America Ended With The Depression

[regent]

Somewhere along the line some Americans began to change their beliefs about the role of government and its responsibility to the common folk. They began to believe that governments were no longer created just for the aid and comfort of the wealthy, but governments could be used to provide some small comfort and aid to all the American people.
Perhaps it was the great depression that caused the change, or even the words in the Declaration of Independence, in any case some Americans did begin to change their beliefs about the role of government and its responsibility for the American people's right to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness. Maybe that's a good thing?

1. "Somewhere along the line some Americans began to change their beliefs about the role of government ...."
Glad you were able to glean that perspective.....it is the essence of the OP.



2. "...began to believe that governments were no longer created just for the aid and comfort of the wealthy,..."
Nay, nay, reggie....I'll be kind, and say you're is mistaken.

Did you want to point out where our memorializing documents state that the United States was "created just for the aid and comfort of the wealthy,..."?

To be honest, sure sounds like the usual Marxist hate-
America boilerplate.....


3. Now, this is a very important instruction that I'm about to provide, reggie....incorporate it into your thinking, so as to avoid embarrassing yourself again: King FDR had no authority to go beyond Article 1, section 8, in changing the relationship mentioned above.

a. Note, it is only the text of the written Constitution to which we the people of the United States have given our consent, never having consented to be governed in a formal way by the five hundred volumes of the U.S. Reports. We know from the D of I that a precept of our order is that it is the people who must consent to governance.

An amendment was required.



4. This may prove instructive, reggie:

"The ultimate source of authority in this Nation,
Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme
Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate
source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that
originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original
Constitution and by later amending it. .... A mere change in public
opinion since the adoption of the Constitution, unaccompanied
by a constitutional amendment, should not change the
meaning of the Constitution."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


See what you've learned?
Now...aren't you glad you dropped by, reggie?

Well Rehnquist and his "should not" is meaningless as the government has changed many times without amendments, and will continue to change. It is changing now, and will continue to change.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Somewhere along the line some Americans began to change their beliefs about the role of government and its responsibility to the common folk. They began to believe that governments were no longer created just for the aid and comfort of the wealthy, but governments could be used to provide some small comfort and aid to all the American people.
Perhaps it was the great depression that caused the change, or even the words in the Declaration of Independence, in any case some Americans did begin to change their beliefs about the role of government and its responsibility for the American people's right to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness. Maybe that's a good thing?

1. "Somewhere along the line some Americans began to change their beliefs about the role of government ...."
Glad you were able to glean that perspective.....it is the essence of the OP.



2. "...began to believe that governments were no longer created just for the aid and comfort of the wealthy,..."
Nay, nay, reggie....I'll be kind, and say you're is mistaken.

Did you want to point out where our memorializing documents state that the United States was "created just for the aid and comfort of the wealthy,..."?

To be honest, sure sounds like the usual Marxist hate-
America boilerplate.....


3. Now, this is a very important instruction that I'm about to provide, reggie....incorporate it into your thinking, so as to avoid embarrassing yourself again: King FDR had no authority to go beyond Article 1, section 8, in changing the relationship mentioned above.

a. Note, it is only the text of the written Constitution to which we the people of the United States have given our consent, never having consented to be governed in a formal way by the five hundred volumes of the U.S. Reports. We know from the D of I that a precept of our order is that it is the people who must consent to governance.

An amendment was required.



4. This may prove instructive, reggie:

"The ultimate source of authority in this Nation,
Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme
Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate
source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that
originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original
Constitution and by later amending it. .... A mere change in public
opinion since the adoption of the Constitution, unaccompanied
by a constitutional amendment, should not change the
meaning of the Constitution."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


See what you've learned?
Now...aren't you glad you dropped by, reggie?

Well Rehnquist and his "should not" is meaningless as the government has changed many times without amendments, and will continue to change. It is changing now, and will continue to change.

reggie.....back so soon for another lesson?

Sorry...not until you've learned this one.

The essence is not whether or not there have been numerous illegal acts by government, but the simple....and it should be simple.....principle of whether a constitutional amendment is necessary to change the Constitution.


And, of course, it is.



Now...if you'd like to know why there have been so many folks lining up to support such illegality, as, it seems, you have....

1. The human mind may be worshiped, but it cannot be trusted. That is why we codify laws. Eugene Debs said ‘Even if I could, I would not lead you into the Promised Land, because if I could lead you in, someone else could lead you out.’

a. Demagoguery is the attempt to convince the people that they can be led into the Promised Land. Isn't that the attraction of FDR, of progressives?
Haven't you succumbed to this wishful thinking?

b.If “fairness” is associated with group-identity, with all of the associated accommodations, law will be reduced to constant petition of government for special and specific exemptions from justice.
Law, to be just, must be written and carried out in ignorance of the identity of its claimants.
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."

2. The Constitution is the law of the land.
Can you name a way to alter or change it outside of the amendment process?

I didn't think so.

 

[PoliticalChic]

America Ended With The Depression

Actually not.

Indeed, America found its true self as a consequence of the Great Depression, and has become a greater Nation since.

The Depression made clear the fact that the reactionary notion of ‘liberty to contract’ was an anachronistic fallacy, that the relationship between employer and employee was not one of co-equals, and that necessary and proper regulatory policy was both Constitutional and warranted. See: West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937).

Although painful and tragic for millions of Americans, the Great Depression ushered in a modern American economy and society, and with it greater opportunity for all Americans, economic prosperity, and equality.

C_Chamber_Pot.....usually you require corrections in matters of law.

Today's lesson will be in understanding society.
Ready?

Your error is found here: "...all Americans, economic prosperity, and equality.[/QUOTE]"


Society can have prosperity, or equality....but not both.
Yours is a fairy tale that you should have outgrown long ago.


You should laminate that, and carry it around in your wallet with that tin-foil package you've had in there for lo these many years.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

America Ended With The Depression

Actually not.

Indeed, America found its true self as a consequence of the Great Depression, and has become a greater Nation since.

The Depression made clear the fact that the reactionary notion of ‘liberty to contract’ was an anachronistic fallacy, that the relationship between employer and employee was not one of co-equals, and that necessary and proper regulatory policy was both Constitutional and warranted. See: West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937).

Although painful and tragic for millions of Americans, the Great Depression ushered in a modern American economy and society, and with it greater opportunity for all Americans, economic prosperity, and equality.

Well said.

Many of these people would be disowned by their parents and grandparents.

 

[regent]

1. "Somewhere along the line some Americans began to change their beliefs about the role of government ...."
Glad you were able to glean that perspective.....it is the essence of the OP.



2. "...began to believe that governments were no longer created just for the aid and comfort of the wealthy,..."
Nay, nay, reggie....I'll be kind, and say you're is mistaken.

Did you want to point out where our memorializing documents state that the United States was "created just for the aid and comfort of the wealthy,..."?

To be honest, sure sounds like the usual Marxist hate-
America boilerplate.....


3. Now, this is a very important instruction that I'm about to provide, reggie....incorporate it into your thinking, so as to avoid embarrassing yourself again: King FDR had no authority to go beyond Article 1, section 8, in changing the relationship mentioned above.

a. Note, it is only the text of the written Constitution to which we the people of the United States have given our consent, never having consented to be governed in a formal way by the five hundred volumes of the U.S. Reports. We know from the D of I that a precept of our order is that it is the people who must consent to governance.

An amendment was required.



4. This may prove instructive, reggie:

"The ultimate source of authority in this Nation,
Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme
Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate
source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that
originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original
Constitution and by later amending it. .... A mere change in public
opinion since the adoption of the Constitution, unaccompanied
by a constitutional amendment, should not change the
meaning of the Constitution."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf


See what you've learned?
Now...aren't you glad you dropped by, reggie?

Well Rehnquist and his "should not" is meaningless as the government has changed many times without amendments, and will continue to change. It is changing now, and will continue to change.

reggie.....back so soon for another lesson?

Sorry...not until you've learned this one.

The essence is not whether or not there have been numerous illegal acts by government, but the simple....and it should be simple.....principle of whether a constitutional amendment is necessary to change the Constitution.


And, of course, it is.



Now...if you'd like to know why there have been so many folks lining up to support such illegality, as, it seems, you have....

1. The human mind may be worshiped, but it cannot be trusted. That is why we codify laws. Eugene Debs said ‘Even if I could, I would not lead you into the Promised Land, because if I could lead you in, someone else could lead you out.’

a. Demagoguery is the attempt to convince the people that they can be led into the Promised Land. Isn't that the attraction of FDR, of progressives?
Haven't you succumbed to this wishful thinking?

b.If “fairness” is associated with group-identity, with all of the associated accommodations, law will be reduced to constant petition of government for special and specific exemptions from justice.
Law, to be just, must be written and carried out in ignorance of the identity of its claimants.
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."

2. The Constitution is the law of the land.
Can you name a way to alter or change it outside of the amendment process?

I didn't think so.

Do you think this nation could have lasted for all these years with just 27 amendments? Even California has had about 500 amendments to their constitution since they joined the union. There are hundreds probably thousands of court cases that have changed the original ideas and concepts of the constitution, beginning in the Washington administration with the bank. And what of one of the biggies Marbury v. Madison. Why are conservatives forever whining that Obama has changed the constitution with his Obama-Care? Change is permanent.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well Rehnquist and his "should not" is meaningless as the government has changed many times without amendments, and will continue to change. It is changing now, and will continue to change.

reggie.....back so soon for another lesson?

Sorry...not until you've learned this one.

The essence is not whether or not there have been numerous illegal acts by government, but the simple....and it should be simple.....principle of whether a constitutional amendment is necessary to change the Constitution.



And, of course, it is.



Now...if you'd like to know why there have been so many folks lining up to support such illegality, as, it seems, you have....

1. The human mind may be worshiped, but it cannot be trusted. That is why we codify laws. Eugene Debs said ‘Even if I could, I would not lead you into the Promised Land, because if I could lead you in, someone else could lead you out.’

a. Demagoguery is the attempt to convince the people that they can be led into the Promised Land. Isn't that the attraction of FDR, of progressives?
Haven't you succumbed to this wishful thinking?

b.If “fairness” is associated with group-identity, with all of the associated accommodations, law will be reduced to constant petition of government for special and specific exemptions from justice.
Law, to be just, must be written and carried out in ignorance of the identity of its claimants.
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."

2. The Constitution is the law of the land.
Can you name a way to alter or change it outside of the amendment process?

I didn't think so.

Do you think this nation could have lasted for all these years with just 27 amendments? Even California has had about 500 amendments to their constitution since they joined the union. There are hundreds probably thousands of court cases that have changed the original ideas and concepts of the constitution, beginning in the Washington administration with the bank. And what of one of the biggies Marbury v. Madison. Why are conservatives forever whining that Obama has changed the constitution with his Obama-Care? Change is permanent.

1. "Do you think this nation could have lasted for all these years with just 27 amendments?"
Reggie, let's be honest. Since you know I never placed a limit on the number of amendments, the only reason for your statement is that you don't want to answer the question: "Can you name a way to alter or change it outside of the amendment process?"


2. "There are hundreds probably thousands of court cases that have changed the original ideas and concepts of the constitution,..."
Exactly so....which means that each and every one is illegal.


3. "And what of one of the biggies Marbury v. Madison."
a. "All who have studied law, and many who have not, are familiar
with John Marshall’s classic defense of judicial review in
his opinion for the Court in Marbury v. Madison. The ultimate source of authority in this Nation,
Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme
Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate
source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that
originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original
Constitution and by later amending it."
Rehnquist, Op. Cit.

b. Marshall wrote that the ‘principles’ of the Constitution ‘are deemed fundamental and permanent’ and, except for formal amendment, “unchangeable.” See ‘Marbury v. Madison.’


4. "Why are conservatives forever whining that Obama has changed the constitution with his Obama-Care?"
Now....why are you changing the subject? Because you know that you are incorrect about amending the Constitution?
I am a conservative.
I predicted ObamaCare passing based on my understanding of the Constitution.
Justice Roberts explained that the court is not there to correct the people's mistakes....as ObamaCare is.


5. " Change is permanent."
I have to correct you again.
The sentiment is 'change is inevitable....except from a vending machine.'


BTW...conservatives are not opposed to change....merely the speed and direction.
Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

 

[regent]

reggie.....back so soon for another lesson?

Sorry...not until you've learned this one.

The essence is not whether or not there have been numerous illegal acts by government, but the simple....and it should be simple.....principle of whether a constitutional amendment is necessary to change the Constitution.



And, of course, it is.



Now...if you'd like to know why there have been so many folks lining up to support such illegality, as, it seems, you have....

1. The human mind may be worshiped, but it cannot be trusted. That is why we codify laws. Eugene Debs said ‘Even if I could, I would not lead you into the Promised Land, because if I could lead you in, someone else could lead you out.’

a. Demagoguery is the attempt to convince the people that they can be led into the Promised Land. Isn't that the attraction of FDR, of progressives?
Haven't you succumbed to this wishful thinking?

b.If “fairness” is associated with group-identity, with all of the associated accommodations, law will be reduced to constant petition of government for special and specific exemptions from justice.
Law, to be just, must be written and carried out in ignorance of the identity of its claimants.
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."

2. The Constitution is the law of the land.
Can you name a way to alter or change it outside of the amendment process?

I didn't think so.

Do you think this nation could have lasted for all these years with just 27 amendments? Even California has had about 500 amendments to their constitution since they joined the union. There are hundreds probably thousands of court cases that have changed the original ideas and concepts of the constitution, beginning in the Washington administration with the bank. And what of one of the biggies Marbury v. Madison. Why are conservatives forever whining that Obama has changed the constitution with his Obama-Care? Change is permanent.

1. "Do you think this nation could have lasted for all these years with just 27 amendments?"
Reggie, let's be honest. Since you know I never placed a limit on the number of amendments, the only reason for your statement is that you don't want to answer the question: "Can you name a way to alter or change it outside of the amendment process?"


2. "There are hundreds probably thousands of court cases that have changed the original ideas and concepts of the constitution,..."
Exactly so....which means that each and every one is illegal.


3. "And what of one of the biggies Marbury v. Madison."
a. "All who have studied law, and many who have not, are familiar
with John Marshall’s classic defense of judicial review in
his opinion for the Court in Marbury v. Madison. The ultimate source of authority in this Nation,
Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme
Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate
source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that
originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original
Constitution and by later amending it."
Rehnquist, Op. Cit.

b. Marshall wrote that the ‘principles’ of the Constitution ‘are deemed fundamental and permanent’ and, except for formal amendment, “unchangeable.” See ‘Marbury v. Madison.’


4. "Why are conservatives forever whining that Obama has changed the constitution with his Obama-Care?"
Now....why are you changing the subject? Because you know that you are incorrect about amending the Constitution?
I am a conservative.
I predicted ObamaCare passing based on my understanding of the Constitution.
Justice Roberts explained that the court is not there to correct the people's mistakes....as ObamaCare is.


5. " Change is permanent."
I have to correct you again.
The sentiment is 'change is inevitable....except from a vending machine.'


BTW...conservatives are not opposed to change....merely the speed and direction.
Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

So then you agree, change in government is inevitable and and therefore permanent. Government has been changed many times without constitutional amendments, and will continue to change.
Perhaps the difference between liberals and conservatives are liberals want to direct that inevitable change and direct it in favor of all the American people.

 

[editec]

Why blame it all on FDR?

THE FEDERAL RESERVE took over control of the economy in 1913.

What FDR did he could never have done without the FED backing him, ya know?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you think this nation could have lasted for all these years with just 27 amendments? Even California has had about 500 amendments to their constitution since they joined the union. There are hundreds probably thousands of court cases that have changed the original ideas and concepts of the constitution, beginning in the Washington administration with the bank. And what of one of the biggies Marbury v. Madison. Why are conservatives forever whining that Obama has changed the constitution with his Obama-Care? Change is permanent.

1. "Do you think this nation could have lasted for all these years with just 27 amendments?"
Reggie, let's be honest. Since you know I never placed a limit on the number of amendments, the only reason for your statement is that you don't want to answer the question: "Can you name a way to alter or change it outside of the amendment process?"


2. "There are hundreds probably thousands of court cases that have changed the original ideas and concepts of the constitution,..."
Exactly so....which means that each and every one is illegal.


3. "And what of one of the biggies Marbury v. Madison."
a. "All who have studied law, and many who have not, are familiar
with John Marshall’s classic defense of judicial review in
his opinion for the Court in Marbury v. Madison. The ultimate source of authority in this Nation,
Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme
Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate
source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that
originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original
Constitution and by later amending it."
Rehnquist, Op. Cit.

b. Marshall wrote that the ‘principles’ of the Constitution ‘are deemed fundamental and permanent’ and, except for formal amendment, “unchangeable.” See ‘Marbury v. Madison.’


4. "Why are conservatives forever whining that Obama has changed the constitution with his Obama-Care?"
Now....why are you changing the subject? Because you know that you are incorrect about amending the Constitution?
I am a conservative.
I predicted ObamaCare passing based on my understanding of the Constitution.
Justice Roberts explained that the court is not there to correct the people's mistakes....as ObamaCare is.


5. " Change is permanent."
I have to correct you again.
The sentiment is 'change is inevitable....except from a vending machine.'


BTW...conservatives are not opposed to change....merely the speed and direction.
Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.

So then you agree, change in government is inevitable and and therefore permanent. Government has been changed many times without constitutional amendments, and will continue to change.
Perhaps the difference between liberals and conservatives are liberals want to direct that inevitable change and direct it in favor of all the American people.

It is a well known fact that comedians are the most intelligent of entertainers.
One needs intelligence to posit humor.
And....to understand same.

So....when you write the absurd "So then you agree, change in government is inevitable and and therefore permanent. "...

...it is clear that you didn't understand the joke:

'The sentiment is 'change is inevitable....except from a vending machine.'



And any agreement is only within the parameters that I provide in my post.

You didn't understand those, either.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why blame it all on FDR?

THE FEDERAL RESERVE took over control of the economy in 1913.

What FDR did he could never have done without the FED backing him, ya know?

Background.

Let's begin here:
"The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open. The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal." Ayn Rand


Now....let's remind you of the timeline of taxation, Marxism, and the fed:

1. Through the early 20th century, taxes tended to be low. And higher taxes designed to pay war debts would be paid down quickly and temporary taxes eliminated.

2. As is usual with government policy, taxes crept up over time.

3. The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861. Interestingly, it was called an ‘indirect’ tax, defined as taxing an ‘event:’ a tax on the event of receiving income….therefore it didn’t have to be ‘apportioned,’ merely imposed uniformly throughout all areas “not in rebellion.”

a. The tax was moderately progressive, 3% on all income over $800. This meant that most workers didn’t have to pay any tax. Revenue Act of 1861 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. The following year, due to a greater need, Congress increased both the rates and the progressivity. The exemption was lowered to $600 @ 3%, and a new 5% on income over $10,000. This, then was the first “progressive,” not flat tax. The law also imposed a duty on paymasters to deduct and withhold the income tax, and to send the withheld tax to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Revenue Act of 1862 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. After the war exemptions were increased, and rates lowered, and in 1872, the tax was abolished.




b. But, having had a taste of taking and using free money, politicians passed more than 60 bills designed to reinstate the income tax over the next 20 years.
David G. Davies, “United States Taxes and Tax Policy,” p. 22.


5. Socialist, Populist, and Progressive movements paralleled this move, and this desire based on “taxing the rich.” In 1894, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed a bill that included a flat income tax…but part included taxes on income from real estate and personal property, and this triggered a court challenge as a direct tax infracting the Constitution’s apportionment rule,…

a. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), with a ruling of 5–4, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.

b. Interesting decision, since the same principles had been upheld vis-à-vis the 1861 Revenue Act…. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Federal income tax imposed under the Revenue Act of 1864.
Springer v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



6. The Progressives were horrified! They had been focused on forcing the “money class” to pay “in proportion to their ability to pay…’ which, essentially was the first half of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. The Progressives launched a campaign designed to reverse this decision, and that culminated with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, in 1913.

Did you see that part about the amendment?

Now...for FDR....the Constitution is the law of the land...
....Article 1, section 8, specifies what the federal government can do.....
....what amendment did he get passed that allowed the federal government to control the housing markets?

Thank FDR for the mortgage meltdown.

 

[regent]

Why blame it all on FDR?

THE FEDERAL RESERVE took over control of the economy in 1913.

What FDR did he could never have done without the FED backing him, ya know?

Background.

Let's begin here:
"The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open. The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal." Ayn Rand


Now....let's remind you of the timeline of taxation, Marxism, and the fed:

1. Through the early 20th century, taxes tended to be low. And higher taxes designed to pay war debts would be paid down quickly and temporary taxes eliminated.

2. As is usual with government policy, taxes crept up over time.

3. The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861. Interestingly, it was called an ‘indirect’ tax, defined as taxing an ‘event:’ a tax on the event of receiving income….therefore it didn’t have to be ‘apportioned,’ merely imposed uniformly throughout all areas “not in rebellion.”

a. The tax was moderately progressive, 3% on all income over $800. This meant that most workers didn’t have to pay any tax. Revenue Act of 1861 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. The following year, due to a greater need, Congress increased both the rates and the progressivity. The exemption was lowered to $600 @ 3%, and a new 5% on income over $10,000. This, then was the first “progressive,” not flat tax. The law also imposed a duty on paymasters to deduct and withhold the income tax, and to send the withheld tax to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Revenue Act of 1862 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. After the war exemptions were increased, and rates lowered, and in 1872, the tax was abolished.




b. But, having had a taste of taking and using free money, politicians passed more than 60 bills designed to reinstate the income tax over the next 20 years.
David G. Davies, “United States Taxes and Tax Policy,” p. 22.


5. Socialist, Populist, and Progressive movements paralleled this move, and this desire based on “taxing the rich.” In 1894, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed a bill that included a flat income tax…but part included taxes on income from real estate and personal property, and this triggered a court challenge as a direct tax infracting the Constitution’s apportionment rule,…

a. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), with a ruling of 5–4, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.

b. Interesting decision, since the same principles had been upheld vis-à-vis the 1861 Revenue Act…. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Federal income tax imposed under the Revenue Act of 1864.
Springer v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



6. The Progressives were horrified! They had been focused on forcing the “money class” to pay “in proportion to their ability to pay…’ which, essentially was the first half of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. The Progressives launched a campaign designed to reverse this decision, and that culminated with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, in 1913.

Did you see that part about the amendment?

Now...for FDR....the Constitution is the law of the land...
....Article 1, section 8, specifies what the federal government can do.....
....what amendment did he get passed that allowed the federal government to control the housing markets?

Thank FDR for the mortgage meltdown.

So has the Court struck down the housing market law that you can't connect to Article 1 or have you taken it on your own to declare the act unconstitutional?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why blame it all on FDR?

THE FEDERAL RESERVE took over control of the economy in 1913.

What FDR did he could never have done without the FED backing him, ya know?

Background.

Let's begin here:
"The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open. The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal." Ayn Rand


Now....let's remind you of the timeline of taxation, Marxism, and the fed:

1. Through the early 20th century, taxes tended to be low. And higher taxes designed to pay war debts would be paid down quickly and temporary taxes eliminated.

2. As is usual with government policy, taxes crept up over time.

3. The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861. Interestingly, it was called an ‘indirect’ tax, defined as taxing an ‘event:’ a tax on the event of receiving income….therefore it didn’t have to be ‘apportioned,’ merely imposed uniformly throughout all areas “not in rebellion.”

a. The tax was moderately progressive, 3% on all income over $800. This meant that most workers didn’t have to pay any tax. Revenue Act of 1861 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. The following year, due to a greater need, Congress increased both the rates and the progressivity. The exemption was lowered to $600 @ 3%, and a new 5% on income over $10,000. This, then was the first “progressive,” not flat tax. The law also imposed a duty on paymasters to deduct and withhold the income tax, and to send the withheld tax to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Revenue Act of 1862 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. After the war exemptions were increased, and rates lowered, and in 1872, the tax was abolished.




b. But, having had a taste of taking and using free money, politicians passed more than 60 bills designed to reinstate the income tax over the next 20 years.
David G. Davies, “United States Taxes and Tax Policy,” p. 22.


5. Socialist, Populist, and Progressive movements paralleled this move, and this desire based on “taxing the rich.” In 1894, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed a bill that included a flat income tax…but part included taxes on income from real estate and personal property, and this triggered a court challenge as a direct tax infracting the Constitution’s apportionment rule,…

a. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), with a ruling of 5–4, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.

b. Interesting decision, since the same principles had been upheld vis-à-vis the 1861 Revenue Act…. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Federal income tax imposed under the Revenue Act of 1864.
Springer v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



6. The Progressives were horrified! They had been focused on forcing the “money class” to pay “in proportion to their ability to pay…’ which, essentially was the first half of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. The Progressives launched a campaign designed to reverse this decision, and that culminated with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, in 1913.

Did you see that part about the amendment?

Now...for FDR....the Constitution is the law of the land...
....Article 1, section 8, specifies what the federal government can do.....
....what amendment did he get passed that allowed the federal government to control the housing markets?

Thank FDR for the mortgage meltdown.

So has the Court struck down the housing market law that you can't connect to Article 1 or have you taken it on your own to declare the act unconstitutional?

Have you read Article 1, section 8?

It's actually written in English....you don't need a judge to explain it to you.

Try it some time.....you'll have a whole new perspective.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Conn Carroll: Facts show Fannie, Freddie led mortgage market to the collapse
"We are delighted to participate in this historic event, and we are particularly proud that a substantial portion of the $8 billion commitment will directly benefit lower income Americans," Countrywide Financial President Angelo Mozilo said at a July 8, 1992, press conference.
Mozilo's almost 20-year-old quote is relevant again thanks to the uproar New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg caused last week when he criticized Occupy Wall Street's view of the financial crisis.
Bloomberg said, "it was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress, who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. ... They were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will."
This we do know: Thanks to the widespread belief that the federal government would bail them out, Fannie and Freddie were able to borrow money at below-market interest rates.
This gave them a significant competitive advantage over private-sector firms which, by 1992, the two government-backed corporate entities had turned into an almost 70 percent share in the mortgage securitization market.
That same year, at the direction of the Congress, the Department of Housing and Urban Development began setting "affordable" mortgage goals for the agencies.
Countrywide was a growing force in the mortgage industry when it partnered with Fannie in 1992. But after Mozilo's firm secured a steady government buyer for their loans, business exploded. Revenues went from $92 million in 1992, to $860 million in 1996, to $2 billion in 2000. By 2004, they were the nation's largest mortgage lender.
The secret to Countrywide's success was no mystery: They shredded standard industry lending practices, giving home loans to virtually anybody who asked. Fannie Mae not only knew this, Fannie rewarded it.
From 1992 through the height of the housing bubble, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used their monopoly position in the mortgage securitization industry to reward firms like Countrywide for making bad bets in the housing market. Countrywide's success was a signal to other market participants to lower their standards as well.
Wall Street banks are not blameless for the financial crisis. But they were only responding to the incentives set up by the federal government. Ignoring this history will help no one.
Conn Carroll: Facts show Fannie, Freddie led mortgage market to the collapse | WashingtonExaminer.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. The Great Depression was a perfect opportunity for American socialists, interventionists, and advocates of omnipotent government to prevail in their long struggle against the advocates of economic liberty, free enterprise, and limited, constitutional government. FDR led the statists in using the economic crisis to level massive assaults on freedom and the Constitution. A good example of the kind of battles that were taking place at the state level is the 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, in which the “Four Horsemen” — Supreme Court Justices George Sutherland, James C. McReynolds, Willis Van Devanter, and Pierce Butler — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism.

b. The Blaisdells, like so many other Americans in the early 1930s, lacked the money to make their mortgage payments. They defaulted and the bank foreclosed, selling the home at the foreclosure sale. The Minnesota legislature had enacted a law that provided that a debtor could go to court and seek a further extension of time in which to redeem the property. The Supreme Court of Minnesota upheld the constitutionality of the new redemption law, and the bank appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

c. Constitution: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..” Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise. American statists and collectivists won the Blaisdell case, which helped to open the floodgates on laws, rules, and regulations at the state level governing economic activity in America. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.

d. But what happens when an exercise of the police powers contradicts an express prohibition in the Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, trumping both state legislatures and state courts? That was the issue that confronted the U.S. Supreme Court in Blaisdell. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes set forth the applicable principles: “Emergency does not create power. Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal Government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency and they are not altered by emergency. What power was thus granted and what limitations were thus imposed are questions which have always been, and always will be, the subject of close examination under our constitutional system.” “While emergency does not create power, emergency may furnish the occasion for the exercise of power. . .. The constitutional question presented in the light of an emergency is whether the power possessed embraces the particular exercise of it in response to particular conditions. . ..“The economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of its continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding interference with contracts.

e. So there you have it. In the old horse-and-buggy era, the individual and his freedom were supreme but now in the new modern era, the collective interests of “society” would have to prevail. And society could no longer be bound by such quaint notions of constitutional limitations on state power, especially not during emergencies and especially not when the “good of all” depends on state action.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0302a.asp

f. In 1937, the court buckled and ceased to act as the guardian of economic liberty, and as a limit on the extension of federal government power. It now upheld many New Deal measures.


Proves the OP, doesn't it.

 

[Mad Scientist]

It's on record that FDR wanted to kick off a few Supreme Court Justices and stack the Court in his favor by expanding it to as many as 15 Justices.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's on record that FDR wanted to kick off a few Supreme Court Justices and stack the Court in his favor by expanding it to as many as 15 Justices.

Yup.


This will come as bad news to you, AC....
At that time there were actually pro-American Democrats...and there was a rebellion in the party when he threatened the court packing.

It was one of the reasons the former Democrat presidential candidate Davis came out in opposition to FDR.



The 1924 race, Coolidge vs John Davis, was the last time both parties ran conservatives.

 

[regent]

Background.

Let's begin here:
"The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open. The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal." Ayn Rand


Now....let's remind you of the timeline of taxation, Marxism, and the fed:

1. Through the early 20th century, taxes tended to be low. And higher taxes designed to pay war debts would be paid down quickly and temporary taxes eliminated.

2. As is usual with government policy, taxes crept up over time.

3. The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861. Interestingly, it was called an ‘indirect’ tax, defined as taxing an ‘event:’ a tax on the event of receiving income….therefore it didn’t have to be ‘apportioned,’ merely imposed uniformly throughout all areas “not in rebellion.”

a. The tax was moderately progressive, 3% on all income over $800. This meant that most workers didn’t have to pay any tax. Revenue Act of 1861 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. The following year, due to a greater need, Congress increased both the rates and the progressivity. The exemption was lowered to $600 @ 3%, and a new 5% on income over $10,000. This, then was the first “progressive,” not flat tax. The law also imposed a duty on paymasters to deduct and withhold the income tax, and to send the withheld tax to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
Revenue Act of 1862 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. After the war exemptions were increased, and rates lowered, and in 1872, the tax was abolished.




b. But, having had a taste of taking and using free money, politicians passed more than 60 bills designed to reinstate the income tax over the next 20 years.
David G. Davies, “United States Taxes and Tax Policy,” p. 22.


5. Socialist, Populist, and Progressive movements paralleled this move, and this desire based on “taxing the rich.” In 1894, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed a bill that included a flat income tax…but part included taxes on income from real estate and personal property, and this triggered a court challenge as a direct tax infracting the Constitution’s apportionment rule,…

a. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), with a ruling of 5–4, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_&_Trust_Co.

b. Interesting decision, since the same principles had been upheld vis-à-vis the 1861 Revenue Act…. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881),[1] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Federal income tax imposed under the Revenue Act of 1864.
Springer v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



6. The Progressives were horrified! They had been focused on forcing the “money class” to pay “in proportion to their ability to pay…’ which, essentially was the first half of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. The Progressives launched a campaign designed to reverse this decision, and that culminated with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, in 1913.

Did you see that part about the amendment?

Now...for FDR....the Constitution is the law of the land...
....Article 1, section 8, specifies what the federal government can do.....
....what amendment did he get passed that allowed the federal government to control the housing markets?

Thank FDR for the mortgage meltdown.

So has the Court struck down the housing market law that you can't connect to Article 1 or have you taken it on your own to declare the act unconstitutional?

Have you read Article 1, section 8?

It's actually written in English....you don't need a judge to explain it to you.

Try it some time.....you'll have a whole new perspective.

The question was, has the court struck down the housing market law or not? If the Court has not declared it unconstitutional is the law then a valid law and should be obeyed?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So has the Court struck down the housing market law that you can't connect to Article 1 or have you taken it on your own to declare the act unconstitutional?

Have you read Article 1, section 8?

It's actually written in English....you don't need a judge to explain it to you.

Try it some time.....you'll have a whole new perspective.

The question was, has the court struck down the housing market law or not? If the Court has not declared it unconstitutional is the law then a valid law and should be obeyed?

It seems best for your perspective, to ignore post #35, as it obviates the view that judges adhere to the Constitution.

You can pretend ignorance....but we both know the truth, don't we.

 

[regent]

Have you read Article 1, section 8?

It's actually written in English....you don't need a judge to explain it to you.

Try it some time.....you'll have a whole new perspective.

The question was, has the court struck down the housing market law or not? If the Court has not declared it unconstitutional is the law then a valid law and should be obeyed?

It seems best for your perspective, to ignore post #35, as it obviates the view that judges adhere to the Constitution.

You can pretend ignorance....but we both know the truth, don't we.

Good for the judges, I try to adhere to the constitution also. Now back to the question: is a law valid and should be obeyed, even if it has not been reviewed by the Court?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You people weren't here back then during the depression, you people were eating dogs in rice paddy's and not anywhere near The United states

There's Polecat, keeping it classy as always..

Standard Disclaimer: Is is even POSSIBLE to be leftist, and not be a racist pile of shit?