AOL site and got 10 out of 10 correct.
Yeah, I got a 100% as well.
I imagine that it's because I know the difference between the Constitution and other documents, like the Declaration of Independence, Parson Weems' myths about George Washington, the Pledge of Allegiance, the Mayflower Compact, the correspondence of the founders, etc, etc, etc.
It's astonishing how often I have to remind people that the Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, and was never meant to be a set of rules for government.
I have always advocated that people running for public office should be required to take and pass a comprehensive test on the Constitution. What good is it to take an oath of office to uphold something you have no idea what it says?
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/21/a- … f-hot-air/
Another one of my journalistic heroes! Too bad she has the same initials as me .
That's pretty bad - I just did the test on the AOL site and got 9/10 (didn't know about Jefferson's 'Wall of Separation). Even in the UK, we learned about the basics of the US constitution in school
If the US Supreme Court won't adhere to the laws of the land (the US Constitution), why should people care any more?
Some Court Violations of US Constitution
--Brown vs. Board - Supreme Court made up a law
--Civil Rights Act 1964 - violates 10th Amendment
--Voting Rights Act - violates 10th Amendment
-- Affirmative Action executive order 11246 (LBJ) - violates 10th Amendment
(the Commerce Clause has been expanded to include race/gender inclusionism in the workforce - ridiculous)
--Roe v. Wade - Nothing to do w/ the 14th Amendment
--Korean War, Vietnam War, Iraq wars … all were illegal - violates Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution (only Congress has the right to declare war)
SCOTUS has been legislating for well over 2 centuries. They're the most vile and sinister part of the federal government.
Little wonder you hate the SCOTUS. Each member spends a lifetime learning about and then ruling on Constitutional issues; rulings that almost always conflict with the views of amateurs yelling from the cheap seats.
QUICK, RON!!! Someone's READING the Constitution and using their own reading skills that they learned from the public education system that you want everyone to go through!!
ARREST THEM AND LAUGH AT THEM!!! Clearly, the purpose of writing of the Constitution on paper was only so that 9 people every 20 years could read it and understand what it meant!!
Surely, when the constitution says:
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
... what it really means is that "the judicial branch is also allowed to write laws".
And when the document says:
"The Congress shall have Power...To declare War...", it REALLY means that a body of foreign diplomats can tell our executive branch who to bomb.
QUICK, RON!! SOMEONE DONE BEEN READING AGAIN!!
Reading's a good thing Evan. But doing it without understanding what you've just read is just you exercising your eyes and mouth.
Show me a single piece of legislation that was written by the SCOTUS. If you can do so, I'll pay to have indoor plumbing installed at the shack.
Brown v. Board is a CLASSIC example of the US S. Court writing a law. Even liberals agree on that one.
No, the SCOTUS did not write any legislation, they ruled on a case.
Sorry Evan, you still have to use the out house.
The Court did not write a law. It ruled that segregated schools are unconstitutional. There is a difference.
How can i show you any examples when you deny that their legislative acts are legislative acts?
Ruling something unconstitutional is NOT in the power of the Supreme Court. They can merely refuse to find an individual guilty.
The Congress writes the laws, the Judicial branch is the side that can decide if someone is guilty or innocent, and the executive is the branch that arrests the individuals. Ruling a law unconstitutional is NOT the same as refusing to find people guilty.
QUICK!!! Someone didn't save up money!! Steal money from the rich to give the person money!!!
QUICK!!! Someone spilled boiling coffee on their legs!! Sue the man who grew the beans!!!
"Ruling something unconstitutional is NOT in the power of the Supreme Court. They can merely refuse to find an individual guilty."
I don't claim to be a constitutional expert, but what does the following mean, then? It seems to be considerably more broad than merely refusing to find an individual guilty.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..."
To all CASES.
Ruling something to be "unconstitutional" is quite different than "Refusing to find an individual not guilty of a crime".
A girl is eating candy, and gets arrested. The SCOTUS is allowed to say "she was found to be guilty of eating candy", but they can't say "Eating candy is unconstitutional".
The former is finding a breech of law, the latter is an act of legislation.
What?!?!? I would suggest taking a formal college course to re-evaluate this information.
SCOTUS doesn't rule "guilty or not guilty" as they do not re-visit the facts of the argument. They would either affirm a lower courts decision (which means they were right, based upon their application of the U.S. Constitution) or remand a case back to a lower court because they find that a procedure or a right was violated under application of the U.S. constitution. If SCOTUS finds that, e.g., someone was convicted of a crime in an unconstitutional manner, they will say that in their opinion and they have every right to!
Additionally, they also hear civil cases( disputes between two individuals), in which a party can't be found "guilty", but liable.
You give up so easily. That kind of laziness is why you will never know the joys of indoor plumbing.
How can you say that you've shown us an example of a legislative act when you haven't shown us one?
Whenever the SCOTUS rules something "unconstitutional" it's a legislative act.
All they can do is refuse to find someone guilty of a law that they find foolish.
The legislative can refuse to write a law, the executive can refuse to enforce a law, and the judicial can refuse to find individuals guilty.
"Making something unconstitutional" requires a rewriting of the constitution, and thus is an act of legislation.
So my examples that I would provide would be any law that has ever "been found to be unconstitutional".
See, I'd have to disagree.
First, I don't think the court gets to throw out laws that are merely "foolish." The law has to be unconstitutional. Second, the nullification of an unconstitutional law is kind of the opposite of writing a law.
"The legislative can refuse to write a law,"
I wish they'd do so more often.
"the executive can refuse to enforce a law,"
That might be problematical...but I'm intrigued by this idea. Tell me more.
"the judicial can refuse to find individuals guilty."
Well, I'm not so sure. I mean, if there's a law that says, for an absurd example, that everyone must wear propeller beanies in church, and someone refused to put on his propeller beanie because he believes that God wants our heads to be uncovered in His presence, and was prosecuted, I'm not sure a not guilty verdict would be possible if the guy could be proven to have broken the beanie law. But a ruling that the beanie law is an unconstitutional infringement on everyone's free exercise rights would be cool.
"'Making something unconstitutional' requires a rewriting of the constitution, and thus is an act of legislation."
See, I disagree. In my beanie law example, the court didn't rewrite the Constitution, but rather applied it.
Same with the Miranda v Arizona ruling. The court didn't make a law that cops have to read suspects their rights. They just ruled that Miranda's rights were violated rather than waived since Miranda didn't realize he didn't have to talk to the cops without an attorney present when they questioned him. Cops don't have to read those rights by law; rather, they do it to ensure that any evidence they gather will be admissible.
I find it telling how many of your examples have to do with race. The original Constitution granted only white male property owners the right to vote, so it makes sense that laws about race would be interpreted differently in light of the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.
In particular, the 15th Amendment authorizes the Voting Rights Act - "The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." - and the 14th Amendment authorizes the Civil Rights Act - "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The constitution's been dead since before Lincoln. Only until people actually read the damned thing and proceed to demand it be enforced will any of this matter.
Its interesting that you noticed the examples dealt with race.
Thats because the 14th amendment was speaking to race.
Not anything else.
By the way a supreme court ruling becomes the law of the land so any ruling they make is in effect legislation.
The Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision did not produce any law that became "the law of the land." It ruled that segregation in schools is unconstitutional.
I'm no expert, but as far as I know there was no federal legislation specifically prohibiting segregation until enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
"Thats because the 14th amendment was speaking to race."
Not specifically. But clearly it was meant to allow certain inclusionism rights to those of African descent (mainly contact rights). It had NOTHING to do with mandating integration of of the races. Racial integration in 1868 and up until 1910 (creation of the NAACP) was an unknown concept. Blacks were a FREE people, free to build their own cities, their own industries, their own political environments. They were also completely free to colonize a place in America (e.g. the Mormons).
"I'm no expert"
PP, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy all issued executive orders prohibiting discrimination. An EO is a de facto federal law. There was also a civil rights law passed in 1960. It was basically meaningless sense it gave no authority to the fed. gov't to enforce it. But you do bring up an interesting point- perhaps unwittingly. White people were NOT breaking any laws by maintaining a color-line.
"Blacks were a FREE people, free to build their own cities, their own industries, their own political environments. They were also completely free to colonize a place in America"
As long as they didn't do anything white people didn't like or try to vote or anything "uppity" like that...
If they did...
This was taken in 1935, by the way. Some of those kids could still be alive and voting. As could some of these charmers from a sit-in in 1963:
"White people were NOT breaking any laws by maintaining a color-line."
Um, I sincerely hope nobody involved in this conversation considers that to be a good thing.
WOW! Talk about using hyperbole! How naive are you? You have any idea the images produced since 1964 ... showing brutality beyond description of black male violence against innocent white people?! What about if I gathered some of those image?
White people, this is what I call a Pavlov's Dog's guilt trip. When you see these "old" and trite images (or associative words e.g. discrimination, racism, lynching.etc.), you're conditioned response is suppose to be bow your head, shovel your feet...and then SUBMIT. This is how you are sooo easily manipulated. No other people would SUBMIT. You shouldn't either.
Google 'black male massacres' ...you can get a good idea what I'm talking about.
As for actually producing gruesome images, I won't descend to that level. I spoke the truth. Integration is an experiment in human nature. PERIOD
Each and every male group should seek to live as a sell-reliant people. One group cannot INDEFINITELY seek to make another male group(s) there providers.
Kerry, with ALL due respect, you're an amateur...and you should go play somewhere else.
Thanks, but I was here before you and I'll be here after you're gone. I haven't lasted more than 3 years in the HubPages Politics and Social Issues Forum because I'm so thin-skinned I run away crying because someone called me an "amateur."
I think your post above and your profile speak for themselves about your true intentions. In light of that, I really don't see the point of continuing this conversation.
How about this:
We agree that people have acted idiotically towards one another since the beginning of time, and that one of the more common trends of this idiocy happens to occur when one individual begins to discriminate solely on another's skin color or race.
In this fashion, i think it is likely that we can all agree that acts of violence are wrong.
Where we might disagree is which group of individuals might have committed more acts of aggression against an other.
In the long run, however, racists end up hurting themselves economically (although, to a much lesser degree than the individual that they are discriminating against).
Sorry, Evan, thanks for trying to be the voice of reason, but I did Google "black male massacres" as recommended elsewhere in this thread and if "Black Females - Goin' Ghetto" is the kind of thinking espoused by this guy's "Dominant Male Group Theorem," we disagree on far more than "which group of individuals might have committed more acts of aggression against another."
Screenshot of the post in question: http://i52.tinypic.com/abmbn4.jpg
"In the long run, however, racists end up hurting themselves economically "
1. Racism is not based in logic, it is based in emotion, so the economic hardship brought on by a person's racist beliefs isn't likely to make him reconsider his racism, it is likely to give him another reason to hate the race in question, i.e. "those filthy animals cost me my job/business," not "Rick put me out of business by serving whites AND blacks, so I guess I should have started serving blacks too." These are exactly the kind of resentments that breed interracial violence.
2. When racism in society is as systematic as it was during Jim Crow, it may have very little economic effect, or affect society so evenly that people don't necessarily put two and two together that discriminating against one group and preventing them from full participation in society and the economy is the cause of inferior economic performance, especially when there are as many other factors in play as there was under Jim Crow. In hindsight, it may appear obvious, but to contemporaries it wouldn't have.
For these reasons, economics by itself is not an effective force for reducing discrimination and intolerance. There are countless examples throughout history of people acting directly contrary to their own economic self-interest as a result of prejudices of various sorts.
Thank you for the information. I know the basics but would be the last to claim detailed and extensive knowledge on the history of anti-discrimination laws.
Nullifying an unconstitutional law is different from legislating from the bench, but conservatives have been using "judicial activism" as a code word for "a decision they don't like" for the past several years. It's pretty obvious, if you're paying attention. But so few people are.
Who died and left you the ruler supreme of this forum?
That remark was uncalled for.
Kerry G. is not an amateur.
Let's compare: 310 hubs vs. 13; 1307 followers vs. 4. Hmmm.
She is a well respected hubber and she has every bit as much right to post here as you do.
Maybe you are the one who needs to shuffle (not SHOVEL) your little feet out of here -- unless you can respect that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Play nicey nicey in the sandbox. Let us take the recent incursion into Libyan affairs. I have heard that Obama acted unconstitionally...not so, and recent presidents have exercised the same powers that he is taking advantage of. As a member nation in the U.N., and a long standing member of the security council, the U.S. may act in concert with other member nations in enforcing U.N. decisions, and as Commander in Chief, Obama may act militarily in a situation, short of a declaration of war, to protect U.S. interests abroad, with congressional notification due before sixty days have passed. Now that is the constition. Rebuttals, anyone?
Where in the war powers resolution does it say the president can act "to protect U.S. interests"? He can act under very limited circumstances such as an attack on our armed forces, but no such case has been made regarding actions in Libya.
Evan Rodgers has already given the definitive response in this thread:
"The constitution's been dead since before Lincoln."
I would only alter that slightly and say "since Lincoln's assassination."
If you think that Lincoln followed the Constitution... then...
The 10th Amendment CLEARLY makes the secession of a state (even if for supposed immoral reasons) legal.
If you’re referring to Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus in Maryland, well, I have to agree with his decision. Unconstitutional? It sure was. But necessary since Maryland was a slave state.
10th amendment didn’t forbid nor did it allow secession. It was Lincoln’s call. Lincoln would have had quite a dilemma had not those idiots at for Sumter fired on Union (federal) troops. THAT act created the war.
The 10th amendment does allow secession.
"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 power of voluntarily leaving the union is NOT denied to the states ANYWHERE in the Constitution, thus the states retain such power.
The operative word I believe is “reserved”. The one who “reserves” is the enforcer of the document, or the federal gov‘t. This infers subordinate status to the respective states. Each state voluntarily joined the Union. In so doing they agreed to be subordinate to the federal gov’t. States may indeed have the right to leave the Union. But NOT without consequences being imposed by the federal gov‘t.. The consequences to be suffered is the proverbial “black box.” When a community in city of LA tried to the leave the city, the enforcer of the city charter (LA city council) said, “Sure you can leave. But here is what it will cost your community” (in dollars). They made the move cost prohibitive.
How utterly daft.
Those powers are reserved for the states means nothing more than every power not granted to the federal government and every power not taken away from the states is granted (reserved = not taken away) to the states.
Thus, the power of secession IS reserved to the states. Thus the states CAN leave the "Union".
There's absolutely no way you could even hope to change my mind on this with your "the states are the federal government's b!tch" logic. The Federal government was created by the states - just look at the history and discover that each state seceded from Britain in a different year.
It is ALWAYS ones right to opt out on an agreement. However, there will always be consequences in such a move. You can bet your right arm the US gov't would make it cost prohibitive for any state to opt out of the Union.
Think about it. Any state deciding to leave the Union, at the very least would face a tsunami of compensatory lawsuits, from the federal gov't, other states, as well as private citizens and from companies (domestic and foreign) doing business in their state.
Bottom line: No state could possibly afford to exercise their 10th Amendment right to secede. So discussing such a a thing is really moot.
"That remark was uncalled for."
And Kerry''s use of amateurish hyperbole was called for? In fact, it was not just amateurish; it was disgusting.
Also, I state in my profile that I am NOT here for followers. I am also not here to generate income as a hubber. And Kerry may indeed be as you say "well respect", but in the arena of politics, and again, I mean it with all due respect, she(?) is an amateur. Only an amateur would have done what she did.
Oh, and thanks for "shuffle" correction.
What! Only an amateur could find fault with your racist views! Better mark me down as an amateur as well.
Phew, thank goodness for that!
Perish the thought that you should think that I agreed with you.
Oh, holden, your socialist brethren just TORE UP downtown London. You had to be there.C''Mon. How did you manage to slither away from the police? And what trophy damage were you responsible for? Brag about it here... I want to know.
For a start, we don't have down town in the UK. For a second "TORE UP" you been at the Murdoch trough again? Or do you seriously think that a crowd exceeding quarter of a million yielding 202 arrests is really bad!
And, not all by any means were socialist!
Try a bit harder please, give me something to get my teeth into.
I have been to "downtown" London... so I know it does exist.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … lence.html
C'Mon, mr. marxist, get up to speed.
We don't use the expression "down town" in the UK and would certainly not apply it to the city centre.
The Daily Wail is an extreme right wing newspaper and thus is going to spin as hard as it can. Never the less, even they have to admit that the demonstration passed peacefully and the trouble was caused afterwards. Kind of suggests that the trouble makers weren't connected with the demonstration doesn't it? Especially when the common response of people who made it to London was that it had been a long and tiring day.
If you wouldn't use "down town" why would you apply it...Never mind
holden, you are clearly my intellectual superior. I bow to your genius and leave the stage here to you. Long live Marxism...
I've been to London as well. The square mile or so that we Yanks would call "downtown" is merely called "the city" in the UK. Modern London is made up of a whole bunch of what used to be separate towns before they all sprawled together. The City is the part that was originally called London, more or less. Have I got it about right, John?
I have also been to downtown London and it exists! and your correct about holden, very big socialist! It doesn't pay to even respond to such nonsense. ENTITLEMENTS! that is all they want.
No offense to that article, but they REALLY chose the wrong title...
A bunch of nit-wits are demanding MORE government spending, and the headline calls them ANARCHISTS.
In fact, those "anarchists" were demanding that "the rich" pay "more taxes".
Those are some very pro-government anarchists!!!
... Orwell's NewSpeak in action!
I'd agree with you that they ain't no anarchists, but would disagree with "asking for more money" Neither were they demanding that the rich paid more taxes, just an equal amount.
I take it you didn't view any of the clips that made it clear what was wanted and mostly excepted cuts, ut not as brutal and biased.
Sorry, but the very first line of the article tends towards agreement with my argument:
"Over 200 people were arrested as extremists brought violent chaos to central London yesterday after hijacking the much-heralded trade union protest against public spending cuts."
They were fighting against spending cuts. That means they want more spending than was being offered.
As far as demanding that the rich pay an equal amount, that is surely nonsense. I bet that company was still paying a lot of money in taxes. A lot more per person than those individuals were.
The only equal rate is 0%.
But as I've said before, the Daily Wail is a very right wing newspaper, prone to running scare stories.
Have you actually looked at all the clips that I posted with person after person saying that they accept that cuts have to be made, just no in this way and not so harshly!
It's not about "entitlement" it's about the way we are in this country, we have and we want a national health service, funded by taxation, we don't want private health care and don't see why we should have it foisted on us just so our millionaire leaders can add a few more millions to their bank accounts.
Do you think we should just roll over and let the government take away local powers and centralise them?
Are you really telling me, as an anarchist, that we should just drop our pants and let the government shaft us?
Bend Over and Wait
... if I'm an anarchist, why would I want the government to do anything?
How is returning stolen wealth dropping our pants to let the government shaft us? The government stole our money at gunpoint. And now that it's returning it to some, it's evil?
And as for "not bothering to read the other articles you post", they all seem to be the same thing: people upset that others might not be paying "enough" taxes, and a general decrease in government spending. I don't fully understand why you would want me to read the same thing 5 times....
Either way, my argument was that these aren't anarchists, and you have yet to convince me that they are. In fact, I would argue that they're socialists - they are demanding a stronger government and the further theft of wealth from people who are "rich".
Yes it's evil if the government steals wealth off the people and pays it back to others, others who have no claim to OUR wealth!
But you seem to have no problem with that.
You know I see a lot of people whinging here about Obama wanting to fundamentally change the US but some of those people are arguing that we should just shut up and let Cameron fundamentally change the UK without any opposition!
It was only you and the Daily Wail that were claiming that the violent protesters were anarchists.
In what way are they arguing for stronger government? How does that relate to demands that government stops meddling?
Anarchists, defenders of wealth and privilege!
Cameron had the good sense to take money away from poor people and give it to rich people. Socialism is only evil when it helps the poor.
what is this "our wealth" nonsense?
MY wealth is not YOUR wealth. I own things, and YOU own things. There is no "our" wealth.
Just because the same individual (government) might steal money from me and you, and then claim to spend it for both of our good (which is obviously nonsense), that stolen money doesn't somehow become "our" money. Each unit of money taken is still one of ours' money.
If I was robbed by a hooded criminal, and then later that same man stole your money (maybe he stole more money from you), it would be completely illogical for me to demand that "John Holden didn't pay enough money to the thief!! Let's go bash John's teeth in!"
Anyway, I've made my point, and this argument is a bit off topic. I'll stop here.
"And Kerry''s use of amateurish hyperbole was called for? In fact, it was not just amateurish; it was disgusting. "
Wait, kerryg posting those pictures is disgusting? Not the acts depicted in the pictures?
Wow, you sure have some strange ideas about what's disgusting...
Just listening to the radio news with interviews from folk who were dancing in Trafalgar Square unaware of any problems, others saying similar, "until the police charged them". The police saying how the demonstration was spoilt by a very small number of hotheads out to cause trouble!
I don't understand your comment "If you wouldn't use "down town" why would you apply it."?
More radical trouble makers
why did you not post this one??? seems more than just a few people! You socialist deserve nothing!!
Because it was in a minority!
OK so us socialists deserve nothing, what about all the conservatives, Lib dems, and everybody else that was marching?
You're telling me that the only deserving ones are the rich and privileged?
The only people who deserve anything are the people who earn the things that they deserve.
Unfortunately, government makes people able to "earn" wealth by stealing from one another.
So you are saying that people who've paid taxes for their whole working life to ensure a pension when they retire don't "deserve" their pensions! That people who've paid taxes for policing don't "deserve" policing. That people who've piad for the National Health Service don't "deserve" it!
This post demonstrates the thinking process of a socialist. And why they’re so dangerous.
The only way to achieve “deserve” in holden’s post here is by legislative fiat. People MUST be forced to give to the “deserving.” In the mind of the socialist, guarantees can actually exist. You can guarantee a job. You can guarantee people homes, health care, food, clothing … Anything. Everything. It’s just a matter of making it (whatever a socialist feels people “deserves”) a law. However, passing the "necessary" laws is always the problem. How is this problem overcome? You need a benevolent DICTATOR: A Hugo Chavez, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Pol Pot. To holden, I am sure he CAN’T figure out how non-socialists can just dismiss all the success of the past and present benevolent DICTATORS.
Bunkum, absolute bunkum! We have over many years included some socialist ideals by common consent in the UK. These have included state pensions and the health service. Nobody was forced to vote these in, they were brought in by common consent, by socialists and capitalists alike.
We now have a government that will deprive us of those things without even a parliamentary majority!
Holden, you are intellectually LOST. LOOK at what these legislative guarantees have DONE to your (and America's)economic system. These guarantees - by your socialist brethren - far exceed the ability of the tax base to support! This SIMPLE economic principle, for reasons I cannot fathom, you socialist cannot grasp. I'll say ONE more time:
A gov't cannot provide services to its people that exceed the ability of the tax base to support.
You're assuming that the tax base only services benefits to the people! You discount the payouts to the bankers and the tax cuts for the wealthy!
These "guarantees" being budgeted for, do not exceed anything, least of all the ability to pay them, except of course when the government throws everything off balance by, for instance, increasing unemployment drastically, or drastically reducing the tax base. It was the governments attempts to do both these things that led to Saturdays protests.
If we had the same level of taxation today as we had in the 50s and 60s, there'd probably be no defecit.
Our taxes are lower than they've been in decades, but for some reason people seem to think that they've gone up....
The biggest issue is the income levels some can achieve. I think we need to recognize the existence of national and global income potentials, and tax accordingly. Michael Eisner (achieving a global income) works for Disney for 20 years & makes close to a BILLION dollars? Then there's the Wallstreet boys. Their incomes should be criminal. On and on it goes. These guys are going to BURY the people - the overwhelming majority - who can only achieve local incomes.
Sorry, why am I intellectually impoverished when I say any thing like that, but you aren't!!
Incidentally, in case you haven't noticed, I'm 100% in agreement with you there!
"Then there's the Wallstreet boys. Their incomes should be criminal. "
No, see, even I don't think that.
Their incomes would be fine, if they earned those incomes honestly, without fraud or malfeasance. If they'd made investments that had paid off, and earned money for the investors, then fair play to 'em for getting a big bonus! Good job!
But if they make bad investments that lose money, they sure as heck shouldn't be getting a reward for it. And if they convinced others to make bad investments by deliberately lying about the risks involved, then they should be jailed for fraud instead of cashing big bonus checks.
But that's just me, applying accountability rules to the rich as well as the poor. I guess I must be a little naive.
I can't find the link to it right now but saw recently a rather telling photograph of a recent march by health workers passing a bank. In one of the bank windows is a banker waving a fist full of money at the marchers!
So? That makes him a wanker, not a criminal. Now if he got that fist full of money through fraud or other malfeasance, that'd be different.
We shouldn't resent the wealthy merely for being wealthy. I'm trying to become wealthy through honest means, and making some progress. I hope nobody's going to resent me if I ever do become 'wealthy.'
But we shouldn't tolerate the accumulation of wealth through intimidation, fraud, theft, or other malfeasance (or as a reward for messing up royally). That's the kind of wealth I find offensive.
No, see, Evan's very consistent in his views. Rather than just cancel out all the programs that the people have already paid into, I'm sure that Evan would rather just see all that money given right back to the people who paid in (possibly with interest). The problem is that this is impossible at this time without further taxation.
Evan's ideas are equitable, but unworkable from where we are now without a long-term plan, or else a lot of contracts are going to get reneged on, and any good anarchist/libertarian would frown on breaking a contract.
It's the wingnuts in the US who are okay with breaking contracts with workers and letting their pensions evaporate but not okay with breaking contracts with the Wall Street bankers who 'earned' bonuses by wrecking the economy with their reckless investments. Evan is not one of those scoundrels.
I do hope everyone is aware, there is also another law that says any law or ruling that is against the Constitution is unenforceable and is nulland void from its inception? No Court is bound to uphold it, no law enforcement can enforce it, no citizen need follow it.
Not only is this a federal statute, but it has been ruled upon in this light many times throughout our history by various courts at various levels.
YOU DONT HAVE TO FOLLOW AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Just make sure you're lawyer is aware of this federal statue and the many rulings behind it. Make sure he uses it in court too.
( I know - you shouldn't even be in court, but that is how corrupt we have allowed our public servants to become.)
By Christopher Booker 7:16PM GMT 26 Mar 2011
The increasingly surreal state of our public finances was highlighted by several events last week, not least the Budget, which George Osborne claimed was intended to encourage growth in the economy while continuing to remedy the hole in our bank balance created by the last government’s reckless overspending. Despite the general impression that our new Government is cutting back on public spending – as Channel 4’s Jon Snow put it, we are facing the most severe cuts since World War Two – the Budget revealed that our spending will in fact increase even faster than we were told it would last October.
In the small print of last year’s spending review, Mr Osborne told us that annual spending was due to rise from £696 billion to £739 billion in four years’ time. In the small print of last week’s Budget, spending is projected to rise from £694 billion this year to £743.6 billion in 2014-15, an increase of some £50 billion.
Then there was Mr Osborne’s claim that, to encourage small businesses, he is planning to save £350 million by scrapping unnecessary regulations. What again only emerged from other official sources was that, as usual, “deregulation” cannot include any regulations originating from the EU, although these now account for the vast majority of our regulatory burden.
Coming into force next October, for instance, will be the Agency Workers Regulations, implementing a 2008 EU directive giving temporary workers similar employment rights to full-time employees. This was fiercely resisted by our Government at the time because it will hit Britain much harder than other EU countries. The Government’s own estimate of its annual cost is a staggering £1.9 billion. So, while the Chancellor boasts about saving £350 million, what he doesn’t mention is that the cost of just one EU regulation which we cannot repeal will be nearly £2 billion a year.
Then there was the peculiar farce of David Cameron’s trip to Brussels last Thursday, to sign up to an amendment to the EU Treaty creating a European Financial Stability Mechanism. Under this, it is estimated that we may have to stump up £5 billion to help bail out countries such as Portugal, the latest victim in the slow-motion collapse of the euro, even though we are not in the eurozone. (Weren’t we meant to be given a referendum on any further amendments to that EU treaty?)
Finally, when it comes to the wise spending of taxpayers’ money, I cannot resist mentioning those celebrated Storm Shadow missiles, six of which we were last week chucking at unidentified targets in Libya. Although various experts were quoted as saying that these only cost £500,000 each, we in fact paid £981 million for 900 of them (as I reported here in September 2005). Thanks to Michael Portillo, who ordered them when he was defence secretary, we thus paid over £1 million each for missiles containing 1,000lb of explosives, a quarter of the bomb load of a World War Two Mosquito.
Throw in the cost of the three Tornados which took them to Libya, at £33,000 an hour for eight hours’ flying time, and this little display of Britain’s military prowess cost us around £7 million. Yet the seven Tomahawk cruise missiles fired into Libya from the nuclear submarine HMS Triumph cost only £305,000 each, for a much more capable and equally destructive missile with a range of 1,800 miles, the distance between Britain and Libya. The Triumph could thus have fired them off from the Thames, while the Tornados stayed safely in Norfolk, saving us some £5 million. But perhaps our ministers thought the pictures would not be so dramatic.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/8408 … nding.html
----------------------------------------------------------------And that's from the Torygraph, a well known right wing newspaper!
When world situations reach the point that they have, and the super powers no longer truly exist, and are caught in foreign political and tribal mindsets where old stratagems no longer apply, and the old smoke and mirrors of "foreign affairs" is proving ineffectual because of the increased exposure which our miraculous modern age has afforded to even the simplest sheepherder, we, as a light of freedom, must rise to the cause which we have so long abandoned. Our apportionment of the former contested areas of Europe, over time, reverting to there own ethnically drawn borders of pre world war one eastern europe, defying not just the Allies attempts to control, but also, the attempts of the now defunct Soviet Union, the ousting of U.S. backed (and installed) despots, none of whom ever embraced our ideals, torturing and killing their own people, should serve as a constant reminder, and our present problems are directly associated with those policies, and it is about time that we helped those who are trying to break the bonds which people like Gaddafi have placed upon them. Don't just wave the flag. Believe in it. Back the people, and they will remember, at least until tomorrow. Good will is something that needs to be practiced every day...and you can't ever please everybody.
by Susan Reid5 years ago
Every day we hear from hubbers about how Obama is out to destroy the Constitution. Across this great nation there is a movement of very vocal, very serious "pro-contitutionalists."The Constitution is suddenly...
by Laurel Rogers6 years ago
Thank God for civil rights!NPR BREAKING NEWS:Reports: California's Ban On Same-Sex Marriages Ruled UnconstitutionalA federal judge in San Francisco has overturned Proposition 8 in a landmark case that could eventually...
by Poppa Blues6 years ago
Don't take my word for it listen to an expert!The Truth About the Health Care BillsPosted August 12, 2009Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices...
by Doug Hughes5 years ago
Sixth Circuit upholds ObamaCare mandate POSTED AT 1:15 PM ON JUNE 29, 2011 BY ED MORRISSEY "The decision got overlooked in all of the attention to Barack Obama’s press conference, but nonetheless this...
by Doug Hughes5 years ago
Section 7 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.Section 81: The Congress shall have Power To lay and...
by niall.tubbs6 years ago
I don't know anyone in America that doesn't support the freedom of religion. Why do you ask?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.