[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[johnwk]

" Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."

Pretty much. In addition, there are some responsibilities reserved for the states.

If you disagree, post some evidence.

You forgot to post your evidence supporting your absurd comment that ' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights." I suggest you read what Chief Justice Marshall stated in regard to your absurdity.



The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void. ____ MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)


JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

The law is written. There are as many opinions about things as people.

That's why law is not left up to quotes without context, but by very carefully chosen words.

And why the Constitution implies that what you and I think is not what it means. Only what the Supreme Court decides and writes down is what it means.

You still forgot to post your evidence supporting your absurd comment that ' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights." Where on earth do you find support for that conclusion in our written Constitution?





JWK



"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

 

[Gadawg73]

People come here from African nations and find work immediately, feed and clothe their families and do not expect anything other than opportunity. The woman from Ghana that works at the hospice my sister died at today earns $15 a hour as a CNA.
They do not cry like whiny 5 year olds. They come here because there are people that can become wealthy here. Wealth grows the economy from the demand for that wealth.
Incredible anyone would be so naive and gullible to believe otherwise. People come here and find work and the majority on entitlement programs are there because of a lack of work ethic or an acceptance of sitting the bench while others pass them by.

So, you believe that US unemployment is at zero and corporations are fighting to find workers?

That means that in 5 years President Obama has completely turned around the Great Recession and restored the country to Clintonomics.

Corporations are fighting to find people with a work ethic.
Your team has left us with the lowest Labor Participation Rate in 50 years.
Women come from Africa, find work, educate themselves to the demands of the market and do well.
And you hate them for it because it disputes everything you state.

 

[johnwk]

" Yes, the founding fathers said the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights."

Pretty much. In addition, there are some responsibilities reserved for the states.

If you disagree, post some evidence.

OK:

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Check and mate. So did they give you a social promotion or did you flunk out of high school?

Both Ammendments are part of the Bill of Rights.

The 10th is exactly what I said.

The 9th depends on "others (rights) retained by the people"

Can you specify what specifically they are?

Your " Check and mate." is like Bush's "mission accomplished".

From your comments it appears you do not know the very intentions for which the first 10 amendments to our federal Constitution were adopted. Let us review some historical documentation to establish the facts.


With regard to the “Bill of Rights” [our Constitution's first 10 amendments] we find the founders expressed their intentions in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .


And Madison, speaking on the very issue regarding these amendments to the Constitution indicates they were to preserve and protect “federalism” our Constitution’s plan, which reserves all powers not delegated to Congress to the respective States and the people. He says:


“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

So, as it turns out, the very object of adding the first ten amendments to our Constitution was to preserve federalism, our Constitution's plan.


Finally, it is important to read the Federalist Papers in which federalism is summarized as follows:



“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. __ Federalist Paper No. 45

Bottom line is, the first ten amendments were adopted as a written protection to keep the freaken federal government’s nose out of the internal affairs of the various states!




JWK



"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

 

[PMZ]

When did you cede my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness each of which are inherent rights, to the government?

Oh, and you and your kind can stick your due process clause of the 14th amendment up your ass with a red hot poker.

They always have been right afforded you by the government. I can prove it. You just don't get it. You can't prove anything to the contrary.

You are also an abusive asshole as demonstrated above. When you don't get what you want, you get all angry because your emotionally stunted.

Who is this god of yours named government that affords you your rights? Prove what? That you cede your right to life to your government employees? WTF is wrong with you libtards?

We follow the Constitution.

 

[PMZ]

That's nice.

In no way supports your fallacy that they are a "natural monopoly."

But then, you always were about blowing smoke, rather than supporting your claims....

The natural monopoly thing is common sense. It's not surprising that you don't see it.

Did you seriously not grasp his point? Uncensored gave a great example on the difference between a natural and a government monopoly with his water example. How did you not get that? He was disagreeing with what is a natural monopoly. But clearly so far he and not you know what a natural monopoly is.

So again, what are you claiming are natural monopolies? That is the real question here.

You and he are the arbiters of the English language?

 

[ShawnChris13]

The natural monopoly thing is common sense. It's not surprising that you don't see it.

Did you seriously not grasp his point? Uncensored gave a great example on the difference between a natural and a government monopoly with his water example. How did you not get that? He was disagreeing with what is a natural monopoly. But clearly so far he and not you know what a natural monopoly is.

So again, what are you claiming are natural monopolies? That is the real question here.

You and he are the arbiters of the English language?

There appear to be several on USMB.

 

[PMZ]

OK:

10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Check and mate. So did they give you a social promotion or did you flunk out of high school?

Both Ammendments are part of the Bill of Rights.

The 10th is exactly what I said.

The 9th depends on "others (rights) retained by the people"

Can you specify what specifically they are?

Your " Check and mate." is like Bush's "mission accomplished".

From your comments it appears you do not know the very intentions for which the first 10 amendments to our federal Constitution were adopted. Let us review some historical documentation to establish the facts.


With regard to the “Bill of Rights” [our Constitution's first 10 amendments] we find the founders expressed their intentions in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .


And Madison, speaking on the very issue regarding these amendments to the Constitution indicates they were to preserve and protect “federalism” our Constitution’s plan, which reserves all powers not delegated to Congress to the respective States and the people. He says:


“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

So, as it turns out, the very object of adding the first ten amendments to our Constitution was to preserve federalism, our Constitution's plan.


Finally, it is important to read the Federalist Papers in which federalism is summarized as follows:



“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. __ Federalist Paper No. 45

Bottom line is, the first ten amendments were adopted as a written protection to keep the freaken federal government’s nose out of the internal affairs of the various states!




JWK



"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

You still don't understand that the opinions that you quote have no standing with the law. Everybody at the Constitutional Convention had an opinion. What they agreed to and wrote down is our law.

So if we are debating law, the appropriate support for a point is only the law as written. Including the Constitution. Not your opinion about who was thinking what.

 

[PMZ]

People come here from African nations and find work immediately, feed and clothe their families and do not expect anything other than opportunity. The woman from Ghana that works at the hospice my sister died at today earns $15 a hour as a CNA.
They do not cry like whiny 5 year olds. They come here because there are people that can become wealthy here. Wealth grows the economy from the demand for that wealth.
Incredible anyone would be so naive and gullible to believe otherwise. People come here and find work and the majority on entitlement programs are there because of a lack of work ethic or an acceptance of sitting the bench while others pass them by.

So, you believe that US unemployment is at zero and corporations are fighting to find workers?

That means that in 5 years President Obama has completely turned around the Great Recession and restored the country to Clintonomics.

Corporations are fighting to find people with a work ethic.
Your team has left us with the lowest Labor Participation Rate in 50 years.
Women come from Africa, find work, educate themselves to the demands of the market and do well.
And you hate them for it because it disputes everything you state.

What you wish was true.

The truth is that we have 7% or so unemployment. That means 7% of the people who want to work can't find jobs. That means that 7% of the workforce is idle, thanks to business, and have to be supported by the 93% who have jobs. Reality.

Those people aren't going to lay down and starve. They will continue to be a burden until business creates more jobs.

The only relevant question is what happened to the business leaders who knew how to achieve growth.

 

[johnwk]

Both Ammendments are part of the Bill of Rights.

The 10th is exactly what I said.

The 9th depends on "others (rights) retained by the people"

Can you specify what specifically they are?

Your " Check and mate." is like Bush's "mission accomplished".

From your comments it appears you do not know the very intentions for which the first 10 amendments to our federal Constitution were adopted. Let us review some historical documentation to establish the facts.


With regard to the “Bill of Rights” [our Constitution's first 10 amendments] we find the founders expressed their intentions in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .


And Madison, speaking on the very issue regarding these amendments to the Constitution indicates they were to preserve and protect “federalism” our Constitution’s plan, which reserves all powers not delegated to Congress to the respective States and the people. He says:


“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

So, as it turns out, the very object of adding the first ten amendments to our Constitution was to preserve federalism, our Constitution's plan.


Finally, it is important to read the Federalist Papers in which federalism is summarized as follows:



“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. __ Federalist Paper No. 45

Bottom line is, the first ten amendments were adopted as a written protection to keep the freaken federal government’s nose out of the internal affairs of the various states!




JWK



"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

You still don't understand that the opinions that you quote have no standing with the law. Everybody at the Constitutional Convention had an opinion. What they agreed to and wrote down is our law.

So if we are debating law, the appropriate support for a point is only the law as written. Including the Constitution. Not your opinion about who was thinking what.

We are not talking about my opinions. We are talking about the stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution.

Do you not know the fundamental rules of constitutional law?

Finally, you still forgot to post your evidence supporting your absurd comment that ' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights." So tell us, where did our founding fathers write down your above stated opinion in our Constitution? Please feel free to point to those words.


JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

 

[PMZ]

From your comments it appears you do not know the very intentions for which the first 10 amendments to our federal Constitution were adopted. Let us review some historical documentation to establish the facts.


With regard to the “Bill of Rights” [our Constitution's first 10 amendments] we find the founders expressed their intentions in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .


And Madison, speaking on the very issue regarding these amendments to the Constitution indicates they were to preserve and protect “federalism” our Constitution’s plan, which reserves all powers not delegated to Congress to the respective States and the people. He says:


“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

So, as it turns out, the very object of adding the first ten amendments to our Constitution was to preserve federalism, our Constitution's plan.


Finally, it is important to read the Federalist Papers in which federalism is summarized as follows:



“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. __ Federalist Paper No. 45

Bottom line is, the first ten amendments were adopted as a written protection to keep the freaken federal government’s nose out of the internal affairs of the various states!




JWK



"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

You still don't understand that the opinions that you quote have no standing with the law. Everybody at the Constitutional Convention had an opinion. What they agreed to and wrote down is our law.

So if we are debating law, the appropriate support for a point is only the law as written. Including the Constitution. Not your opinion about who was thinking what.

We are not talking about my opinions. We are talking about the stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution.

Do you not know the fundamental rules of constitutional law?

Finally, you still forgot to post your evidence supporting your absurd comment that ' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights." So tell us, where did our founding fathers write down your above stated opinion in our Constitution? Please feel free to point to those words.


JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law. Only what was agreed to and written down has standing. That's called rule of law. No opinions.

I stated my opinion. The Constitution contains our bylaws for federal government. They say that the Bill of Rights prescribes areas in which federal legislation is prohibited.

The Constitution also contains some areas reserved for state legislation only. Other than that there are not many restrictions on what the federal government can do.

If you disagree post the specific words in the Constitution that specify those limitations.

 

[Chris]

The Constitution is deeply flawed.

Everyone's vote should count equally.

A vote in Alaska should not be 40 times more powerful in the U.S. Senate than a vote in California.

8 swing states should not decide every presidential election.

Abolish the electoral college, abolish the U.S. Senate, and make the House districts geographic instead of gerrymandered.

 

[RKMBrown]

The Constitution is deeply flawed.

Everyone's vote should count equally.

A vote in Alaska should not be 40 times more powerful in the U.S. Senate than a vote in California.

8 swing states should not decide every presidential election.

Abolish the electoral college, abolish the U.S. Senate, and make the House districts geographic instead of gerrymandered.

Epic fail. Who told you this clap trap? They should be shot. And you should be embarrassed that you believed them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

They always have been right afforded you by the government. I can prove it. You just don't get it. You can't prove anything to the contrary.

You are also an abusive asshole as demonstrated above. When you don't get what you want, you get all angry because your emotionally stunted.

Who is this god of yours named government that affords you your rights? Prove what? That you cede your right to life to your government employees? WTF is wrong with you libtards?

We follow the Constitution.

Sure. And you're lying. What part of the constitution allows you to do the things you're suggesting? To rob someone of their prosperity just because someone else isn't?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Constitution is deeply flawed.

Everyone's vote should count equally.

A vote in Alaska should not be 40 times more powerful in the U.S. Senate than a vote in California.

8 swing states should not decide every presidential election.

Abolish the electoral college, abolish the U.S. Senate, and make the House districts geographic instead of gerrymandered.

Say what now? Who taught you that nonsense?

First of all you contradicted yourself in the first two lines. How is a vote equal if it's supposedly 40 times more powerful in one state than in another?

Perhaps you don't grasp the concept of the Democratic process. People deserve to be represented as a population and not based on simple geography. The beauty of elections is that the people's mood is unpredictable, you can't simply generalize people and pigeonhole them into certain categories.

What you suggest is dismantling the Legislative branch.

Please be quiet, Chris.

 

[orogenicman]

The Constitution is deeply flawed.

Everyone's vote should count equally.

A vote in Alaska should not be 40 times more powerful in the U.S. Senate than a vote in California.

8 swing states should not decide every presidential election.

Abolish the electoral college, abolish the U.S. Senate, and make the House districts geographic instead of gerrymandered.

Erm, every state has exactly two Senators. You didn't know this? Huh. And none of those (U.S. Senate) votes occur in either Alaska or California. You didn't know this, either? Huh.

 

[johnwk]

You still don't understand that the opinions that you quote have no standing with the law. Everybody at the Constitutional Convention had an opinion. What they agreed to and wrote down is our law.

So if we are debating law, the appropriate support for a point is only the law as written. Including the Constitution. Not your opinion about who was thinking what.

We are not talking about my opinions. We are talking about the stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution.

Do you not know the fundamental rules of constitutional law?

Finally, you still forgot to post your evidence supporting your absurd comment that ' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights." So tell us, where did our founding fathers write down your above stated opinion in our Constitution? Please feel free to point to those words.


JWK



If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law. Only what was agreed to and written down has standing. That's called rule of law. No opinions.

You assert above that The stated intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution have no standing in our law. But you do not substantiate your baseless opinion. Let us look at the facts regarding constitutional construction.

16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”

par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings

“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )

Also see Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.

“Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument.” (numerous citations omitted )

So, as it turns out, when questions arise as to what our Constitution means, or what it is alleged to mean, we turn to the historical record during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified to confirm its meaning.

Finally, you still have not posted your evidence supporting your absurd notion that ' the Federal government can do whatever the hell it wants other than what is in the Bill of Rights." What provision in our Constitution are you referring to which supports that contention?

JWK

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitution is deeply flawed.

Everyone's vote should count equally.

A vote in Alaska should not be 40 times more powerful in the U.S. Senate than a vote in California.

8 swing states should not decide every presidential election.

Abolish the electoral college, abolish the U.S. Senate, and make the House districts geographic instead of gerrymandered.

Erm, every state has exactly two Senators. You didn't know this? Huh. And none of those (U.S. Senate) votes occur in either Alaska or California. You didn't know this, either? Huh.

The idea that all votes should count equally is idiotic. That's how we got to be in the horrendous mess we are currently in.

 

[johnwk]

The Constitution is deeply flawed.

Everyone's vote should count equally.

Would you also apply your above opinion to paying taxes, and that whenever Congress lays a direct tax upon the people everyone pays an equal share as required by our Constitution’s fair share formula?


States’ pop.
----------------------- X AMOUNT TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE
Total U.S. PoP.


The rule of apportionment boils down to “one man one vote”, and, ”one vote one dollar” whenever a direct tax is laid directly upon the people of the United States.

Do you agree in enforcing this equal tax?

JWK


“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution

 

[PMZ]

Who is this god of yours named government that affords you your rights? Prove what? That you cede your right to life to your government employees? WTF is wrong with you libtards?

We follow the Constitution.

Sure. And you're lying. What part of the constitution allows you to do the things you're suggesting? To rob someone of their prosperity just because someone else isn't?

So you think that businesses ought to make paying for their goods and services optional too?

 

[bripat9643]

We follow the Constitution.

Sure. And you're lying. What part of the constitution allows you to do the things you're suggesting? To rob someone of their prosperity just because someone else isn't?

So you think that businesses ought to make paying for their goods and services optional too?

No, he thinks buying government "services" should be optional, nimrod. Being forced to purchase services you don't want is a form of extortion for which the police will prosecute the offender.