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

[PMZ]

Well PMZ? 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. How do you arrive at such a conclusion which ignores the rules of constitutional construction?


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.

Rule of law means that what is enforced in courts are specifically the words published in legislation.

So whatever laws the legislature devises conform to the rule of law? What about laws that conflict with the Constitution? What about laws that allow the government to shove Jews into gas ovens? Is Obama complying with the rule of law when he grants waivers to his favored constituents? How about when he declines to enforce laws on the books like DOM and our immigration laws?

If someone believes that a law is unconstitutional, they have the right to challenge it in Federal Court. Don't you remember when the GOP did that with Obamacare?
And SCOTUS ruled that it was.

Do you realize that Germany is a different country than the US and Hitler a different time? It's completely irrelevant to here and now.

If you feel that Obama is doing things that are unconstitutional, take it to court.

 

[PMZ]

Once again, as is usually the case with you, you offer an opinion with no supportive documentation and your opinion conflicts with “the rule of law” as practiced in America since its founding. And now you have decided to go a step further and attack the validity of enforcing “legislative intent” even though our federal Constitution, under Amendment VII recognizes and commands our courts to observe and enforce “the rules of the common law”.

In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."

It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."

And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:

But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."


Either you support and defend our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, or you stand against it and pretend it means whatever you wish it to mean.


JWK

Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

I'm not sure why it's impossible for you to accept rule by law.

You recite ancient quotes of points long ago debated and resolved, and present them as equal to the results of what was finally agreed to, written down, and in its final version, voted into law.

What you espouse is royalty. What the king wants is the law.

Are you Richard Nixon reincarnated?

So when Obama says Insurance companies and allow their customers to keep their current polices despite what the Obamacare law says, is that the rule of law?

I have no idea of what "rule of law" means to you.

To me, it means the enforcement of Constitutional and properly enacted written law.

You can bet that if President Obama ever did anything even remotely unconstitutional, the GOP would have it in court in a New York minute.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not sure why it's impossible for you to accept rule by law.

You recite ancient quotes of points long ago debated and resolved, and present them as equal to the results of what was finally agreed to, written down, and in its final version, voted into law.

What you espouse is royalty. What the king wants is the law.

Are you Richard Nixon reincarnated?

So when Obama says Insurance companies and allow their customers to keep their current polices despite what the Obamacare law says, is that the rule of law?

I have no idea of what "rule of law" means to you.

To me, it means the enforcement of Constitutional and properly enacted written law.

And what makes the Constitution conform to "the rule of law?" What makes a law "properly enacted?" So far it appears that the only requirement is majority rule. According to your theory the people of Athens did nothing wrong when they forced Socrates to drink Hemlock.

You can bet that if President Obama ever did anything even remotely unconstitutional, the GOP would have it in court in a New York minute.

ROLF! Wrong. What makes you think that gang of spineless weasels is going to contest an unconstitutional law?

 

[PMZ]

So when Obama says Insurance companies and allow their customers to keep their current polices despite what the Obamacare law says, is that the rule of law?

I have no idea of what "rule of law" means to you.

To me, it means the enforcement of Constitutional and properly enacted written law.

And what makes the Constitution conform to "the rule of law?" What makes a law "properly enacted?" So far it appears that the only requirement is majority rule.

You can bet that if President Obama ever did anything even remotely unconstitutional, the GOP would have it in court in a New York minute.

ROLF! Wrong. What makes you think that gang of spineless weasels is going to contest an unconstitutional law?

I don't know where you're going with this particular whine and rant.

This country has been very successful for 250 years using the vision of the founders. We aren't going to change that for any minority's experiment.

If anarchy is your thing, get out.

 

[bripat9643]

Rule of law means that what is enforced in courts are specifically the words published in legislation.

So whatever laws the legislature devises conform to the rule of law? What about laws that conflict with the Constitution? What about laws that allow the government to shove Jews into gas ovens? Is Obama complying with the rule of law when he grants waivers to his favored constituents? How about when he declines to enforce laws on the books like DOM and our immigration laws?

If someone believes that a law is unconstitutional, they have the right to challenge it in Federal Court. Don't you remember when the GOP did that with Obamacare?
And SCOTUS ruled that it was.

And you think the Supreme Court is an impartial arbiter? Can anyone actually believe that in any dispute between the state and a private citizen where the state is setup as the arbiter that the state will impartially rule in the citizen's favor? It takes an incredible gullibility to believe that.

Do you realize that Germany is a different country than the US and Hitler a different time? It's completely irrelevant to here and now.

I realize you're trying to weasel out of answering the question. Either Nazi Germany fits your model of "the rule of law" or it doesn't. So far you haven't posted anything that indicates the later.

If you feel that Obama is doing things that are unconstitutional, take it to court.

I've already explained why that's normally a waste of time.

 

[PMZ]

So whatever laws the legislature devises conform to the rule of law? What about laws that conflict with the Constitution? What about laws that allow the government to shove Jews into gas ovens? Is Obama complying with the rule of law when he grants waivers to his favored constituents? How about when he declines to enforce laws on the books like DOM and our immigration laws?

If someone believes that a law is unconstitutional, they have the right to challenge it in Federal Court. Don't you remember when the GOP did that with Obamacare?
And SCOTUS ruled that it was.

And you think the Supreme Court is an impartial arbiter? Can anyone actually believe that in any dispute between the state and a private citizen where the state is setup as the arbiter that the state will impartially rule in the citizen's favor? It takes an incredible gullibility to believe that.

Do you realize that Germany is a different country than the US and Hitler a different time? It's completely irrelevant to here and now.

I realize you're trying to weasel out of answering the question. Either Nazi Germany fits your model of "the rule of law" or it doesn't. So far you haven't posted anything that indicates the later.

If you feel that Obama is doing things that are unconstitutional, take it to court.

I've already explained why that's normally a waste of time.

I believe that our founders and we, the people, are infinitely better able and more qualified then you are to design our government.

We tried many of your ideas. They were a egregious failure.

 

[Gadawg73]

Some of the founders thought that our fledgling country would never be afforded real respect from European countries if we could not present the pomp and circumstances and wealth display of royalty.

They had legitimate concerns about a republic with none of what Europe had as tangible evidence of economic power.

But that opinion did not win the day at the Constitutional Convention.

Therefore we are fully and forever a republic. And their words and thoughts to the contrary have no influence today in our rule by law.

True but the main influence behind that opinion then that our new country "would never be afforded real respect from European countries if we could not present the pomp and circumstances and wealth of royalty" was religion.
Every European state at that time was run by strong religious influences and in most all cases the church itself. They led by the power of the monarch being anointed by God to have that power AND the pomp, circumstance and wealth that God dictates the monarchy must have.
And the Founders ran like hell from that and wanted NO religious influences in our laws and system of government which at that time was a radical change from the powerful monarchies of Europe which had dominated the world for centuries based on religion and the corrupt power that always brings.
During the revolution the Torries were dominated by the religious colonists who believed God, and not the individual having rights protected by the law, dictated the rights man should have through the King. Our Founders said BULL SHIT to that and defined this nation in the Constitution as a nation OF THE LAW and not of men and their various and changing like the wind religious beliefs.
After the revolution over 100,000 colonists left here to Canada and back to England over the Constitution being the law and not the religious influences of the church through the monarchy.

 

[PMZ]

Some of the founders thought that our fledgling country would never be afforded real respect from European countries if we could not present the pomp and circumstances and wealth display of royalty.

They had legitimate concerns about a republic with none of what Europe had as tangible evidence of economic power.

But that opinion did not win the day at the Constitutional Convention.

Therefore we are fully and forever a republic. And their words and thoughts to the contrary have no influence today in our rule by law.

True but the main influence behind that opinion then that our new country "would never be afforded real respect from European countries if we could not present the pomp and circumstances and wealth of royalty" was religion.
Every European state at that time was run by strong religious influences and in most all cases the church itself. They led by the power of the monarch being anointed by God to have that power AND the pomp, circumstance and wealth that God dictates the monarchy must have.
And the Founders ran like hell from that and wanted NO religious influences in our laws and system of government which at that time was a radical change from the powerful monarchies of Europe which had dominated the world for centuries based on religion and the corrupt power that always brings.
During the revolution the Torries were dominated by the religious colonists who believed God, and not the individual having rights protected by the law, dictated the rights man should have through the King. Our Founders said BULL SHIT to that and defined this nation in the Constitution as a nation OF THE LAW and not of men and their various and changing like the wind religious beliefs.
After the revolution over 100,000 colonists left here to Canada and back to England over the Constitution being the law and not the religious influences of the church through the monarchy.

I think that there is a legitimate chicken and egg thing between religion and royalty. I side more with the idea that royalty used religion to stay in power than religion used royalty.

 

[Gadawg73]

Some of the founders thought that our fledgling country would never be afforded real respect from European countries if we could not present the pomp and circumstances and wealth display of royalty.

They had legitimate concerns about a republic with none of what Europe had as tangible evidence of economic power.

But that opinion did not win the day at the Constitutional Convention.

Therefore we are fully and forever a republic. And their words and thoughts to the contrary have no influence today in our rule by law.

True but the main influence behind that opinion then that our new country "would never be afforded real respect from European countries if we could not present the pomp and circumstances and wealth of royalty" was religion.
Every European state at that time was run by strong religious influences and in most all cases the church itself. They led by the power of the monarch being anointed by God to have that power AND the pomp, circumstance and wealth that God dictates the monarchy must have.
And the Founders ran like hell from that and wanted NO religious influences in our laws and system of government which at that time was a radical change from the powerful monarchies of Europe which had dominated the world for centuries based on religion and the corrupt power that always brings.
During the revolution the Torries were dominated by the religious colonists who believed God, and not the individual having rights protected by the law, dictated the rights man should have through the King. Our Founders said BULL SHIT to that and defined this nation in the Constitution as a nation OF THE LAW and not of men and their various and changing like the wind religious beliefs.
After the revolution over 100,000 colonists left here to Canada and back to England over the Constitution being the law and not the religious influences of the church through the monarchy.

I think that there is a legitimate chicken and egg thing between religion and royalty. I side more with the idea that royalty used religion to stay in power than religion used royalty.

LOL, well I happen to agree with that 100% as when dealing with gaining and maintaining power religion is often used now and most always then.
Many of the Founders attempted to have Christianity as the national religion and funds for religious schools as well as numerous other religious stances in law but were out voted.

 

[Gadawg73]

When I hear "I am the family values Christian candidate" I always vote for the other guy. Only a dumb ass voter buys that line of bull shit.

 

[bripat9643]

If someone believes that a law is unconstitutional, they have the right to challenge it in Federal Court. Don't you remember when the GOP did that with Obamacare?
And SCOTUS ruled that it was.

And you think the Supreme Court is an impartial arbiter? Can anyone actually believe that in any dispute between the state and a private citizen where the state is setup as the arbiter that the state will impartially rule in the citizen's favor? It takes an incredible gullibility to believe that.



I realize you're trying to weasel out of answering the question. Either Nazi Germany fits your model of "the rule of law" or it doesn't. So far you haven't posted anything that indicates the later.

If you feel that Obama is doing things that are unconstitutional, take it to court.

I've already explained why that's normally a waste of time.

I believe that our founders and we, the people, are infinitely better able and more qualified then you are to design our government.

We tried many of your ideas. They were a egregious failure.

You didn't answer the questions put to you. All you did was weasel. Now answer the questions or admit you're full of shit.

 

[bripat9643]

I have no idea of what "rule of law" means to you.

To me, it means the enforcement of Constitutional and properly enacted written law.

And what makes the Constitution conform to "the rule of law?" What makes a law "properly enacted?" So far it appears that the only requirement is majority rule.

You can bet that if President Obama ever did anything even remotely unconstitutional, the GOP would have it in court in a New York minute.

ROLF! Wrong. What makes you think that gang of spineless weasels is going to contest an unconstitutional law?

I don't know where you're going with this particular whine and rant.

This country has been very successful for 250 years using the vision of the founders. We aren't going to change that for any minority's experiment.

If anarchy is your thing, get out.

Sorry, turd, but you don't make the rules. Since you like the government of Cuba so much, you get out.

Whenever you can't answer the questions put to you, this is the line of argument you take. In other words, you start weaseling.

 

[RKMBrown]

When I hear "I am the family values Christian candidate" I always vote for the other guy. Only a dumb ass voter buys that line of bull shit.

Well now we know what your litmus test is, ... must not be a family man with christian values.

 

[PMZ]

And you think the Supreme Court is an impartial arbiter? Can anyone actually believe that in any dispute between the state and a private citizen where the state is setup as the arbiter that the state will impartially rule in the citizen's favor? It takes an incredible gullibility to believe that.



I realize you're trying to weasel out of answering the question. Either Nazi Germany fits your model of "the rule of law" or it doesn't. So far you haven't posted anything that indicates the later.



I've already explained why that's normally a waste of time.

I believe that our founders and we, the people, are infinitely better able and more qualified then you are to design our government.

We tried many of your ideas. They were a egregious failure.

You didn't answer the questions put to you. All you did was weasel. Now answer the questions or admit you're full of shit.

You're the one with an inordinate interest in Nazi Germany. And apparently an inability to recognize the difference between democracy and fascism.

 

[PMZ]

When I hear "I am the family values Christian candidate" I always vote for the other guy. Only a dumb ass voter buys that line of bull shit.

Well now we know what your litmus test is, ... must not be a family man with christian values.

At the moment, I'm under-represented in Congress because a family man with Christian values preferred snorting cocain and alcohol to his family and to representing me.

Like tea party values, those things are to easy to say and people who vote on the basis of those words will get fooled often.

 

[bripat9643]

I believe that our founders and we, the people, are infinitely better able and more qualified then you are to design our government.

We tried many of your ideas. They were a egregious failure.

You didn't answer the questions put to you. All you did was weasel. Now answer the questions or admit you're full of shit.

You're the one with an inordinate interest in Nazi Germany. And apparently an inability to recognize the difference between democracy and fascism.

The difference between democracy and fascism isn't at issue here. Don't imagine that your continual weaseling isn't noticed by all.

 

[bripat9643]

When I hear "I am the family values Christian candidate" I always vote for the other guy. Only a dumb ass voter buys that line of bull shit.

Well now we know what your litmus test is, ... must not be a family man with christian values.

At the moment, I'm under-represented in Congress because a family man with Christian values preferred snorting cocain and alcohol to his family and to representing me.

Like tea party values, those things are to easy to say and people who vote on the basis of those words will get fooled often.

I'm glad you're underrepresented, PMS. the less your views are represented, the better.

 

[SuMar]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

Still waiting for a lib to explain why it's ok to penalize rich people for being successful.

 

[PMZ]

And what makes the Constitution conform to "the rule of law?" What makes a law "properly enacted?" So far it appears that the only requirement is majority rule.



ROLF! Wrong. What makes you think that gang of spineless weasels is going to contest an unconstitutional law?

I don't know where you're going with this particular whine and rant.

This country has been very successful for 250 years using the vision of the founders. We aren't going to change that for any minority's experiment.

If anarchy is your thing, get out.

Sorry, turd, but you don't make the rules. Since you like the government of Cuba so much, you get out.

Whenever you can't answer the questions put to you, this is the line of argument you take. In other words, you start weaseling.

America has dealt with anarchists before.

What I'm hoping for is that anarchists, libertarians, dixiecrats, and other American Taliban, stop whining and act. Vacuum out their RINO counterparts from the GOP and start a new party.

Everyone would benefit.

 

[PMZ]

You didn't answer the questions put to you. All you did was weasel. Now answer the questions or admit you're full of shit.

You're the one with an inordinate interest in Nazi Germany. And apparently an inability to recognize the difference between democracy and fascism.

The difference between democracy and fascism isn't at issue here. Don't imagine that your continual weaseling isn't noticed by all.

Incoming:

Fascism was in a place far away, and a time long ago. Democracy is here and now. Why you try to marry them is beyond, beyond.