"that's not in the constitution!

[Tech_Esq]

If the Constitution give Congress the power to provide for all manner of defense as they knew at the time of writing the Constitution, then they did not mean to exclude the Air Force from it simply because it was not specifically named. (In fact, the Air Force was originally part of the Army and could have remained so if it were a Constitutional impediment.

However, when new functions are created out of whole cloth, like The Department of Housing and Urban Development. Then, authority in the Constitution needs to be created for it.

So, progress need not be stifled nor slowed down. But, Congress must have been granted the authority to legislate on items similar. Congress was granted the ability to legislate in interstate commerce, creating port and other transportation needs. Surely, that means they have the ability to legislate concerning airports and air transportation. And the same for space ports and space transportation.

This is not a hard concept to grasp. I suspect people are being very artificial here.

All of this boils down to saying that we must adhere to the gospel according to you. We should ignore the judicial branch of the government, being constitutionally charged with the power to interpret the law, when they have upheld the constitutional validity of all the things you're complaining about. We should, instead, follow you as our Lord and Savior.

Finally, someone gets it!

Yes, for my sake, just do what I tell you to do and it will all be fine.

Me be with you.

 

[gekaap]

Wouldn't be the first time the court was wrong, won't be the last.

Actually, our constitution essentially declares the courts inerrant in interpretation of the law. Lower courts can of course be found in error by superior courts with appellate jurisdiction. But when the Supreme Court says something is constitutional, then it is impossible for it to be wrong, as per the constitution.

 

[Avorysuds]

We have 48% of the population that pays NO federal income tax.

Where do you all keep coming up with this? The minimum income to incur a tax liability is around $9000 a year. Are you really trying to argue that 48% of Americans make less than $9000 a year?

Half of Americans pay no federal income tax - Business - Tax Tactics - msnbc.com

I didnt even read the whole thing... Just helping you out as to where he might get that number.

 

[Tech_Esq]

We have 48% of the population that pays NO federal income tax.

Where do you all keep coming up with this? The minimum income to incur a tax liability is around $9000 a year. Are you really trying to argue that 48% of Americans make less than $9000 a year?

Nope, you're wrong that's all.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Wouldn't be the first time the court was wrong, won't be the last.

Actually, our constitution essentially declares the courts inerrant in interpretation of the law. Lower courts can of course be found in error by superior courts with appellate jurisdiction. But when the Supreme Court says something is constitutional, then it is impossible for it to be wrong, as per the constitution.

Wow....just wow. Seriously?

Ok, why not. So, in your estimation, the Supreme Court was correct in Dred Scott? And, in Plessy?

Interesting point of view you have. Should be be checking you for extra white sheets and hoods?

I'll wait here while you try to find in the Constitution where it declares the Supreme Court "inerrant" in its interpretation of the Constitution.

Shall I save you some time? It isn't in there. Where you'll find that bit of the "Constitution" would be in Marbary v. Madison. Where the court decides that (and what a surprise this is) They are the decider and they'll do the decidering. Put another way the the power of judicial review lies with (where else) the court.

At any rate, it isn't in the Constitution.

 

[Vanquish]

I hadnt seen this topic and literally JUST started a post (which I rarely ever do) on the subject.

Stop being so fucking simplistic!!!!! Just because something isn't in the constitution doesnt mean that it's unconstitutional!!

Bodies of case law, doctrines, federal statutes, the powers of the executive branch...they all have made government larger... CONSTITUTIONALLY!!!

I absolutely hate when people who know ZERO about the law and the constitution pray to the altar of "it's not in the constitution!" when they don't realize how much of government isn't in it..but yet it's still constitutional!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ooooo...He wants a list.

The Departments of Energy, Commerce, Labor, Education, a central bank, HHS, HUD, EPA, FHA, BLM, TVA, FDA, DEA, ATF, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, farm subsidies, CPB/NPR/PBS/, EEOC, ONDCP, Ad Council, NRC....

Need more, or is that a good enough start for you?

Commerce is a function of the federal government, but one you forgot Homeland Security.

 

[gekaap]

We have 48% of the population that pays NO federal income tax.

Where do you all keep coming up with this? The minimum income to incur a tax liability is around $9000 a year. Are you really trying to argue that 48% of Americans make less than $9000 a year?

Half of Americans pay no federal income tax - Business - Tax Tactics - msnbc.com

I didnt even read the whole thing... Just helping you out as to where he might get that number.

That article addresses a single year, and largely explains everything as a result of the GOP tax cuts. Maybe we should recind all the tax cuts in the past decade, and return to Clinton era tax rates.

 

[gekaap]

Ok, why not. So, in your estimation, the Supreme Court was correct in Dred Scott? And, in Plessy?

Yes, they were correct. The courts are the constitutionally provided interpreters of the law, and the Supreme Court is the constitutionally provided last recourse of appellate procedure for constitutional matters. Therefore, any ruling of the Supreme Court is correct, in regards to the legality if the questions brought before it.

Interesting point of view you have. Should be be checking you for extra white sheets and hoods?

Throwing ad hominems at me will not create any support for your position, nor will it negate the actual merit of my arguments and the facts behind them.

I'll wait here while you try to find in the Constitution where it declares the Supreme Court "inerrant" in its interpretation of the Constitution.

You should read Art III sec 2, which clearly states that the judicial power extends to all questions of law (The 11th amendment makes a singular exception to this).

Shall I save you some time? It isn't in there. Where you'll find that bit of the "Constitution" would be in Marbary v. Madison. Where the court decides that (and what a surprise this is) They are the decider and they'll do the decidering. Put another way the the power of judicial review lies with (where else) the court.

Marbary v Madison did nothing more than affirm that which is explained already in the constitution.

At any rate, it isn't in the Constitution.

It is there, you just prefer to ignore it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I hadnt seen this topic and literally JUST started a post (which I rarely ever do) on the subject.

Stop being so fucking simplistic!!!!! Just because something isn't in the constitution doesnt mean that it's unconstitutional!!

Bodies of case law, doctrines, federal statutes, the powers of the executive branch...they all have made government larger... CONSTITUTIONALLY!!!

I absolutely hate when people who know ZERO about the law and the constitution pray to the altar of "it's not in the constitution!" when they don't realize how much of government isn't in it..but yet it's still constitutional!

Yeah, we saw your post earlier and decided to ignore it and give you the benefit of the doubt.

Go ahead, impress me with everything you think you know about the Constitution.

You confuse a normalistic discussion with a realistic discussion. Those of us arguing for how it should be, completely understand how it is. We just disagree with how it is and how we got to that point. We think it's how we ended up in this fine kettle of fish in the first place.

Further, if you think that the power of the executive branch was all increased "constitutionally" you don't understand what's going on. There are certain questions the Supreme Court will not answer. They simply call it a "political question" and duck it. Not a few of those have been at times when the executive has been increasing its power.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Ok, why not. So, in your estimation, the Supreme Court was correct in Dred Scott? And, in Plessy?

Yes, they were correct. The courts are the constitutionally provided interpreters of the law, and the Supreme Court is the constitutionally provided last recourse of appellate procedure for constitutional matters. Therefore, any ruling of the Supreme Court is correct, in regards to the legality if the questions brought before it.

Interesting point of view you have. Should be be checking you for extra white sheets and hoods?

Throwing ad hominems at me will not create any support for your position, nor will it negate the actual merit of my arguments and the facts behind them.



You should read Art III sec 2, which clearly states that the judicial power extends to all questions of law (The 11th amendment makes a singular exception to this).

Shall I save you some time? It isn't in there. Where you'll find that bit of the "Constitution" would be in Marbary v. Madison. Where the court decides that (and what a surprise this is) They are the decider and they'll do the decidering. Put another way the the power of judicial review lies with (where else) the court.

Marbary v Madison did nothing more than affirm that which is explained already in the constitution.

At any rate, it isn't in the Constitution.

It is there, you just prefer to ignore it.

That's a novel point of view. You'll be glad to know that you are alone in holding it. It's certainly not what's taught in Constitutional law class in law school. But, don't let that stop you, you keep on.

 

[Tech_Esq]

We have 48% of the population that pays NO federal income tax.

Where do you all keep coming up with this? The minimum income to incur a tax liability is around $9000 a year. Are you really trying to argue that 48% of Americans make less than $9000 a year?

47% pay no income tax - AP and new for this year the bottom 52% pay 2% of the taxes.

That means that the top 48% pays 98% of all the taxes. So, when is it their fair share? Are we close yet?

 

[Vanquish]

I hadnt seen this topic and literally JUST started a post (which I rarely ever do) on the subject.

Stop being so fucking simplistic!!!!! Just because something isn't in the constitution doesnt mean that it's unconstitutional!!

Bodies of case law, doctrines, federal statutes, the powers of the executive branch...they all have made government larger... CONSTITUTIONALLY!!!

I absolutely hate when people who know ZERO about the law and the constitution pray to the altar of "it's not in the constitution!" when they don't realize how much of government isn't in it..but yet it's still constitutional!

Yeah, we saw your post earlier and decided to ignore it and give you the benefit of the doubt.

Go ahead, impress me with everything you think you know about the Constitution.

You confuse a normalistic discussion with a realistic discussion. Those of us arguing for how it should be, completely understand how it is. We just disagree with how it is and how we got to that point. We think it's how we ended up in this fine kettle of fish in the first place.

Further, if you think that the power of the executive branch was all increased "constitutionally" you don't understand what's going on. There are certain questions the Supreme Court will not answer. They simply call it a "political question" and duck it. Not a few of those have been at times when the executive has been increasing its power.

You happen to be speaking to someone who not only went to law school, not only got an LLM in Constitutional Law, and has been published on the subject.

I see the difference between what you're calling "normalistic" (misuse of the word really, but I get your meaning) and realistic, but all I hear this same BS all the time on USMB. It's not in the Constitution! It's not meant to be in there! Bullshit.

 

[jillian]

I hadnt seen this topic and literally JUST started a post (which I rarely ever do) on the subject.

Stop being so fucking simplistic!!!!! Just because something isn't in the constitution doesnt mean that it's unconstitutional!!

Bodies of case law, doctrines, federal statutes, the powers of the executive branch...they all have made government larger... CONSTITUTIONALLY!!!

I absolutely hate when people who know ZERO about the law and the constitution pray to the altar of "it's not in the constitution!" when they don't realize how much of government isn't in it..but yet it's still constitutional!

Yeah, we saw your post earlier and decided to ignore it and give you the benefit of the doubt.

Go ahead, impress me with everything you think you know about the Constitution.

You confuse a normalistic discussion with a realistic discussion. Those of us arguing for how it should be, completely understand how it is. We just disagree with how it is and how we got to that point. We think it's how we ended up in this fine kettle of fish in the first place.

Further, if you think that the power of the executive branch was all increased "constitutionally" you don't understand what's going on. There are certain questions the Supreme Court will not answer. They simply call it a "political question" and duck it. Not a few of those have been at times when the executive has been increasing its power.

really, hon? "we". you have a mouse in your pocket?

i'm so bored of people who try to pretend the constitution isn't what the Court has said it is for over 200 years. There are discussions to be had, but he's right... this garbage about a literalist interpretation is simplistic and not in keeping with our history.

i know they taught you socratic method and constitutional construction in law school, so i'm afraid i really don't understand where this "constitution as fundie's bible" stuff comes from. or are you of the clarence thomas school that thinks (misnomer) there isn't any such thing as stare decisis or common law?

 

[Avorysuds]

Where do you all keep coming up with this? The minimum income to incur a tax liability is around $9000 a year. Are you really trying to argue that 48% of Americans make less than $9000 a year?

Half of Americans pay no federal income tax - Business - Tax Tactics - msnbc.com

I didnt even read the whole thing... Just helping you out as to where he might get that number.

That article addresses a single year, and largely explains everything as a result of the GOP tax cuts. Maybe we should recind all the tax cuts in the past decade, and return to Clinton era tax rates.

hollllly shit....

It also mentioned Obama tax credits.

You do realize Clinton gave out huge tax credits as well yes?

Now, lets pretend we are under Clinton ear tax levels… Can you show how many Americas did or didn’t pay taxes plz? I went out and grabbed something up for you, how about you back up your claims. I’m gonna sit here and wonder in under Clinton 80-90% of Americans paid taxes lol.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I hadnt seen this topic and literally JUST started a post (which I rarely ever do) on the subject.

Stop being so fucking simplistic!!!!! Just because something isn't in the constitution doesnt mean that it's unconstitutional!!

Bodies of case law, doctrines, federal statutes, the powers of the executive branch...they all have made government larger... CONSTITUTIONALLY!!!

I absolutely hate when people who know ZERO about the law and the constitution pray to the altar of "it's not in the constitution!" when they don't realize how much of government isn't in it..but yet it's still constitutional!

Yeah, we saw your post earlier and decided to ignore it and give you the benefit of the doubt.

Go ahead, impress me with everything you think you know about the Constitution.

You confuse a normalistic discussion with a realistic discussion. Those of us arguing for how it should be, completely understand how it is. We just disagree with how it is and how we got to that point. We think it's how we ended up in this fine kettle of fish in the first place.

Further, if you think that the power of the executive branch was all increased "constitutionally" you don't understand what's going on. There are certain questions the Supreme Court will not answer. They simply call it a "political question" and duck it. Not a few of those have been at times when the executive has been increasing its power.

really, hon? "we". you have a mouse in your pocket?

i'm so bored of people who try to pretend the constitution isn't what the Court has said it is for over 200 years. There are discussions to be had, but he's right... this garbage about a literalist interpretation is simplistic and not in keeping with our history.

i know they taught you socratic method and constitutional construction in law school, so i'm afraid i really don't understand where this "constitution as fundie's bible" stuff comes from. or are you of the clarence thomas school that thinks (misnomer) there isn't any such thing as stare decisis or common law?

Sweetie, "we" the folks on my side of the discussion. Though the mouse is cute.

As I explained to him, of course, I went to the Washington College of Law and Professor Sargentich did his absolute best to inculcate me with all the best Liberal thinking on Constitutional interpretation. I absorbed it very well and got a nice grade in the class. I also had a very interesting discussion with Professor Joan Williams after one particular class where I caught her being very overtly political and factually incorrect. I was tactful enough to discuss it with her after class rather than a suicidal in class confrontation. She explained to me that sometimes it was more important to get the political point out there than anything to do with the truth. It was at that moment I understood the people I was on the other side of the political spectrum from.

So, while you might be tired, I can assure you, I am too. Yes, I can differentiate between the way things work now and I thoroughly understand how we got to where we are, but that doesn't mean I think that all the things that got us from where we started to here, were correct. I will continue to advocate zealously for overturning those key cases that I believe have put us in an unsustainable place. I will also continue to advocate for what I believe is a superior method of Constitutional interpretation. Call it original meaning, original intent, textual or what you will, it's better than, "Hmmm, what do I want the law to mean today," method.

 

[gekaap]

That's a novel point of view. You'll be glad to know that you are alone in holding it. It's certainly not what's taught in Constitutional law class in law school. But, don't let that stop you, you keep on.

Somehow, I don't think you're any kind of expert on the matter.

 

[gekaap]

That means that the top 48% pays 98% of all the taxes. So, when is it their fair share? Are we close yet?

And what does any of that have to do with the constitution?

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm curious, what things aren't in the constitution that we have now that should be defunded or killed all together?

First, Read article 1 section 8.

Second, look at any amendment that authorizes anything.

After that, eliminate any program that does not fall within those grants of power.

we will have eliminated about 90% of the budget.

 

[gekaap]

You do realize Clinton gave out huge tax credits as well yes?

Now, lets pretend we are under Clinton ear tax levels… Can you show how many Americas did or didn’t pay taxes plz? I went out and grabbed something up for you, how about you back up your claims. I’m gonna sit here and wonder in under Clinton 80-90% of Americans paid taxes lol.

Yes, I realize it. But you seemed to miss my point. Clinton and the GOP controlled Congress of the time managed to hammer out compromises and established policies that were helping our country's fiscal problems. I'm really not concerned right now with who gets the credit, the point is that the policies in place were working to our benefit, as opposed to the past decade of making things worse. So why not return to that set up, and go from there?