Beating Social Security

[NYcarbineer]

When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:

11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.

Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire with a payout of $11,490 a month....


But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



So....the experiment has been performed, and it works.



a. Can you see that the difference is not merely financial? It is a difference in respect for the people, for self-reliance, and individual responsibility. It allows people to grow and plan for the exigencies of life......


b. Leftist governments infantilize their populace. When political operatives advocate doing something ‘for the children” one can see the tendency to make children out of the citizenry. “Vice President Al Gore said the government should act like “grandparents in the sense that grandparents perform a nurturing role.” Cult of the Presidency


c. “…Denton Walthall, who asked a question in the second presidential debate in 1992. …Referring to voters as "symbolically the children of the future president," he asked how voters could expect the candidates "to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it, as opposed to the wants of your political spin doctors and your political parties.” How town-hall debates can go very wrong for a candidate.

You have a problem with poor children getting a free education, and Medicaid?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Social Security is an "insurance" program (safety net) - not an "investment" program. Social Security is also referred to as Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

I consider you to be proof of reincarnation. No one could possibly get to be so stupid in just one lifetime.

There isn't enough time nor space, outside of infinity, to fill in all of the things you don't know.

Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution....have you heard of the Constitution?...states what the federal government can do.

Insurance is not a part of its authority.


On the bright side, you bear witness to the following:
“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
― Ronald Reagan

Funny you would quote Ronald Reagan in the same post you're trying to pretend that Social Security isn't constitutional,

given that Reagan extended the life of Social Security for about 50 years in 1983.

Are you trying to tell us that Reagan was constitutionally as ignorant as you are?

Damn, that's harsh.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?

Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments.

Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?
Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments

Looks like PC has once again run away without offering her promised solutions. Once again, her thread is a thinly veiled attack on FDR


What PCs simplistic savings plan does not offer that FDR did offer was that FDR offered immediate retirement for those who were of age. Under PCs plan, the first people could not have retired till sometime in the 1960s when they had built up a large enough nest egg.

That means those in the 30s and 40s who were suffering from a depression would have still suffered, would have still died in poverty. FDRs Social Security helped people immediately

I just showed you one that paid thrice what your god, Roosevelt's did....so you used the tried and true Liberal defense: you lie.

You fail to show when the first retiree would be eligible to receive benefits. You also fail to account for the feeble interest rates in the 30s and 40s

FDR provided immediate eligibility, those in your plan would have had to wait until the 1960s before the first could retire

Looks like FDR wins

Can you imagine totalitarian governance, the New Deal sort, allowing the citizens to make their own decisions???


Of course not: big government (read 'Liberal/Progressive/Democrat government) has neither respect, nor any trust of the citizenry....so they make all decisions.



Not so with the Alternative Plan....

9. "Employees can elect to put their portion of the contributions into riskier investments, like mutual funds and stocks, potentially to generate more interest. At retirement, employees in the Alternate Plan can choose to take the money in a lump sum, take monthly benefits for a given time period or take a lifetime annuity, with slightly reduced benefits.

[They actually trust folks to make decisions with their own money!!!]

Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, Mr. Gornto said, and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”

a. Both the G.A.O. and Social Security studies concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under Social Security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better, at least initially, under the Alternate Plan." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



Again:
Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, Mr. Gornto said, and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”


The above should be read carefully.

Very carefully.

Once again you fail to account for what you do to transition 200 million people off of Social Security. Where does the money to pay these people come from if everyone is putting money into personal accounts?

Excellent point. Step one, raise taxes enough to pay out the 2.5 trillion in the Trust Fund,

plus interest.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:

11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.

Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire with a payout of $11,490 a month....


But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



So....the experiment has been performed, and it works.



a. Can you see that the difference is not merely financial? It is a difference in respect for the people, for self-reliance, and individual responsibility. It allows people to grow and plan for the exigencies of life......


b. Leftist governments infantilize their populace. When political operatives advocate doing something ‘for the children” one can see the tendency to make children out of the citizenry. “Vice President Al Gore said the government should act like “grandparents in the sense that grandparents perform a nurturing role.” Cult of the Presidency


c. “…Denton Walthall, who asked a question in the second presidential debate in 1992. …Referring to voters as "symbolically the children of the future president," he asked how voters could expect the candidates "to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it, as opposed to the wants of your political spin doctors and your political parties.” How town-hall debates can go very wrong for a candidate.

So would you like SS to refund all your contributions and take you off the program?

Oh, right, you don't work. You don't have SS contributions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Constitutionality of Social Security Act

The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937. The text of those decisions, with dissents, is presented here. (We also include a brief historical essay to help general readers better understand the context of the decisions.)

1937 Supreme Court Opinions

• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Helvering vs. Davis.
• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Steward Machine Co. vs. Davis, plus dissents.
• The full text of Justice Stone's opinion in Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke and Gulf States Paper, plus dissent.

Other Legal Rulings

• Other Legal Rulings Related to Social Security

MORE: Social Security History

Social Security has clearly been ruled to be constitutional.

Try to understand this:

No matter what a judge claims.....they never had the authority to change the Constitution.


Never.

There are statements to the contrary that are meant to persuade fools like you.


Only an amendment, as per Article five, can do that.

That's a fact.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?

Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments.

Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?
Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments

Looks like PC has once again run away without offering her promised solutions. Once again, her thread is a thinly veiled attack on FDR


What PCs simplistic savings plan does not offer that FDR did offer was that FDR offered immediate retirement for those who were of age. Under PCs plan, the first people could not have retired till sometime in the 1960s when they had built up a large enough nest egg.

That means those in the 30s and 40s who were suffering from a depression would have still suffered, would have still died in poverty. FDRs Social Security helped people immediately

I just showed you one that paid thrice what your god, Roosevelt's did....so you used the tried and true Liberal defense: you lie.

You fail to show when the first retiree would be eligible to receive benefits. You also fail to account for the feeble interest rates in the 30s and 40s

FDR provided immediate eligibility, those in your plan would have had to wait until the 1960s before the first could retire

Looks like FDR wins

Can you imagine totalitarian governance, the New Deal sort, allowing the citizens to make their own decisions???


Of course not: big government (read 'Liberal/Progressive/Democrat government) has neither respect, nor any trust of the citizenry....so they make all decisions.



Not so with the Alternative Plan....

9. "Employees can elect to put their portion of the contributions into riskier investments, like mutual funds and stocks, potentially to generate more interest. At retirement, employees in the Alternate Plan can choose to take the money in a lump sum, take monthly benefits for a given time period or take a lifetime annuity, with slightly reduced benefits.

[They actually trust folks to make decisions with their own money!!!]

Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, Mr. Gornto said, and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”

a. Both the G.A.O. and Social Security studies concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under Social Security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better, at least initially, under the Alternate Plan." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



Again:
Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, Mr. Gornto said, and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”


The above should be read carefully.

Very carefully.

Once again you fail to account for what you do to transition 200 million people off of Social Security. Where does the money to pay these people come from if everyone is putting money into personal accounts?

Cross that bridge after you deal with post #125.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ironically,

Ronald Reagan all but guaranteed that conservatives will never be able to fulfill their dream of destroying Social Security.

Destroying?

Fact not in evidence.

That's a nice way of saying you're, a liar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:

11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.

Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire with a payout of $11,490 a month....


But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



So....the experiment has been performed, and it works.



a. Can you see that the difference is not merely financial? It is a difference in respect for the people, for self-reliance, and individual responsibility. It allows people to grow and plan for the exigencies of life......


b. Leftist governments infantilize their populace. When political operatives advocate doing something ‘for the children” one can see the tendency to make children out of the citizenry. “Vice President Al Gore said the government should act like “grandparents in the sense that grandparents perform a nurturing role.” Cult of the Presidency


c. “…Denton Walthall, who asked a question in the second presidential debate in 1992. …Referring to voters as "symbolically the children of the future president," he asked how voters could expect the candidates "to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it, as opposed to the wants of your political spin doctors and your political parties.” How town-hall debates can go very wrong for a candidate.

So would you like SS to refund all your contributions and take you off the program?

Oh, right, you don't work. You don't have SS contributions.

You don't know what I do....nor is it any of your business.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ironically,

Ronald Reagan all but guaranteed that conservatives will never be able to fulfill their dream of destroying Social Security.

Destroying?

Fact not in evidence.

That's a nice way of saying you're, a liar.

You want to end Social Security as it now exists. Destruction is not an inaccurate word to use.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When they could opt out of the government plan, several places did ....such as Galveston, Texas. Let's compare results of the Galveston Alternative Plan:

11. "In a hypothetical calculation, ... an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan.

Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire with a payout of $11,490 a month....


But [under the Roosevelt plan] at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



So....the experiment has been performed, and it works.



a. Can you see that the difference is not merely financial? It is a difference in respect for the people, for self-reliance, and individual responsibility. It allows people to grow and plan for the exigencies of life......


b. Leftist governments infantilize their populace. When political operatives advocate doing something ‘for the children” one can see the tendency to make children out of the citizenry. “Vice President Al Gore said the government should act like “grandparents in the sense that grandparents perform a nurturing role.” Cult of the Presidency


c. “…Denton Walthall, who asked a question in the second presidential debate in 1992. …Referring to voters as "symbolically the children of the future president," he asked how voters could expect the candidates "to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it, as opposed to the wants of your political spin doctors and your political parties.” How town-hall debates can go very wrong for a candidate.

So would you like SS to refund all your contributions and take you off the program?

Oh, right, you don't work. You don't have SS contributions.

You don't know what I do....nor is it any of your business.

Waaaaaa....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Constitutionality of Social Security Act

The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937. The text of those decisions, with dissents, is presented here. (We also include a brief historical essay to help general readers better understand the context of the decisions.)

1937 Supreme Court Opinions

• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Helvering vs. Davis.
• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Steward Machine Co. vs. Davis, plus dissents.
• The full text of Justice Stone's opinion in Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke and Gulf States Paper, plus dissent.

Other Legal Rulings

• Other Legal Rulings Related to Social Security

MORE: Social Security History

Social Security has clearly been ruled to be constitutional.

Try to understand this:

No matter what a judge claims.....they never had the authority to change the Constitution.


Never.

There are statements to the contrary that are meant to persuade fools like you.


Only an amendment, as per Article five, can do that.

That's a fact.

And who has the authority to nullify a Supreme Court decision?

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. What have we learned?

The Roosevelt government ignored the Constitution and provided federal 'insurance,' Social Security. The original plan has created enormous debt, now, and into the future. This thread provided a hypothetical plan that would result in thrice the benefits, and an actual, Alternative Plan that gives the citizen more control of his own money.

And, it was noted that the Ponzi Scheme called Social Security is not legally binding on the government....

....as it is, they have stolen all the funds, anyway.



So what the heck is wrong with infantilizing the citizenry, making nice to 'em "from cradle to grave"?

A few things.

a. “Previous generations crossed the frozen Bering Straits, rounded the Cape of Good Hope, discovered the New World, traveled the Oregon Trail, climbed Mount Everest.” The Greatest Generation included teenage boys who went off to liberate Europe, island-hp through the Pacific, and defeat the Japanese Empire…So far, though, the great pioneering move of Generation Me is to move back home to live in mom’s basement. Sykes, “50 Rules Kids Won’t Learn in School,” p. 79.


b.The Welfare State inhibits the maturation of youth into responsible adults. It infantilizes its citizens. In earlier times, the view of males was to earn a living and use same to support a wife and family.

Obama: "if you're a young adult, you can stay on your parent's health insurance policy until you are 26." So much for the view of being independent at the age of 21. Bet there would be applause if he had announced 'until 36!' This is what the Liberal Welfare State encourages: dependence.
So....where are all the men? Ask the Liberals what happened to them.


Grow the heck up.
Plan for your own contingencies, make mature and responsible decision and choices. Get Liberalism out of our government.


Grow the heck up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I imagine it takes a while to find something to cut and paste

I will wait with baited breath for your profound observations on saving Social Security

Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?

Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments.

Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?
Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments

Looks like PC has once again run away without offering her promised solutions. Once again, her thread is a thinly veiled attack on FDR


What PCs simplistic savings plan does not offer that FDR did offer was that FDR offered immediate retirement for those who were of age. Under PCs plan, the first people could not have retired till sometime in the 1960s when they had built up a large enough nest egg.

That means those in the 30s and 40s who were suffering from a depression would have still suffered, would have still died in poverty. FDRs Social Security helped people immediately

I just showed you one that paid thrice what your god, Roosevelt's did....so you used the tried and true Liberal defense: you lie.

You fail to show when the first retiree would be eligible to receive benefits. You also fail to account for the feeble interest rates in the 30s and 40s

FDR provided immediate eligibility, those in your plan would have had to wait until the 1960s before the first could retire

Looks like FDR wins

Can you imagine totalitarian governance, the New Deal sort, allowing the citizens to make their own decisions???


Of course not: big government (read 'Liberal/Progressive/Democrat government) has neither respect, nor any trust of the citizenry....so they make all decisions.



Not so with the Alternative Plan....

9. "Employees can elect to put their portion of the contributions into riskier investments, like mutual funds and stocks, potentially to generate more interest. At retirement, employees in the Alternate Plan can choose to take the money in a lump sum, take monthly benefits for a given time period or take a lifetime annuity, with slightly reduced benefits.

[They actually trust folks to make decisions with their own money!!!]

Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, Mr. Gornto said, and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”

a. Both the G.A.O. and Social Security studies concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under Social Security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better, at least initially, under the Alternate Plan." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



Again:
Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, Mr. Gornto said, and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”


The above should be read carefully.

Very carefully.

And which private investment institution guarantees you that there is absolutely no chance you might lose your money?

 

[NYcarbineer]

12. What have we learned?

The Roosevelt government ignored the Constitution and provided federal 'insurance,' Social Security. The original plan has created enormous debt, now, and into the future. This thread provided a hypothetical plan that would result in thrice the benefits, and an actual, Alternative Plan that gives the citizen more control of his own money.

And, it was noted that the Ponzi Scheme called Social Security is not legally binding on the government....

....as it is, they have stolen all the funds, anyway.



So what the heck is wrong with infantilizing the citizenry, making nice to 'em "from cradle to grave"?

A few things.

a. “Previous generations crossed the frozen Bering Straits, rounded the Cape of Good Hope, discovered the New World, traveled the Oregon Trail, climbed Mount Everest.” The Greatest Generation included teenage boys who went off to liberate Europe, island-hp through the Pacific, and defeat the Japanese Empire…So far, though, the great pioneering move of Generation Me is to move back home to live in mom’s basement. Sykes, “50 Rules Kids Won’t Learn in School,” p. 79.


b.The Welfare State inhibits the maturation of youth into responsible adults. It infantilizes its citizens. In earlier times, the view of males was to earn a living and use same to support a wife and family.

Obama: "if you're a young adult, you can stay on your parent's health insurance policy until you are 26." So much for the view of being independent at the age of 21. Bet there would be applause if he had announced 'until 36!' This is what the Liberal Welfare State encourages: dependence.
So....where are all the men? Ask the Liberals what happened to them.


Grow the heck up.
Plan for your own contingencies, make mature and responsible decision and choices. Get Liberalism out of our government.


Grow the heck up.

Are you dependent on someone else's health insurance? Insurance that you don't actually pay for out of your own pocket?

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many of you conservatives reading this thread think Ronald Reagan shit on the Constitution when he saved Social Security?

...because that is what PC is saying.

note: non-answers count as a 'No'.

 

[Camp]

Constitutionality of Social Security Act

The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937. The text of those decisions, with dissents, is presented here. (We also include a brief historical essay to help general readers better understand the context of the decisions.)

1937 Supreme Court Opinions

• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Helvering vs. Davis.
• The full text of Justice Cardozo's opinion in Steward Machine Co. vs. Davis, plus dissents.
• The full text of Justice Stone's opinion in Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke and Gulf States Paper, plus dissent.

Other Legal Rulings

• Other Legal Rulings Related to Social Security

MORE: Social Security History

Social Security has clearly been ruled to be constitutional.

Try to understand this:

No matter what a judge claims.....they never had the authority to change the Constitution.


Never.

There are statements to the contrary that are meant to persuade fools like you.


Only an amendment, as per Article five, can do that.

That's a fact.

Justice Cardozo was not just a judge. He sat on the Supreme Court and his writings on the Social Security constitutionality was a response to the SCOTUS ruling the Social Security was constitutional. When Supreme Court rules something is constitutional it is or becomes constitutional. Claims that SCOTUS rulings are unconstitutional are nothing more than meaningless opinions with absolutely no legal standing.
If you were to read the 1937 SCOTUS rulings you would learn that Social Security was written so that the taxes collected to fund it fit into the category of an excise tax and the Courts confirmed the funding as being excise taxes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I like how most of the conservative agenda is based on fantasies that are never ever going to happen.

We're going end Social Security...we're going end Medicare...we're going to end Medicaid...we're going to end food stamps...we're going to deport 11 million illegals...we're going repeal Obamacare...we're going ban all abortion...we're going to kick the gays out of the military...we're going to end legal same sex marriage...

...we're going to cut your taxes, increase military spending...and balance the budget.

You people are fucktards. Conservatism is an hallucinogen.

 

[rightwinger]

Doesn't look like Franklin Roosevelt did SS recipient's any favor, huh?
Add it to the rest of his maladroit accomplishments

Looks like PC has once again run away without offering her promised solutions. Once again, her thread is a thinly veiled attack on FDR


What PCs simplistic savings plan does not offer that FDR did offer was that FDR offered immediate retirement for those who were of age. Under PCs plan, the first people could not have retired till sometime in the 1960s when they had built up a large enough nest egg.

That means those in the 30s and 40s who were suffering from a depression would have still suffered, would have still died in poverty. FDRs Social Security helped people immediately

I just showed you one that paid thrice what your god, Roosevelt's did....so you used the tried and true Liberal defense: you lie.

You fail to show when the first retiree would be eligible to receive benefits. You also fail to account for the feeble interest rates in the 30s and 40s

FDR provided immediate eligibility, those in your plan would have had to wait until the 1960s before the first could retire

Looks like FDR wins

Can you imagine totalitarian governance, the New Deal sort, allowing the citizens to make their own decisions???


Of course not: big government (read 'Liberal/Progressive/Democrat government) has neither respect, nor any trust of the citizenry....so they make all decisions.



Not so with the Alternative Plan....

9. "Employees can elect to put their portion of the contributions into riskier investments, like mutual funds and stocks, potentially to generate more interest. At retirement, employees in the Alternate Plan can choose to take the money in a lump sum, take monthly benefits for a given time period or take a lifetime annuity, with slightly reduced benefits.

[They actually trust folks to make decisions with their own money!!!]

Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, Mr. Gornto said, and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”

a. Both the G.A.O. and Social Security studies concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under Social Security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better, at least initially, under the Alternate Plan." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/u...y-works-in-galveston.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



Again:
Social Security is subject to whatever rules the federal government makes, Mr. Gornto said, and there is “not a guaranteed promise to pay any certain amount.”


The above should be read carefully.

Very carefully.

Once again you fail to account for what you do to transition 200 million people off of Social Security. Where does the money to pay these people come from if everyone is putting money into personal accounts?

Cross that bridge after you deal with post #125.

Post 125?

Easy...take it to court and get Social Security declared unconstitutional and then we can discuss what to replace it with

 

[Toro]

I think SS should be reformed, but people need to be mandated to save. They simply do not save enough.

 

[francoHFW]

It is law now, and deemed constitutional, dingbat. Raise the limit and pace it to inflation. DONE.

"...deemed constitutional..."

Except that it's not.

Do you read English?

If so....find the part of the enumerated powers of the federal government that gives it authority to write insurance for its citizens.


Or...admit that Liberal governance is lawless governance.

The constitution has been added to for 218 years. duh