Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
Loren Eberly

Centerburg, OH

#6619 Jul 22, 2012
Foreign and Domestic Investors and Stockholders:
Before The majority of 53% of US the Government of this Representative Republic that vote and the 47% nonvoters that sit on their dead hands and whine; Successfully elected President, Governor, Representatives of US the Government, County Commissioners, Township Trustees, Mayors, City Council, School Administrators and Board Members.
That believes corporations, farmers, businesses, outsourcer sweatshops, and nonprofit, tax-exempt, organizations and Churches, OPEC Nations, Enron Stockholders, Wal-Mart Stockholders, Hillarys, Chinese, Foreign and Domestic Investors and Stockholders (money marketers) marketing more stock dividends (money) quarterly. In the wholesale and retail price of every product and service Human Beings use for life. And School Boards and Government needs to build, maintain and operate schools, infrastructure, and provide local and national security, and Government services. That gets only product or service has value.
Consumers could buy a state-of-the-art automobile Union Workers manufactured in the USA for about $2,500, buy a gallon of gas for $.20 to $.22, buy a cup of coffee in most restaurants for $.10, and pay for every product and service they use for life with money derived from wages (union contract) investment and independent business profit.
Electing Officials that defies USA Labor Law, The Constitution, and demands of Natural Law: what Mother Nature, God, or Whatever Power decreed to be the reality of the real world, democracy, capitalism, the US Constitution, and free, fair, and affordable commerce and common sense demands.
Demanding every corporation, farmer, business, outsourcer sweatshop, and nonprofit, tax-exempt, organization and Church; markets the cost in the wholesale and retail price of his or her product and service; of every worker, consumer, and taxpayer's wages (union contract), investment and independent business profit. This enables every worker, consumer, and taxpayer to pay healthcare insurance premium or pay healthcare provider. Pay ALL taxes and pay for every product and service they use for life. With money derived from wages, investment profit, and independent business profit. This enables every parent to educate, love, nurse, nurture, discipline, protect, and provide; for every child (job) they conceive. And fund schools, infrastructure, local and national security, government services, and etc.; with money derived from wages, investment profit, and independent business profit.
Defying USA Labor Law, the Constitution, and Realities demands is bankrupting USA. Makes free, fair, and affordable commerce IMPOSSIBLE; Makes funding schools IMPOSSIBLE; Makes balancing every budget IMPOSSIBLE; Makes Union workers, consumers, taxpayers, and Americas grandchildren's children life UNAFFORDABLE; and created Ohio’s $1.35 trillion budget deficit, the $40 trillion social security and the $16 trillion national debt. America’s grandchildren’s children are responsible to pay Chinese, Foreign and Domestic Investors and Stockholders interest with this debt until they are 18 years old. America’s grandchildren’s children cannot afford life and pay this debt with the $7.25 per hour Government mandated labor wage in a hundred million years.
Duke for Mayor

Hartville, OH

#6620 Jul 22, 2012
Kramers Attorney wrote:
<quoted text>
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[2][3]
Moreover, the Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[4][5] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[6][4] but a qualification on the taxing power[7][8][4] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[9][4][10] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[4] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures.
As such, these clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_...
I think you might be confused.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1fr...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1fr...

woof
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#6621 Jul 22, 2012
Kramers Attorney wrote:
<quoted text>I'm simply reminding you that it's official: Obamacare is a tax. The largest tax increase in the history of this planet.
Wrong.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#6622 Jul 22, 2012
Kramers Attorney wrote:
<quoted text>I'm simply reminding you that it's official: Obamacare is a tax. The largest tax increase in the history of this planet.
And even if it was, so what?
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#6623 Jul 22, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I always understood that you are not very smart, but I think this time you hit a new low. I just explained what our founders meant by the term General Welfare, and you ask me who stuck those two words in there?
You are a fine example of why we should end public school.
This is why you should stick to driving your truck and leave the constitutional interpretation to those who have been trained to do it. What matters are the words in the document and how the SCOTUS has interpreted those words. What Madison or Jefferson of Jesus might have said in writings outside those two areas have no authority whatsoever. The people who wrote the constitution had differing opinions. That's why the Judicial Branch was created; to interpret the document. I will trust you as an authority on the price of diesel. Leave the heavy thinking to us.

Since: Apr 12

Hilliard, OH

#6624 Jul 22, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
And even if it was, so what?
That Obama and his crew lied through their teeth about it not being a tax.
No matter...it will be repealed within two years.

Since: Apr 12

Hilliard, OH

#6625 Jul 22, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
The Supreme Court is wrong?

Since: Apr 12

Hilliard, OH

#6626 Jul 22, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
I suggest you reference the footnotes in the Wiki article.

Since: Apr 12

Hilliard, OH

#6627 Jul 22, 2012
[11]^ Killian, Johnny; George Costello, Kenneth Thomas (2004). The Constitution of the United States of America—Analysis and Interpretation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 161. "The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power."
True

United States

#6628 Jul 22, 2012
It really does not matter, who ever it would be they will sell us out.
Duke for Mayor

Hartville, OH

#6629 Jul 22, 2012
Kramers Attorney wrote:
[11]^ Killian, Johnny; George Costello, Kenneth Thomas (2004). The Constitution of the United States of America—Analysis and Interpretation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 161. "The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power."
I suggest you read some case law, rather that wiki.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Hartville, OH

#6630 Jul 22, 2012

Since: Apr 12

Hilliard, OH

#6631 Jul 22, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
I suggest you read some case law, rather that wiki.
woof
Sure thing...
[2]^ Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905)(“Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.”).
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#6632 Jul 22, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
This is why you should stick to driving your truck and leave the constitutional interpretation to those who have been trained to do it. What matters are the words in the document and how the SCOTUS has interpreted those words. What Madison or Jefferson of Jesus might have said in writings outside those two areas have no authority whatsoever. The people who wrote the constitution had differing opinions. That's why the Judicial Branch was created; to interpret the document. I will trust you as an authority on the price of diesel. Leave the heavy thinking to us.
To us? And who is us? People with limited debating skills such as yourself?

Of course the words of our founders mean everything. Forget activist judges. Activist judges have been around as long as this country, but that doesn't mean they ruled on the founders intent--it means they ruled on their own intent.

You liberals love activist judges because like you, they wish to change the foundation of our country. This is how they found Separation of Church and State when it's not in the Constitution. This is how they ruled abortions were constitutionally protected. Yet when we examine the words of the constitutional authors, there is not even a hint of this.
Duke for Mayor

Hartville, OH

#6633 Jul 22, 2012
Kramers Attorney wrote:
<quoted text>Sure thing...
[2]^ Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905)(“Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.”).
Now, keep going further into the future. You're almost there

woof
Duke for Mayor

Hartville, OH

#6634 Jul 22, 2012
Kramers Attorney wrote:
<quoted text>Sure thing...
[2]^ Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905)(“Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.”).
And of course, you also must be able to understand the relationship of the taxing powers to the general welfare clause:

"The scope of the national spending power was brought before the Supreme Court at least five times prior to 1936, but the Court disposed of four of the suits without construing the “general welfare” clause. In the Pacific Railway Cases (California v. Pacific Railroad Co.)538 and Smith v. Kansas City Title Co.,539 it affirmed the power of Congress to construct internal improvements, and to charter and purchase the capital stock of federal land banks, by reference to the powers of the National Government over commerce, and post roads and fiscal operations, and to its war powers. Decisions on the merits were withheld in two other cases, Massachusetts v. Mellon and Frothingham v. Mellon,540 on the ground that neither a State nor an individual citizen is entitled to a remedy in the courts against an alleged unconstitutional appropriation of national funds. In United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry.,541 however, the Court had invoked “the great power of taxation to be exercised for the common defence and general welfare”542 to sustain the right of the Federal Government to acquire land within a State for use as a national park.

Finally, in United States v. Butler,543 the Court gave its unqualified endorsement to Hamilton’s views on the taxing power. Wrote Justice Roberts for the Court:“Since the foundation of the Nation sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of[p.155]power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the numerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court had noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of Sec. 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”544

woof
free

Sidney, OH

#6635 Jul 22, 2012
You're right wrong way. It's wealth redistribution from the middle class to the government coffers and wealthy increasing poverty. Yet you think wealthy folks should pay more taxes. For what ? So the government can spend more of our debt to China and misappropriate those taxes.
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.

Since: Apr 12

Hilliard, OH

#6636 Jul 22, 2012
As I said, nobody can get away with lying and saying that Obamacare isn't a tax.
Duke for Mayor

Hartville, OH

#6638 Jul 22, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
To us? And who is us? People with limited debating skills such as yourself?
Of course the words of our founders mean everything. Forget activist judges. Activist judges have been around as long as this country, but that doesn't mean they ruled on the founders intent--it means they ruled on their own intent.
You liberals love activist judges because like you, they wish to change the foundation of our country. This is how they found Separation of Church and State when it's not in the Constitution. This is how they ruled abortions were constitutionally protected. Yet when we examine the words of the constitutional authors, there is not even a hint of this.
The founders made specific arrangements for the Article III Courts to be the arbiters of such issues, and for the process involved in establishing who would sit on them.

Are you saying the founders didn't mean to do that??? That they fcckkkd that one all up???

woof
Duke for Mayor

Hartville, OH

#6639 Jul 22, 2012
"Eliza and I composed a precocious critique of the Constitution of the United States of America ... We argued that is was as good a scheme for misery as any, since its success in keeping the common people reasonably happy and proud depended on the strength of the people themselves — and yet it prescribed no practical machinery which would tend to make the people, as opposed to their elected representatives, strong.

We said it was possible that the framers of the Constitution were blind to the beauty of persons who were without great wealth or powerful friends or public office, but who were nonetheless genuinely strong.

We thought it was more likely, though, that their framers had not noticed that it was natural, and therefore almost inevitable, that human beings in extraordinary and enduring situations should think of themselves of composing new families. Eliza and I pointed out that this happened no less in democracies than in tyrannies, since human beings were the same the wide world over, and civilized only yesterday.

Elected representatives, hence, could be expected to become members of the famous and powerful family of elected representatives — which would, perfectly naturally, make them wary and squeamish and stingy with respect to all the other sorts of families which, again, perfectly naturally, subdivided mankind.

Eliza and I ... proposed that the Constitution be amended so as to guarantee that every citizen, no matter how humble, or crazy or incompetent or deformed, somehow be given membership in some family as covertly xenophobic and crafty as the one their public servants formed."

Kurt Vonnegut, Slapstick, 1976 Ch. 6

woof

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

West Chester Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Our City, Our Problem organization aims to tack... 4 hr Responsibility 1
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 10 hr No Justice 20,064
the warehouse Sat thanks 1
News Shakespear Ngirmekur Sat abcd 5
News Union files lawsuit over Cincinnati streetcar o... Jul 2 Kyboy 2
Johnny Human / Scotty Human / Steve Human Jul 2 Anonymous 9
Visiting from out of town, what best hip hop cl... Jun 30 Heard some things 1
More from around the web

West Chester People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

West Chester Mortgages