Please Enlighten Me about the Constitution.

[Guest Muttling]

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified April 8, 1913:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

The argument against income taxes ended with our great-grandparents.

FWIW, the argument at the time was that only the top 1% would pay it.

I know this is splitting hairs, but the argument didn't end. People like Wesley Snipes have tried to continue the argument....and lost.

On a side note, I'm a fan of Wesley Snipes and love his work. However, he's not to bright when it comes to law and paying ones taxes.

[Guest Muttling]

Sadly over time the Constitution has become nothing more than a historical document that the Government follows when it benefits them. The Patriot Act, Bailouts, AWB, warrentless wiretapping, and the Government Health Care deal, internment of Japanese Citizens, suspension of habeus corpus, abuse of eminent domain, going to war without war being declared by congress, and the Federal Reserve Act are just a few on a long list of major violations.

And yet we have people on another post of this very forum advocating that it be set asside once again because the Ft Hood shooter shouldn't be entitled to the right to a trial by his peers.

While I agree that there are MANY examples where it has been violated, I don't think it is as antiquated as you present. For the most part we do honor our constitution to this day and we do it so frequently that we take it for granted (a point I find truely sad.) The violations you mention are grevious and NEED to be addressed, but they are exceptions to what is normally done.

If more we fail to address these violations, the more frequent they will become. I seriously doubt many posters here appreaciate the efforts of the ACLU, but a big part of what they do is defend the constitution and challange the very laws you cited. Typically, they are defending liberals but they have also been known to protect gun owners from time to time.

[Guest jackdm3]

"If more we fail to address these violations, the more frequent they will become. I seriously doubt many posters here appreaciate the efforts of the ACLU, but a big part of what they do is defend the constitution and challange the very laws you cited. Typically, they are defending liberals but they have also been known to protect gun owners from time to time."

From Wiki:

"Concerning the Second Amendment, specifically gun control, the ACLU embraces the States' Right Model interpretation of the Second Amendment, which only recognizes a state's right to possess firearms; the national organization officially declares itself "neutral" on the issue of gun control, pointing to previous Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Miller to argue that the Second Amendment applies to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and that "except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of firearms by individuals is not constitutionally protected."[49] However, state level ACLU affiliates are free to take positions differing from the national organization's; in 2008, the Nevada ACLU announced that they were changing their position to support "the individual’s right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations."[50]

I like the ACLU, but they need to step it up for us.

[Guest Muttling]

I concur.

[Guest jth_3s]

And yet we have people on another post of this very forum advocating that it be set asside once again because the Ft Hood shooter shouldn't be entitled to the right to a trial by his peers..

I agree, I think those soliders killed at Ft. Hood would be rolling in their graves if they knew people were wanting to ignore the Constitution they swore to uphold and died defending. They should try the man, and if convicted I say death by firing squad.

While I agree that there are MANY examples where it has been violated, I don't think it is as antiquated as you present. For the most part we do honor our constitution to this day and we do it so frequently that we take it for granted (a point I find truely sad.) The violations you mention are grevious and NEED to be addressed, but they are exceptions to what is normally done. .

I agree we still go by it for the most part, but throughout history we have ignored it in times of crisis EX: Civil War, Great Depression, WWII, 9/11 ,and the endless War on Terror.

If more we fail to address these violations, the more frequent they will become. I seriously doubt many posters here appreaciate the efforts of the ACLU, but a big part of what they do is defend the constitution and challange the very laws you cited. Typically, they are defending liberals but they have also been known to protect gun owners from time to time.

Its a slippery slope, we've allowed the Federal Government to get too big and there is no turning back unless we have a massive awakening. As for the ACLU, they defend everyones rights and are your best friend when you need them.

[Defender]

Hmmm...ever read much about the founding of the ACLU? There may have been occasions when it has stood up for something one or naother of us believes in, but there is no doubt in my mind why and by who it was founded, nor its goals today. read up on it some. But when you do, don't be too narrow in your selection of reading material.

On a separate note, I encourage any patriot to read The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. PhD. Then, as you read it, check his sources - they are rock solid. The federal government has usurped powers that are reserved to the States, and to the People.

Edited November 12, 2009 by barewoolf

[Guest jth_3s]

Hmmm...ever read much about the founding of the ACLU? There may have been occasions when it has stood up for something one or naother of us believes in, but there is no doubt in my mind why and by who it was founded, not its goals today. read up on it some. But when you do, don't be too narrow in your selection of reading material.

On a separate note, I encourage any patriot to read The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. PhD. Then, as you read it, check his sources - they are rock solid. The federal government has usurped powers that are reserved to the States, and to the People.

Ive never studied the past of the ACLU Ive just noticed that they have helped defend liberty whenever need be. Ive never known them to do anything to violate the constitution but I dont know a whole lot about them. As for the book, Ive been meaning to read. I just finished his book "Meltdown" and it taught me alot.

[Defender]

It seems as if the Communist party was heavily involved with the ACLU. Do some research, its not hard to find.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

No he didn't. He veto'd the budgets that were sent to him and shut down non-essential government operations on several occassions to make Congress come up with a balanced budget. Name one other president who has had the courage to do that.

That's the good part. The bad part is that he did it on the budget of the military (the only big ticket item that is not an entitlement and can be cut.)

Go to more reliable and less partisan sources for your data. FactCheck.org is the group that Dick Chenney quoted in the debates as a good source of information and here's what they have to say about Clinton's budget years.

FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

Not to get too OT, but lets put this in perspective. Factcheck.org cited a CBO Projection as its source. I'm not saying they are incorrect or misleading, but here are the details:

Did Bill Clinton make a good faith effort to run in a surplus? Yes.

Did the budget he signed into law project a surplus? Yes.

Did we actually have a surplus? No.

The treasury reported an overall (and significant) increase in national debt each year Clinton was in office.

Is it Bill Clinton's fault we didn't actually have a surplus? No.

However, it is a bit misleading to claim one when it only happened on paper.

Here is an anology to represent what happened. If I budget that I will make $105,000 next year and spend $100,000, I have a projected surplus. Then I actually make $95,000. So to compensate I borrow $10,000 from my retirement account (intergovernmental holdings) and pay $5000 dollars down on my credit card (public debt). In this case my total net worth has dropped $5000, and I am still running a deficit.

I'm not trying to discredit Clinton's actual deeds, but I choose not to acknowledge wholly perceived ones either.

[Semiauto]

Having lived through the Clinton era, I can say that he did not try to balance the budget. The first things he did was "don't ask, don't tell", raise taxes after he promised he would not, and put his b_tch wife in charge of single pay healthcare. The revolution of 1994 swept Newt into power and Bill went racing towards the center. The only savings came directly from the BRAC process. Hardly a legacy of note, unless you include the blue dress.

[Guest Hyaloid]

I like to think a fellow named James Madison's (you know, the "Father of the Constitution) would be interesting to note here:

• With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.
  
  • Letter to James Robertson (1831-04-20)
    

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

• Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, page 170 (1794-01-10) [3]. The Annals summarize speeches in the third person, with the actual text of Madison's quote as follows: "Mr. Madison wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity. He acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." The expense in question was for French refugees from the Haitian Revolution.
  

The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.

• Speech, House of Representatives, during the debate "On the Memorial of the Relief Committee of Baltimore, for the Relief of St. Domingo Refugees" (1794-01-10) [4]
  

James Madison's view of the General Welfare Clause of Article 1. Section 8. This response is from a letter written to Edmund Pendleton on January 21, 1792;

“Having not yet succeeded in hitting on an opportunity, I send you a part of it in a newspaper, which broaches a new Constitutional doctrine of vast consequence, and demanding the serious attention of the public. I consider it myself as subverting the fundamental and characteristic principle of the Government; as contrary to the true and fair, as well as the received construction, and as bidding defiance to the sense in which the Constitution is known to have been proposed, advocated, and adopted. If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers."

And perhaps my favorite, from A LINK TO A VETO ISSUED BY THEN PRESIDENT MADISON

To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

[Guest Muttling]

Having lived through the Clinton era, I can say that he did not try to balance the budget.

I lived through it as a Government contractor and was out of work for 2 weeks because of his efforts. Specifically, I was doing clean up on the Massachussettes Military Reservation on Cape Cod and Loring AFB (which later became a BRAC base) in northern Maine. I billed the government a change order for partial demobilization/ remobilization of my crews.

Here's a 1995 news report when he veto'd a budget because it wasn't balanced....

CNN - Clinton vetoes GOP budget - Dec 7, 1995

In 1996 he got Line Item veto power (something EVERY president has asked and was declared unconstitutional in 1998.)

He used his Line Item veto powers to force a balanced budget in 1997.

CLINTON BREAKS IN VETO, LINING OUT 3 BUDGET ITEMS. - Free Online Library

You might not like the guy, but at least be honest about his seriousness in balancing the budget and his use of veto to prevent the passage of unbalanced budgets.

On the subject of BRAC, he was implementing a plan that had been designed under Bush 41 with the heavy input on Donald Rumsfield. When it comes to finger pointing for the way that military cuts were implemented, there's a LOT of blame to go around. Gulf War I is the only thing that delayed the BRAC rounds. They would have taken place before the Clinton years had Iraq not invaded Kuwait.

[Semiauto]

His attitude was that he wanted what he wanted in the budget and did not want the republicans to have what they wanted. They caved to him when they should have held firm. He made the unemployed government workers feel it was the rebulican's fault and then repaid them for their lost wages during the shutdown. He is a narcissist and behaves as such. Give him what he wants and he might give a little back to you.

BTW, please do not quote CNN as a news source to me. I believe them about as much as Pravda. If you would have read the CNN report, you would have noticed the republican's budget was balanced, but Clinton did not like the cuts to all the social programs they were wanting to implement. CNN presented the report siding with Clinton that the cuts would be painful. One of the cuts, as I remember, was about 90 billion from Medicare. The dems launched into "save the grandma" mode and were successful in having it dropped. Now they are wanting a $500 billion cut to Medicare this year and since they are presenting it, it is ok because of all the "waste". If there is waste, how 'bout taking care of that about right now??

Edited November 13, 2009 by Semiauto

[Guest Muttling]

His attitude was that he wanted what he wanted in the budget and did not want the republicans to have what they wanted. They caved to him when they should have held firm. He made the unemployed government workers feel it was the rebulican's fault and then repaid them for their lost wages during the shutdown. He is a narcissist and behaves as such. Give him what he wants and he might give a little back to you.

BTW, please do not quote CNN as a news source to me. I believe them about as much as Pravda. If you would have read the CNN report, you would have noticed the republican's budget was balanced, but Clinton did not like the cuts to all the social programs they were wanting to implement. CNN presented the report siding with Clinton that the cuts would be painful. One of the cuts, as I remember, was about 90 billion from Medicare. The dems launched into "save the grandma" mode and were successful in having it dropped. Now they are wanting a $500 billion cut to Medicare this year and since they are presenting it, it is ok because of all the "waste". If there is waste, how 'bout taking care of that about right now??

As I said above and have said many times, there is plenty of blame to go around and BOTH parties are spending freaks.

As for CNN, I was citing an article reported on the day it actually happened. If you think it didn't happen then find an article from a source that is biased to your view to support the claims and comes from the day it actually happened.

Speaking of BIASED claims and false reporting. Why do you fail to mention that the GOP budget wanted to CUT educaction spending right after the GOP was up in arms over the state of public education? What about Clintons months of threats to veto any budget that isn't balanced instead of trying to negotiate and letting Congress pass unbalanced budgets?

HECK.....Where was the GOP's balanced budget seriousness and the Contract with America during the Bush 43 adminstration?

Clinton insisted on cutting foreign aid and pork instead of cutting support for American citizens through the programs you lament or through cutting education. The GOP budget supported Isrealicare and cut Medicare.

Since you don't like CNN, here's another source for you and I am (once again) linking an article that was reported in 1995 when he events were going down.

With First Veto, Clinton Rejects Budget-Cut Bill - The New York Times

Both parties suck and Congress doesn't have the discipline to do what is right regardless of which party is in control. If we are to get out of this hole, our first step is to stop digging it deeper. Only presidential veto power is going to get Congress to behave, but presidents willing to do that are few and far between.

It could be very reasonably argued that Reagan was pretty serious about it. He was handed he Carter screw up and had to spend a LOT of money during his first term to get us back on track. In his second term, he was pretty aggressive on spending. It's not unlike the screw up that Bush has handed to Obama, we can only pray that Obama does as well.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Muttling

[Semiauto]

I'm not defending the republicans. I am a Constitutionalist, so any Federal spending on education is not legal. I would favor cutting any spending not specifically authorized by the Constitution. The fact is the republicans presented a balanced budget cutting billions from these Federal programs. Clinton vetoed it because he did not like the cuts. Typical politics.

My bias is the Constitution.

[Guest GimpyLeg]

My bias is the Constitution.

Which is what to OP was referring to to begin with. I see all parties as having a hand in the cookie jar so to speak. When will WE take a stand and demand our elected officals stay within the bound of the Constitution? Will some "program" cuts or abolishments hurt me personally? I would think so! Did my vow to protect and defend the Constitution mean that I would only do so when it benefits me? I didn't take it that way. Am I willing to sacrifice to bring our .gov in align with the Constitution? Each has to answer that on their own.

I tend to believe that a first step in reigning in the fed.gov is to elect and express our sentiments to the state.gov.

[Guest botulism]

Which is what to OP was referring to to begin with. I see all parties as having a hand in the cookie jar so to speak. When will WE take a stand and demand our elected officals stay within the bound of the Constitution? Will some "program" cuts or abolishments hurt me personally? I would think so! Did my vow to protect and defend the Constitution mean that I would only do so when it benefits me? I didn't take it that way. Am I willing to sacrifice to bring our .gov in align with the Constitution? Each has to answer that on their own.

I tend to believe that a first step in reigning in the fed.gov is to elect and express our sentiments to the state.gov.

Someone at the factory left your Speech Pattern selector on "Rumsfeld." Thought you should know.

[Guest GimpyLeg]

Someone at the factory left your Speech Pattern selector on "Rumsfeld." Thought you should know.

???