[SK in CV]

I’ve been a bit mystified by this “redistribution of wealth” narrative that’s been so popular over the last few years. It seems that it applies to any tax increase on those in a high tax bracket. Almost as if current rates are somehow sacrosanct. A 35% marginal tax is not redistribution of wealth. But rise above that level, and all of a sudden there’s redistribution of wealth.

I remember when top marginal rates were 70%. I don’t ever remember hearing about redistribution of wealth. Top rates went down to 28%, then back and forth up as high as almost 40% (if I remember correctly) and never a peep about redistribution of wealth. Now, add a single dollar of tax bill of the upper income levels and it’s redistribution of wealth.

If you don’t support progressive taxation, the claim is valid. That would mean you support everyone paying the same amount. Not the same percentage, the same amount. The same $1,000 (or whatever) per person. Otherwise, income taxes ARE a redistribution of wealth. Using the “redistribution of wealth” argument about a minor change in the top rates is absurd.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
You have a little more authority as President than you do as Congressman. If something is done wrong it is done wrong. You as an American should be outraged they undermined our liberty. This same extension of Article 1 Section 8 is what they are using to justify SOPA I’m sure. Do you want your precious blog shut down? Wait, the Constitutional violation and gaming of the system by FDR is only cool when they pass ideas you want. I get it![/quote]

No on the bold part. Have you ever read Article 1, Section 8? SOPA would be covered by one of the enumerated powers.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]

I don’t read that to be welfare as we define it today. It was for welfare of the GOV and items defined the constitution. There are quotes by many more founding fathers that contradict your example.
That statement also could be read that if amended properly was not meant to restrict spending or monies as it would only be logical there might be amendments in the future. His statement does not show his view on amendments to authorize the spending which should be the baseline view point when adding power to the Constitution.[/quote]

With all due respect, it doesn’t matter how you or I read it. Nor does it matter that other authors and signatories interpreted it differently than Hamilton. The courts (including the current court) get to interpret it. And they’ve come down firmly on the side of congressional power. No amount of wishing will change that. Nor will the single election of a different president.

The supreme court is much like Humpty Dumpty:

‘And only one [day] for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!’

‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’

The SCOTUS is master.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33] I think there are several documents showing the founding father’s intent of article 1 section 8, none of which the judges considered.[/quote]

They did consider intent, though they are not bound by intent. There was no unanimity among the authors. Read the entire decisions.

Alexander Hamilton, a signatory of the Constitution wrote:

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. … 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.

I think his intent was pretty clear. My point is not that the court’s decisions have been perfect. Only that they are not without basis. They have not been the decisions of a 3rd grader.

[SK in CV]

[quote=walterwhite]I doubt it was just one case on this clause. I can’t remember specifically but I’d bet we are talking about dozens of cases over many many decades.[/quote]

I don’t think it’s dozens, at least at the SC level. (I didn’t remember all this stuff, I looked it up.)

Primarily we have:

McCulloch v. Maryland from the early 19th century

which adopted Hamilton’s view of pretty expansive powers of congress, followed by some cases that more narrowly defined the general welfare clause, particulary objecting to lack of uniformity required in the first paragraph.

Then, after FDR packed the court, the following cases reinforced McCulloch:

Steward Machine Co. v. Davis
Helvering v. Davis
United States v. Butler

Interesting words from the Butler decision:

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. … 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.

A lot of 3rd graders on those courts.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33] There’s isn’t that much allowed in Article 1 section 8 really.

[/quote]

We have a basic disagreement here. This is the beginning and end of Art. 1, Sec. 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

snip

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Those two sentences, in conjunction with each other, appear to grant Congress broad powers. I know RP claims that the “general welfare” clause doesn’t mean what the courts have said it means. The problem is that since Madison v. Marbury, the Supreme Court is the final word on what the Constitution means. And beteween the decisions affirming the powers of congress related to both the “general welfare” and commerce clauses, he’s pretty much stuck. He can’t undue what’s been done, and despite your belief that stare decisis shouldn’t have much influence, it does.

No apologies, but both politics and democracy are messy. They are not for the faint of heart.

[SK in CV]

I’m not a wine connoisseur by any means, and rarely spend more than $20 on a bottle. I think many wine drinkers are familiar with The Prisoner, a zin blend out of Orin Swift winery. I think it runs in the low $30’s on sale. It’s good and I have bought it a few times for special occasions. This weekend I bought a couple of bottles of their zin, called Saldo, on sale for about $20. Great bottle of wine. One of the best for the price I have ever tasted. For the price, i’d take it over their Prisoner label.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
I’m glad I could correct you on the “End the Fed” business. He has never said he would do anything other than audit the Fed and let the people decide what they would like to do. He has theorized that there would be massive corruption and it would be clear it would need to be fixed but he has not said he would do it without the people behind him. I’m glad to be able provide you new information on this blog that hopefully you will learn from and stop slandering him. I guess there’s always a chance there isn’t massive fraud… What do you think? Absolute power corrupts absolutely? That’s what history has proven. “End the Fed” was a chant from a group of college students that agreed with his assertion that the fed needed to be audited.[/quote]

I’m glad you cleared that up. Ron Paul doesn’t actually want to “end the fed”. You kind of skipped over pri_dk’s point about his book. If he doesn’t want to end the fed, why did he write a book called “End The Fed”, with a list of a dozen or so arguments (many with no factual support) for ending the fed. Was that really just a couple hundred pages of argument to audit the fed? If so, why didn’t he name it “Audit the Fed”?

(You don’t really have to answer this Mark. I won’t hold it against Ron Paul. I will hold the rediculousness of his arguments against him. But not your lack of understanding of what he really wants to do.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]Today’s media lie of the day:

http://www.dailypaul.com/204795/alert-fox-news-continues-the-lie

FoxNews has reported several times today and over the past few weeks that South Carolina is a closed primary. That is false. It is an open primary. Ron Paul is obviously beating everybody in the Independent vote and many democrats would switch over and vote for him in the open primary system. He would lose the most. The establishment is getting very scared.[/quote]

That didn’t actually come from a news organization. It came from Fox.

(I’m joking with you Mark. I entirely agree that RP has not got a fair shake from much of the media. I don’t watch much of Fox, I just read about the silly things that they do. I used to watch their morning morons, and just couldn’t do it anymore. I suspect they will be less fair to Paul than any of the others, he’s not their guy. And the republican nominee has to be their guy. So I can empathize with your frustration.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
So you are saying that a possibly biased ruling by 9 judges 30 years ago is more valuable than a biased ruling today? I don’t get that? I have never once heard you refute the point that all aspects of things similar to abortion were left to the States and why that isn’t proof it should be left to the States or an amendment should be passed. I personally don’t care about abortions and I think they should be legal. I have a much bigger issue with the precedent of the GOV overstepping its bounds at any time.

You really don’t get the fact that the Constitution was put in place to limit the GOV so we didn’t end up slaves to the GOV. That attitude of your generation is going to destroy it for our generation and our children’s generation.[/quote]

Straw man. I’m not saying it’s more valuable. I’m saying pretty clearly, I don’t want it overturned. I don’t think it was as sound a decision as it could have been. Nor was PP v. Casey. But both are the current law.

The constitution was not put into place to solely limit the power of government. If that had been what the authors wanted, it would not have enumerated the many powers vested in the government.

I’m not sure which attitude of my generation you’re referring to. You object to sex, drugs and rock and roll?

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
The only issue I have heard you even talk about was the abortion issue. It’s not like Ron Paul is presenting he would use an Executive Order to overrule the Supreme Court on an issue as you seem to suggest with your statement above. He would probably bring another trial to the Supreme Court with another argument and make them think about it again. You must admit that the Supreme Court makes rulings only based on the evidence placed in front of them and that people bring bad cases and don’t provide the complete evidence and they have to rule on that information. All he is saying is that he thinks the Roe V Wade ruling should be looked at from a different angle from the original ruling. If you were so confident in the first ruling why are you scared if the Supreme Court hears another case? How is that seriously scary or a violation of any law or even a concern for you?

Please explain[/quote]

I’m not going to presume to think that speak for Ron Paul. Because despite his own manglings of the constitution, I think he does understand that he has no standing to “bring a trial” before the court just because he wants to. The court decides which cases to hear, and which to ignore.

And to your previous point, I don’t think many legal scholars actually believe that the Supreme Court only makes rulings based on the evidence before it. Cases aren’t heard before the court. Only appeals of existing trials that have already ocurred. Rarely are they presented with evidence. It might be nice if thats the way it worked. It doesn’t. Justices arrive with their own biases. They often rule based on those biases. They have an entire staff of clerks to find ways to rule in ways which support those biases. That’s why selection of supreme court justices is so important.

So when you ask if it’s scary if some issues that the court has previously settled (like abortion), I have to say it is. There are at least 4 currently sitting justices who would overturn Roe and quite possibly Griswold if given the opportunity. Every young woman, and every father of young women and everybody who cares about young women should be afraid of that.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
The only issue I have heard you even talk about was the abortion issue. It’s not like Ron Paul is presenting he would use an Executive Order to overrule the Supreme Court on an issue as you seem to suggest with your statement above. He would probably bring another trial to the Supreme Court with another argument and make them think about it again. You must admit that the Supreme Court makes rulings only based on the evidence placed in front of them and that people bring bad cases and don’t provide the complete evidence and they have to rule on that information. All he is saying is that he thinks the Roe V Wade ruling should be looked at from a different angle from the original ruling. If you were so confident in the first ruling why are you scared if the Supreme Court hears another case? How is that seriously scary or a violation of any law or even a concern for you?

Please explain[/quote]

I’m not going to presume to think that speak for Ron Paul. Because despite his own manglings of the constitution, I think he does understand that he has no standing to “bring a trial” before the court just because he wants to. The court decides which cases to hear, and which to ignore.

And to your previous point, I don’t think many legal scholars actually believe that the Supreme Court only makes rulings based on the evidence before it. Cases aren’t heard before the court. Only appeals of existing trials that have already ocurred. Rarely are they presented with evidence. It might be nice if thats the way it worked. It doesn’t. Justices arrive with their own biases. They often rule based on those biases. They have an entire staff of clerks to find ways to rule in ways which support those biases. That’s why selection of supreme court justices is so important.

So when you ask if it’s scary if some issues that the court has previously settled (like abortion), I have to say it is. There are at least 4 currently sitting justices who would overturn Roe and quite possibly Griswold if given the opportunity. Every young woman, and every father of young women and everybody who cares about young women should be afraid of that.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33][quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]
SK you’re always trying to put me under and discredit everything I say. Yes I am saying that 80% of the people listen the to the media and don’t realize the media has a huge bias. They expect the media to be “fair and balanced” as they advertise. When you hear something 100s of times on TV it has to be true!

[/quote]

Don’t take it personal mark, I don’t. Nor do I try to discredit everything you say. I only discredit the things that you write that are either illogical or factually incorrect.

Like the libel/slander thing. If it’s written, the word you’re looking for is libel. Although with regards to Ron Paul, it’s unlikely to apply. The legal threshold for libel for public figures is significantly higher than it is for others.[/quote]

The same story ran in print and spoken word on several sources. You always try to shift the focus of the comments to the minutia instead of debating the real point.[/quote]

I have no idea what story you’re referring to. You’ve accused people on this blog of slander for things they’ve written on this blog. It’s not slander if it’s written on a blog. The word you want would be libel. But as I said, as it pertains to Ron Paul, it doesn’t apply. That’s all I was saying.

And we don’t disagree about much of the media not being fair and balanced. It isn’t. Irrespective of bias, it accepts rediculous rhetoric as fact. It doesn’t fact check. It continuously reaches for false equivilence. Discerning consumers figure it out if they want to.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
SK you’re always trying to put me under and discredit everything I say. Yes I am saying that 80% of the people listen the to the media and don’t realize the media has a huge bias. They expect the media to be “fair and balanced” as they advertise. When you hear something 100s of times on TV it has to be true!

[/quote]

Don’t take it personal mark, I don’t. Nor do I try to discredit everything you say. I only discredit the things that you write that are either illogical or factually incorrect.

Like the libel/slander thing. If it’s written, the word you’re looking for is libel. Although with regards to Ron Paul, it’s unlikely to apply. The legal threshold for libel for public figures is significantly higher than it is for others.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]Sorry but this idea is wrong. When 80% of the population are not smart enough, or don’t care enough to do the research and take slander in the media as truth, the slander has done the job. True, smart people will realize what slander is and not believe it, but you don’t address the other 80% of the people who see something ridiculous in the media and take it as truth. If you don’t consider the whole population your statement is not fair.

The Paul campaign is up to $1.25M since yesterday. I suggest we all donate.[/quote]

Did you really just say that? 80% of the population isn’t smart enough? And you’re part of the 20%? Please clariy. Is that really what you’re saying?

(Slander is defamation by spoken word. I’m reasonably sure the word you’re attempting to misuse is libel, which applies to written or otherwise published words. Mr. 20%.)

[Author]

Posts