Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
Che Reagan Christ

Seville, 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

Seville, 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

Seville, 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.

Kramers Attorney

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No matter...it will be repealed within two years.

Kramers Attorney

Since: Apr 12

Hilliard, OH

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

Kramers Attorney

Since: Apr 12

Hilliard, OH

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

Kramers Attorney

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

United States

#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

United States

#6630 Jul 22, 2012

Kramers Attorney

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

Brook Park, 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

United States

#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

United States

#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

Loveland, 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.

Kramers Attorney

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

United States

#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

United States

#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
free

Loveland, OH

#6640 Jul 23, 2012
When the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution were crafted, the times dictated the depth of their composition as anti-monarchy, anti-suppression and a freedom from hundreds of years of house-rule. Where else in human history were there concepts that changed the way a society functioned ?
It wasn't perfect in a more perfect union, but it was all they could come up with at the time and now frozen in time. We're trying to thaw the founding fathers edicts by amendments and our modern day interpretations of their writings. Hopefully we don't muck it up !
Che Reagan Christ

Seville, OH

#6641 Jul 23, 2012
Kramers Attorney wrote:
<quoted text>The Supreme Court is wrong?
No, you are.

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
Freddie Vincent 14 hr buckwheat 4
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 15 hr OMTE 20,386
Obama now wants this country to Unite 17 hr NAWP 11
Melania Trump a Tranny??? 18 hr you are a DF 13
Indict Hillary 20 hr AmericanGraffiti 100
News Running mate for Clinton, Elizabeth Warren offe... Sat davy 23
Adult Children Ignore Me (Sep '13) Sat Sad Mom 55

West Chester Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

West Chester Mortgages