The Cost of Obamanomics: 1 IN 3 US COUNTIES ARE NOW DYING

I see no indication here that Hamilton believed that taxing to support the general welfare was a grant of general authority.

In fact, let's hear it from Hamilton himself:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s21.html

Hamilton is saying that as long as the legislation is justifiable as general welfare, and the legislation has to be general and not local, then it is constitutional. Seems Hamilton disagrees with the way you're portraying his words.​

 

If we were arguing this case in court you would not call Hamilton as a witness. First off, his testimony is at best contradictory. He lobbied for ratification of the Constitution as a limiting document by as he put it, the "specification of particulars" in Federalist 83. Then he "testifies" that "No legislative act… contrary to the Constitution can be valid" in Federalist 78. Then seems to contradict himself in his Report on Manufactures. Hamilton is your witness, so I guess you can explain the obvious inconsistencies of his "testimony." Was Hamilton lying in one quote from another? Did he change his mind over time, and AFTER the Constitution was ratified? If he changed his mind it does not refute my point at all. My feeling is that Hamilton does not contradict himself at all, but his context is not fully understood in this discussion. I believe he was talking about the general welfare as defined by the "specification of particulars" in Federalist 83, or the Enumerated Powers that do not talk about defense, like the coining of money, and providing for the punishment of counterfeiting. That would make perfect sense. You disagree with that interpretation of Hamilton's words. So, you seem to be trying to prove your point with the contradictory testimony of a witness. He's your witness. Explain Hamilton's two seemingly contradictory stances in a way that they are not contradictory (witch weakens your argument), and in a way that would suggest Hamilton did not believe in the "specification of particulars" of which he wrote as a limiting factor... Good luck! Also, Hamilton stated in the Report on Manufactures the government had the power to "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises... with no other qualifications than that 'all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution' " Now

THAT particular testimony (if we were in court) by Mr. Hamilton seems to disprove your progressive tax argument as all taxes must be uniformly collected. You stated head (or capitation taxes) was not the same as a direct taxes, but actually they pretty much are exactly the same thing when the Constitution was written, which is why a census had to be taken; so the government know how many people would have to pay THE defined tax amount. A direct tax is not an income tax as the amount varies by income, and is not a set amount like in a "head" or capitation tax. Hamilton, your witness (when his testimony does not seem to contradict itself) certainly seems to agree with me that applying tax laws and collecting taxes unequally would be unconstitutional.

I know we've had this discussion. You feel that the progressive tax structure does not penalize people for their physical abilities simply because someone does not have to dunk a basketball or record platinum records, or ever really work hard and SMART to the best of their ability. That is their choice. They can choose NOT to "be all they can be" and NOT be penalized by the Democrat imposed tax structure, so it's all their choice , right. Is that your position? Hamilton seems to think all taxes have to be collected equally as he so stated, and did not give any exceptions like you have tried to make. This is what no PROGRESSIVE LEFTIST (who mostly reside in the Democrat party) have been able to explain. The Constitution's Preamble is below, or what the Constitution is supposed to actually do when all is said-and-done.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

Liberty is defined as follows:

lib•er•ty
[lib-er-tee]

noun, plural lib•er•ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.

3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty?o=100084&qsrc=2894&l=dir​

How can a progressive tax be constitutional when it penalizes the free exercise of liberty, or penalizes someone's true potential? Please answer the question since you believe in the progressive income tax, an idea that I believe even your witness Hamilton would strongly oppose since I think he would agree there is no Constitutional justification for such a tax BEFORE the Sixteenth Amendment, and the Sixteenth Amendment did not provide or detail such a tax system.

You stated you don't believe in Natural Rights, yet the Constitution was written based on Natural Rights, or the rights for governance belong to the People as they were given to them by God. The Constitution has NO power unless it is so loaned that power by We the People. All powers must be given to the Constitution which is why amendments start out with the grant of such power, as does the Sixteenth
Amendment when it states "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes..." The government was given the power to tax incomes, but was not given the power to do it an any differently than any other tax, and Hamilton I believe would agree that all other taxes were to be collected uniformly, right? He is your witness.

 

Right, you're misconstruing what he said. Hamilton believed that the power to lay and collect taxes for the purpose of national defence and the general welfare WAS a specific and not a general grant of power.
And I quote Justice Joseph Story:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s28.html

I elaborated further above, but I assumed you would have gotten my point when i said that I saw no indication that Hamilton thought the Taxing and Spending Clause was a general grant of power. Hopefully you understand now.

Wow, and now we've gone full retarded circle. Once again, uniformity clauses don't apply to anything other than imposts, duties, and excises.

Which is why the clause states "No capitation, or OTHER direct, tax..."

I don't know how I can be more clear: taxes are not punishment.

I've already answered this. Utility of money and taxes are not punishment.

If natural rights exist and are indeed inalienable, then there would be no need for the Constitution.

No, that's wrong as I've explained above.

 

If that is your position we agree, but again, the “general welfare” is defined by the specific grants of power, or the “Enumerated Powers” Even your citation from again YOUR witness (Justice Joseph Story) states the following which further PROVES my point, that both the common defense and general welfare ware defined by the enumerated powers.

"The constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.​

Justice Joseph Story agrees with me. Not sure why you “called him as a witness.” The “special and enumerated powers” as Justice Joseph Story put it, that do not provide for the common defense, and by definition are to provide for the “general welfare” are below, none of which include Obamacare, Social security, or any other Democrat Wealth Distribution or Social Engineering Scheme.

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, (power to enact and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.​

Forgive me if I was confused on your position. You did cite United States v. Butler stating “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.” United States v. Butler occurred in 1936, right before FDR threatened the Supreme Court so they would stop ruling FRD’s “New Deal” legislation unconstitutional. The court was under incredible pressure from Democrats to allow Democrats to volatile the Constitution, and eventually allowed those Democrats violations of the Constitution - an opinion with which I believe Justice Joseph Story would have agreed considering his writings from 1833, of which you cited.

You do seem to be back-peddling a bit. Now you are claiming that Hamilton thought the tax and spending clause was not a grant of general power AND MUST be tied to specific powers, right? The specific powers are the Enumerated Powers and any other power like that which allows the government to print stamps since it has the power to run the post office, right? The government has enumerated responsibilities and whatever powers they need to carry out those responsibilities.

Which were ALL the taxes mentioned in the Constitution, other than direct taxes which were “capitation” or “head” taxes which were ALWAYS “flat taxes” right? Therefore, if true… ALL taxes under the Constitution had to be collected uniformly. Then the Democrats created a new tax, and neglected to write that they planned to make the new tax work differently into the wording of the Amendment (which actually granted the POWER to create the new tax). Then some people want to argue that the power for uneven progressive taxation IS in the Sixteenth Amendment (when the wording is not there) when BEFORE all taxes were collected equally according to the Constitution, and they do it with a

The power to tax is in Article 1, Section 8 which is a complete sentence and thought. Taxes are to raise money to pay expenses enumerated in the complete thought, or to provide for the prescribed general welfare and common defense, nothing else. Taxes are not to be used for Social Engineering, or punishing the free exercise of the unalienable Right of Liberty.

If taxes are not collected uniformly they are punishing and seek to manipulate We the People into some sort of Social Engineering Scheme without Constitutional justification.

Because man violates God’s law all the time. You can kill someone, or disobey one of the Ten Commandments (Thu shall not Kill). Our government is supposed to safeguard and guarantee Natural Rights like not being murdered.

I really don’t think anyone is reading our debate, but I have enjoyed it! Take care!

 

I just read with Biden spend 1/2 mil for one night in Paris and the same for 1 night in London. That is the way this administration thinks and acts..

 

We’ve been though all your arguments time, and time again. You keep posting incorrect information like F/F did not replenish the money from the banks, or F/F ORIGINATED loans to customers, or correct information that disproves your “points” like the information above. Look above to your own data. F/F expanded their affordable housing goal levels 19% (42 to 50 %) between 2000-2004 under the 2000 four year Affordable Housing Goals ordered by Democrats Clinton Then Bush increased those goals from 50 to 56%; only 12% increase that was far lower than the 19% increase ordered by Democrat Clinton. Yes Bush increased them but DECREASED the expansion rate at 37% between 2004 and 2008. We can argue about that the sanity of that move. Bush greatly slowed the growth of Freddie and Fannie buying low to moderate mortgages by slowing down the increase. If he made real “cuts” and decreased those numbers who would have bought all those loans the banks made with the idea that F/F would buy them? Bush slowed down the expected increase. Had he actually CUT the numbers he would have created a crash years earlier! Bush did not start the bubble. Bush did what he could to prevent the crash. Bush did not control F/F between 2000-2004 which is why he lobbied to regulate Freddie and Fannie. What need is there to regulate that which you already control?

IF F/F did not exist, or were not unconstitutionally created by Democrats to prop up unconstitutional housing policies there would be at least HALF the liquidity In the market, or the balloon (or bubble) would be half of more defeated. That point is not arguable. F/F existence in the marketplace inflates the value of homes. They expanded their buying when people like Obama were suing banks like Citibank, and when Clinton changed the CRA enforcement ; all which ADDED even MORE liquidity in the marketplace. My overall claim is that had Democrats not violated the Constitution the crash could not have occurred, that claim cannot be disputed with any credibility.


- - - Updated - - -

We’ve been though all your arguments time, and time again. You keep posting incorrect information like F/F did not replenish the money from the banks, or F/F ORIGINATED loans to customers, or correct information that disproves your “points” like the information above. Look above to your own data. F/F expanded their affordable housing goal levels 19% (42 to 50 %) between 2000-2004 under the 2000 four year Affordable Housing Goals ordered by Democrats Clinton Then Bush increased those goals from 50 to 56%; only 12% increase that was far lower than the 19% increase ordered by Democrat Clinton. Yes Bush increased them but DECREASED the expansion rate at 37% between 2004 and 2008. We can argue about that the sanity of that move. Bush greatly slowed the growth of Freddie and Fannie buying low to moderate mortgages by slowing down the increase. If he made real “cuts” and decreased those numbers who would have bought all those loans the banks made with the idea that F/F would buy them? Bush slowed down the expected increase. Had he actually CUT the numbers he would have created a crash years earlier! Bush did not start the bubble. Bush did what he could to prevent the crash. Bush did not control F/F between 2000-2004 which is why he lobbied to regulate Freddie and Fannie. What need is there to regulate that which you already control?

IF F/F did not exist, or were not unconstitutionally created by Democrats to prop up unconstitutional housing policies there would be at least HALF the liquidity In the market, or the balloon (or bubble) would be half of more defeated. That point is not arguable. F/F existence in the marketplace inflates the value of homes. They expanded their buying when people like Obama were suing banks like Citibank, and when Clinton changed the CRA enforcement ; all which ADDED even MORE liquidity in the marketplace. My overall claim is that had Democrats not violated the Constitution the crash could not have occurred, that claim cannot be disputed with any credibility.

 

I'm sorry, but you clearly didn't read the entirety of that page, because he simply doesn't agree with you.

Here he is saying that the taxing power IS a distinct power but that it HAS to be tied to the general welfare. Let's continue.

Wow, does this at all sound familiar? He is talking about the exact position that you hold. Let's continue on (the next part is from the next paragraph).

To further prove my point:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause#section_2

Some proof of any kind for this accusation would suffice.

No, I quoted Hamilton himself, he thought that the Taxing and Spending Clause was a specific power. Try reading what I actually typed next time.

NO. Imposts, duties, and excises are indirect taxes.

Once again, I quote Joseph Story:

No, buddy, THIS is the complete sentence:

So would you have a problem with states implementing progressive income taxes? Also, does a flat tax seem fair to you? Is a 50% effective tax rate fair for a person making $20,000 compared to a person making $2,000,000? Is that even to you? THAT seems like punishment on the poor from my angle.

Except that, you know, those rights are also described as INALIENABLE.

You too.

 

Who cares what Madison or Hamilton thought? They're long dead. This is our country now and if we want to levy taxes for any reason we can. Likewise if we don't want to have any taxes at all we can do that as well.

 

Sorry, "buddy," but I don't even know why I do my best to pass along information to you. You are factually and historically wrong. A "period" completes a sentence, not a semicolon as is after your "sentence." (see the very large semicolon above) Literally you are taking your phrases out-of-context! Go back and look at the full text of Article 1, Section 8 and you will find there to be only ONE period making the entire section ONE SENTENCE. The Founders wrote it that way specifically, and intentionally. The power to tax would therefore be directly and inescapably related to providing for the common defense and general welfare as defined in the Enumerated Powers. Taxes are to fund legitimate functions of government, not to fund social engineering and wealth distribution schemes! I was never taught that fact. I figured it out for myself, and did research to see if my observation was correct. The Founders did everything they could to stop what we call today Progressive Liberal Democrats! Once I fully realized their intentional genius, my mouth dropped open, and would not close for several weeks; genius that is not taught in the liberal Progressive public education system. To PROVE this observation, Madison stated the following (in part) in Federalist 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?​

One sentence stated the government has the power to tax to pay for (or fund) well defined responsibilities, and that power to tax must be administered in a uniform manner. Democrats added a new way to tax, but did not change the manner it could be applied. It really is that simple.

 

Taxes would not have to be so high in the first place if the government was not causing all this inflation. Prices will go up, and people will become poorer and poorer, and then people will be wondering why. It is a situation that has played out countless times in other developing countries.

 

Sheer right wing lunacy on the part of the OP since President Obama has created the HIGHEST corporate profits since 1900 and Wall street has had its highest activity in 22 years.

 

Over ten years ago I watched something interesting happened in Ft. Lauderdale to older single family homes.. The city began to issue citations for cars on block or sagging fences or uncut grass. Some of these homes were rentals but most were older long time residents. The city wanted to push them out and infill with more high density planning.

The main issue was the cost of services.. Fire and rescue, police, water electricity... Property taxes were going up rapidly and there was still a shortfall.

 

My first suggestion: stop worshipping dead people as infallible. Second suggestion: stop making it blatantly obvious that you ignore any of my other quotes that show you as a liar and lacking reading comprehension. Third: learn the uses of semi-colons.

 

Now sadly you are getting defensive…

Or debate covered the following points.

1. I say that providing for the general welfare is not a general ability, or that Congress can't do ANYTHING they DECIDE is best for the country, or that the government is one of LIMITED powers, and so limited by the specific grants of power In the Enumerated Powers. You cited Hamilton who on first glance made conflicting statements, but I think if put in proper context Hamilton always seemed to be arguing points like government can print stamps because they run the Post Office, so they can print stamps for the "general welfare." Your Wikipedia citation stated the following :

■Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified,[18] argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.​

Well if Hamilton was arguing for an unlimited government (only limited to what the Congress [not the Constitution] would define as providing for the general welfare) he certainly did not sell the Constitution that way BEFORE it was ratified. As ratified, and as the Constitution was sold by Hamilton in his Federalist Paper arguments the Constitution limits government to certain responsibilities, or interests, and gives them power to manage those interests, none of which has anything to do with wealth distribution or social engineering schemes of which Democrats are so found and proud.

Then you post quotes like the following from United States v. Butler:

" [T]he [General Welfare] clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them…"​

How can one part of a sentence not relate, or said to be "separate and distinct from" other parts of a sentence? The decision in United States v. Butler is outrageous because it amends the Constitution by judicial review which is illegal! I've shown that the power to tax is in the single sentence of Article 1, Section 8 and therefore the power to tax MUST relate to the Enumerated Powers certainly according to Madison, and Hamilton's PRE ratification arguments. If it meant something different to Hamilton AFTER ratification he should have tried to amend the Constitution as you can't add new ingredients to an already baked cake.

WE examined quotes from Madison and Jefferson who both seem to agree with me. I could give more examples before the Democrat Quiet Coup of 1937 to prove my point if you would like.

2. We explored the idea that a progressive income tax was unconstitutional. I've show that ALL taxes allowed in the Constitution BEFORE the Sixteenth Amendment were in fact flat or collected uniformly. I've shown Democrats created and added a NEW tax to the Constitution and did not state whether it was to be collected evenly or progressively. The fact is the Sixteenth Amendment did not give the power to collect the tax progressively or did not change the way the other taxes could be collected, just changed the type of tax that could be collected. You have offered NO evidence to refute that claim. All you have stated is the Constitution does not forbid such a tax structure, but as I have pointed out repeatedly the Constitution does not allow the government to do anything unless that power is specifically granted, and the Tenth Amendment forbids ANY power to the government that is not specifically granted.

"Dead people" as you put it are not infallible. If you disagree with the Constitution change it. There is a way to do that legally. Yea, you need super majorities to change the rules of society, or nearly everyone has to agree, but why should it be any other way?

Now on the to punctuation point. Below are the definitions for both a semicolon and a period. As you can see by reading the definitions a semicolon ties together majorly different yet related points in one sentence or complete thought. As such Article 1, Section 8 is one COMPLETE sentence and thought, or you can't take out one section without relating it to all others as that would be reviewing the points literally out-of-context.

sem•i•co•lon
[sem-i-koh-luhn]

noun
the punctuation mark ( ; ) used to indicate a major division in a sentence where a more distinct separation is felt between clauses or items on a list than is indicated by a comma, as between the two clauses of a compound sentence.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semicolon?o=100084&qsrc=2894&l=dir


period (ˈpɪərɪəd)

— n

9. Also called: full stop the punctuation mark (.) used at the end of a sentence that is not a question or exclamation, after abbreviations, etc


10. a complete sentence, esp a complex one with several clauses

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/period?s=t​

 

I do believe we have reached a tipping point where enough under educated, under informed people believe the garbage the Democrats are pushing. The system will have to fail and them vomit until the dumbed down Americans realize that they have been had. Perhaps then they will believe in Balanced Budgets and Personal Responsibility. Currently, the left is selling that those are bad words. It's amazing to witness.

 

I'm getting offended by your repeated attempts at misrepresenting what I have said and your refusal to actually read through the sources I provide for you.

Well if Hamilton was arguing for an unlimited government (only limited to what the Congress [not the Constitution] would define as providing for the general welfare) he certainly did not sell the Constitution that way BEFORE it was ratified. As ratified, and as the Constitution was sold by Hamilton in his Federalist Paper arguments the Constitution limits government to certain responsibilities, or interests, and gives them power to manage those interests, none of which has anything to do with wealth distribution or social engineering schemes of which Democrats are so found and proud. [/quote]

You do know that Hamilton wrote the vast majority of the Federalist papers, right? Heck, I guess that means we should follow the interpretation of Hamilton for everything in the Constitution, then! But, no, I jest, I don't believe that. Maybe you would accept the lunacy of your argument in reverse but I certainly wouldn't. It doesn't matter who wrote the Federalist Papers, the ratification of the Constitution was not a ratification of the interpretations offered in the Federalist Papers. I guarantee you that all of the state's politicians at the time did not agree to many of the interpretations put forth in the Federalist Papers or at the Constitutional Conventions. The ratification was a ratification of the TEXT only.

Are you joking right now, or are you being serious? Because this is an incredibly sad question. It is a LIST of powers. Is the power of Congress to declare war contingent upon the power to establish post offices?

No, it didn't. It declares a different interpretation of the Constitution. Are you saying that the Supreme Court can NEVER overrule its previous decisions?

Once again, this is such a silly argument. Is "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" this reliant upon "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;" this?

Jefferson thought that the Constitution should be completely rewritten every 19 years, I sincerely doubt he believed in the originalism you are trying to provoke.

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you did, I provided you with an example of a progressive tax that happened eight years after the ratification of the Constitution. This is what I am talking about, your consistent lying.

So once again, would you be perfectly okay with allowing states to progressively tax?

/Facepalm

We did amend the Constitution with the Sixteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court then held the progressive tax to be constitutional. YOU have a problem with that, why don't YOU take it to the Supreme Court or amend the Constitution? It is YOU who is trying to uproot the Constitution, here.

 

You keep making the same arguments again and again and just ignore facts that refute them. In you hyper partisanship to blame everything on the Dems, you ignore the fact that Bush1 started the affordable housing goals program, you ignore the fact that when the bubble was blowing up under Bush2 he could have constricted the goals but instead expanded them, and you ignore the fact that Bush eliminated the anti-predatory regulations Clinton set up to reduce subprime exposure to Fanny. You also ignore the fact that F/F were already meeting the goals the Clinton administration set before the put them in place. You also ignore the fact that George "Mr. Ownership Society" Bush set up numerous other programs to expand home ownership, at the very time the housing bubble was blowing up to absurd levels.

And you ignore the fact that there was no bubble under Clinton.

Sure, you have a good argument that it was Clinton's fault. If you ignore the facts.

Baseless speculation. You ignore the fact that F/F (fatefully) got heavily into the subprimes in 2005/06 because they were being left behind by the private market. And you ignore the fact that F/F owned or guaranteed a higher proportion of the mortgages before the housing bubble and 80% after, proving they were not the driving factor.

And you continue to make the erroneous logical causal arguments, without any showing of long term correlation or adjusting for the numerous other factors that contributed to the housing bubble, as I've demonstrated in prior posts.

 

You complain about me changing the goalposts… I have read through your posts which is how I found Your Wikipedia citation stated the following :

Your own Wikipedia citation proved my point, that if Hamilton was arguing for such power AFTER ratification he was arguing the Constitution should be applied differently than originally written. Then you later argue that the "text" of the Constitution was what was ratified. Why you keep making agreements that DEFEAT your own position I'll never know.

I researched you progressive property tax and found it almost started the First America Civil War because it was so unpopular. Why was it so unpopular if government is for the People and by the People? The law was not tested, but probably was unconstitutional.

Yes and in those Federalist papers he argued for a government limited by the exercise of the well defined Enumerated Powers. If he changed his opinion it was AFTER ratification as stated by your OWN Wikipedia citation (which you only wish I didn't read ).

Strawman argument! You know exactly what I mean. All the powers you describe are singularly an example of providing for either the common defense or general welfare. "Welfare" did not man government handouts when the Constitution was ratified. Back then, the first definition was the understood meaning of the term. Then the second definition was added to the dictionary to reflect
"usage."

1: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity <must look out for your own welfare>


2a: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need

b: an agency or program through which such aid is distributed

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/welfare​

I swear Democrats called handing out money to the poor "welfare" so they could redefine the word , and claim such forced largess was "in the Constitution." Article 1, Section 8 is one sentence and one thought, and intentionally so written. You can't therefore talk about the general welfare or common defense without talking about the enumerated powers, and you can't talking about collecting uniformly collected taxes (all taxes allowed to be collected in the Constitution BEFORE the Sixteenth Amendment, and not changed BY the Sixteenth Amendment) to pay for the functions of government without relating them to the Enumerated Powers. It is not only unconstitutional to collect taxes in a Progressive manner, but it is also unconstitutional to collect them for anything NOT authorized in the Constitution!

Didn't say that, but the Supreme Court can NEVER over rule the Constitution. To state that the power to provide for the general welfare is SEPARATE from the rest of the single thought of Article 1, Section 8 (as was ruled in United States v. Butler; I know because I read your citation, something of which you accused me of not doing), and can therefore apply to OTHER examples of "welfare" is outrageous and illegal as the decisions rejects the very TEXT of the Constitution. You made the argument that the "TEXT" of the Constitution was ratified then you make the argument that a Surname Court can rule against the VERY "TEXT" of the Constitution when ruling in favor of Democrat legislation that clearly is not Constitutional according the "TEXT" of the document.

Again, as you state the "TEXT" of the Constitution was ratified, not the interpretation or ideas of one man. I made the point that Madison confirmed that at the time of the ratification, and during the First Congress there was no disagreement of of what the "general welfare" clause meant, or that the government must be limited to the Enumerated Powers. There was no question that Article 1. Section 8 would be intentionally one sentence so the powers to tax would directly relate to the funding of defined Enumerated Powers. You keep defeating your own arguments. Was the "TEXT" of the Constitution ratified, or the views of one man?

The tax was so unpopular it almost caused the First American Revolution probably because the People then realized it sought to tax in an unconstitutional manner singling out and treating people differently. Again, your example was never Constitutionally tested, and no such power for any kind of Progressive taxation is found in the Constitution. Great example!

Under the "TEXT" of the federal Constitution it is legal for states to tax progressively. I do believe such tax structure violates the unalienable rights of Liberty, and punishes people for the free exercise of that Liberty but that is a different argument.

No, it is the Progressive Left and the Court who is trying to uproot the Constitution when laws are passed with no constitutional justification or related POWER at all, and the courts uphold such laws AS IF the government has such power. Cite the grant of power in the Constitution to collect ANY tax in a Progressive manner? Don't state such a power is not prohibited so it exists as the Constitution simply is not to work that way.

 

My Wikipedia article refutes what you just said in the bolded:

"While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years."

Apparently it was Hamilton's view that was applied after the ratification, not Madison's.

Did people rebel after the tax? Yes, I will openly admit that. But there were two tax related rebellions that occurred before the property tax. The first was Shay's Rebellion and the second was the Whiskey Rebellion. The Whiskey Rebellion was was caused by an excise tax which is undoubtedly constitutional. Thus, that argument has no merit since citizens seemed to rebel with MANY tax increases.

Originally your argument was that there were NO taxes allowed for in the Constitution beyond duties, imposts, and excises. Then your argument evolved to asking me to provide you with an example of a progressive tax because you didn't believe that there was precedent for such a thing. I provided you an example. Now your position has evolved to a point of ludicrous backpedaling and excuses.

He didn't change his position, we've gone over this.

It isn't a strawman argument, you specifically said "How can one part of a sentence not relate, or said to be "separate and distinct from" other parts of a sentence?".

No, in the meaning of the Constitution welfare does not mean Social Security, you're right. It probably is being used in this way: "the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity", and to that I would say our social programs can be justified as providing.

[quote\I swear Democrats called handing out money to the poor "welfare" so they could redefine the word , and claim such forced largess was "in the Constitution." Article 1, Section 8 is one sentence and one thought, and intentionally so written. You can't therefore talk about the general welfare or common defense without talking about the enumerated powers[/quote]

I, and Hamilton, and Justice Story, are arguing that taxing to provide for the general welfare and the common defence is a separate enumerated power. I'm not sure how you're still not understanding this.

Except, you know, the example I provided and the first income tax passed by Republicans.

Did the Supreme Court's decision amend the very words of the Constitution or are they still the same words that were fully ratified in 1790? Once again, you're just saying that the Supreme Court changed its interpretation of the text away from what the original interpretation (except, obviously, this wasn't the interpretation applied during Washington's or Adam's presidency). So what? Unless you're saying that the Supreme Court can NEVER change its interpretation, I don't get your point.

Yep.

No you haven't. You've only provided Madison's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, you haven't provided ANY evidence that everybody agreed with him. Please provide such evidence.

Once again, read:

"It is no sufficient answer to say, that the clause ought to be regarded, merely as containing "general terms, explained and limited, by the subjoined specifications, and therefore requiring no critical attention, or studied precaution;" because it is assuming the very point in controversy, to assert, that the clause is connected with any subsequent specifications. It is not said, to "provide for the common defence, and general welfare, in manner following, viz.," which would be the natural expression, to indicate such an intention. But it stands entirely disconnected from every subsequent clause, both in sense and punctuation; and is no more a part of them, than they are of the power to lay taxes."

And now you shift the goalpost from wanting an example of a progressive tax to wanting an example of a progressive tax that was constitutionally tested. And even if it WAS tested constitutionally by the SCOTUS and declared constitutional, I sincerely doubt you'd accept it even then, because it goes against your interpretation of what the text says.




Under the "TEXT" of the federal Constitution it is legal for states to tax progressively. I do believe such tax structure violates the unalienable rights of Liberty, and punishes people for the free exercise of that Liberty but that is a different argument.

The Constitution gives the Congress power to tax. Excises, duties, and imposts are to be collected uniformly. Direct taxes are to be apportioned among the several states. The Constitution does NOT state whether direct taxes have to be collected uniformly or not.

 

See you just lost the argument. Again, and as intentionally written by the Framers of the Constitution, and as not amended or questioned by the first Congress (whose job it was to write the Bill of Rights guaranteeing individual liberty) Article 1, Section 8 is on complete thought and sentence. You can't talk about the power to tax without talking about the Enumerated Powers. You even slipped up and admitted that no one questioned whether the power to provide for the common defense WAS Constitutional. I made the obvious point that providing for the common defense WAS constitutional because of the Enumerated Powers actually LISTED in the in the Constitution to provide for the common defense, not simply the grant of power to so provide for the common defense, which is the same clause that provides for the "general welfare." IF the Enumerated Powers were not needed the Constitution would ONLY HAVE granted the power to provide of the general welfare unless you are arguing defending the country IS NOT good for the country. There are specific Enumerated Powers to provide for a military, but not for a welfare state. "Social programs" are not enumerated and therefore are not so defined in, or allowed under Article 1. Section 8. Think Washington, Hamilton, or Adams disagreed? Provide a citation how they favored a welfare state or "New Deal" type programs. It was the First Congress's job to write the Bill of Rights. They wrote the Tenth Amendment below:

AMENDMENT X

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.​

So, if Congress can do anything it defines as providing for the "general welfare," exactly what does the Tenth Amendment prohibit, the Congress doing something it believes is DESTRUCTIVE, or BAD for the country? See how ridiculous is your logic?

Since Article 1, Section 8 is one sentence. You can't take out a word or two and apply them to ANY OTHER meaning or sentence. For example, If you said "I prefer hotdogs at baseball games," one could not assume your prefer hotdogs when at a 5 star restaurant. That is your argument. Article 1, Section 8 defines what is meant by "general welfare" just as it did define what was meant by the "common defense." IF "society changed in the last two hundred years" and the government needs to do more in YOUR opinion, amend the Constitution legally, or at least be honest and publicly state your support for violating the Constitution!

Again, at the time of the Constitution it was impossible to collect a direct tax in any way BUT uniformly. How can you collect a Progressive tax without punishing the free exercise of unalienable liberty? Don't start with the "tax and penalties are different" argument. Roberts did that song-and-dance when he tried to explain the constitutionality of Obamacare. The Constitution lists no power to penalize someone for not insuring their own financial assets. So, the penalties in Obamacare were not penalties, and therefore were TAXES, but could not be TAXES because had they been labeled as such, the case would not have had standing since the "tax" had not been collected, and there could not be a plaintiff. SO, Roberts stated that the "penalty" was a "penalty-tax" which Roberts made up out-of-thin-air violating hundreds of years of legal precedent. Roberts never mentions that there is only the power to tax to fund powers listed and defined in Article 1, Section 8 (as the one sentence does BOTH, and must be taken in context).

I guess you are going to explain how the tax system can be used for social engineering a free society where the government gets to pick winners, and losers. You are also going to have to explain what powers the Tenth Amendment prohibits if the government could do anything it decided to do for the "good of the country" defined by the very federal government the Constitution sought to limit.

 

OK, that's your theory. Lets TEST IT!

The Tenth Amendment is below:

AMENDMENT X

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.​

If it is the job of the federal government to provide for "the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity" as is the agreed upon definition of "welfare" (according to your theory, not the Enumerated Powers) you then have to agree it is NOT the responsibility for the individual to provide any of those things for themselves because that POWER does not belong to them under the Tenth Amendment because it is reserved to the federal government, right?

 

Rural counties in this country have been shrinking for decades.

Here is a chart of change in the rural white population during Bush's term... I'm sure this is Obama's fault.





The problem with the republicans now, is that they are so nutty and spout so many lies and distortions, that when they do have a relevent point, it is lost in all the BS they spew.

 

I agree with you that it IS a complete thought, but not what "thought" it is. You believe that the taxing and spending clause announces that taxes can be laid and collected for the general welfare and the common defence, then the preceding clauses define what is meant by general welfare and common defence. I believe that the taxing and spending clause is a separate power form those.

This is why I brought up the Air Force earlier. You declared THAT unconstitutional and I think that's ludicrous.

I think they disagreed with your interpretation of the general welfare clause, I implied nothing more.

You need to read through that Joseph Story source I provided for you.

I'm sick of your lies, my friend. I've provided you examples of those progressive taxes.

 

"The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers."

United States v. Darby

Once again, you disagree with the law of the land as stated by the SCOTUS.

 

No I agree with the law just fine. It is you who disagree with the law. Either the POWER to provide for all "general welfare" belongs to the federal government as per article 1, section 8 general welfare clause, or only certain things fall under that power. If only certain things fall under that power just what are they? If those things, those limitations are not defined by the Enumerated Powers where are they defined? You can't answer my questions, all you can do is quote a ruling that basically states my point is self-evident.
If one has questions as to what the Constitution is supposed to accomplish according to the writers, all they have to do is read the Constitution's Preamble below:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

As anyone can see the government is to provide for the common defense but only promote the general welfare, which is exactly what the "general welfare" Enumerated Powers outline. The Democrat Welfare State seeks to provide for, not promote the general welfare. In doing so, they make the blessings of liberty insecure violating the very premise of the Constitution.