Log in  
Sign up

Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3
From	Message
softaire 09-Nov-12, 16:46	Illi Thanks for the discussion. "1). You said that the Unions are lobbying to raise taxes so that they can pay themselves more." No, that's NOT what I said. Whaqt I did say is: "We now seem to be to the stage of one party rule and "the people" have found that they can get that party to pay them for their votes. This is best exemplified by unions contributing to the party and the party voting to raise taxes in order to pay higher salaries and huge pensions to the unions. After the one-party rule comes the dictator. " There is a big difference between lobbying for legislation and bribery. "2). You said that our Constitutional Rights are in danger because the ACA requires that people buy insurance. " You know more about law and the Supreme Court that I do. The Supreme Court has said it is legal, moral, and Constitutional to allow the Federal Central government to mandate that all people buy a commercial product or pay a fine. I do not agree with that, but since the ruling was it was accomplished via the rules of the Constitution, I must accept it. My objection is that this is clearly NOT how the government was intended to operate. All precautions were taken to keep the central government from having that kind of power. It is clearly unconstitutional in my mind... but I don't have the final authority. We'll just disagree on this. But, it is certainly one of the reasons I say we have lost our Constitutional government. "3). You said that our Constitutional Republic is in danger because the President will not enforce all the Laws as they are written by Congress." Yes, I believe he is required to enforce the laws... NOT interpret them. THAT is the role of the courts.
illinawek 09-Nov-12, 19:52	1). Hell. Bribery is how our Government works today. Its my biggest criticism of the Federal Government. However, I think the remedy is to reform Government than to throw the whole thing out. We just can't do that anymore. 2). My understanding is that the limitation on taxation provided for in the Constitution is that that all taxes must be apportioned between the States. Income Tax is an exception because it is specifically authorized by a separate Constitutional Amendment. The reason for the apportionment clause was because the founders were worried that the Federal Government might be used to punish the persons of a particular State. They were very suspicious of a powerful central government. Maybe for a good reason, but all taxes by the Government that comply with the apportionment clause are presumptively valid. The Constitution does little to limit the taxing power of Congress. Now perhaps it might be raised by a later lawsuit that the tax penalty somehow impacts different States differently, and the tax in the ACA for a failure to have insurance could still be found Unconstitutional on that basis, but I think that the structure of the United States was fundamentally altered by our experience in the Civil War, and the Federal Government is looked upon now as a organic entity, equal if not superior to the individual States in importance. The Founders considered the Federal Government inferior in importance to the States, and they wanted to limit the Federal Government to the bare minimum of power in order to get the States to act in a harmonious way. The things the Founders were worried about are just not things that we worry about as much today. So I doubt it will be considered to be Unconstitutional. 3). The Executive Power of the United States has always been solely vested in the Presidency. As Andrew Jackson said "[the Supreme Court] has made their ruling, now let them try to enforce it." Its been that way ever since.
illinawek 09-Nov-12, 20:08	The context of the Andrew Jackson quote is this: In 1832 the Cherokee Indian tribe lived on land guaranteed them by treaty. They found gold on that land. Georgia tried to seize the land. The Cherokees sued. And eventually the Supreme Court, in Worcester v. Georgia, held in favor of the Cherokees. Georgia then refused to obey the Court. President Andrew Jackson reportedly said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." And Jackson sent troops to evict the Cherokees, who traveled the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma, thousands dying along the way. -Taken from the Supreme Court Website- (My native American ancestors were Cherokee evicted by Jackson -BTW)
thumper 09-Nov-12, 20:15	Deleted by thumper on 09-Nov-12, 20:39.
thumper 09-Nov-12, 20:39	Some of my family traveled that trail to Oklahoma. Chickasaw
dmaestro 09-Nov-12, 20:55	A sad chapter in history.
softaire 09-Nov-12, 23:17	Illi I was aware of (or at least I had heard or read) the Civil War as being the turning point when the power shifted from the States to the Central government. I wasn't aware of the apportionment clause, so thanks for that. It seems that Presidents have been acting unconstitutionally, more or less, at least from the time of Andrew Jackson... more with the current President.
illinawek 10-Nov-12, 04:59	The Apportionment Clause was put in the Constitution so the Federal Government would not be tempted to tax slavery, which would hurt the South disproportionately. Of course this is not explicitly written down in the Constitution, because deep down, I think Southerners at the time were ashamed of slavery and wanted it mentioned by name in the Constitution as little as possible, but on the other hand, they needed the words in there before they would sign off. Once again, our slave holding past continues to haunt the present, and it is a block and stumbling point to the awesome power of the Federal Government on other matters, of which I don't entirely disapprove. I don't see how you can compare Barrack Obama to Andrew Jackson. Jackson simply refused to acknowledge the authority of the Supreme Court and defied their ruling, something that no modern President would do. Jackson also defied Congress and destroyed the First United States Bank all on his own. They were a forerunner of the Federal Reserve System. Imagine if a modern President got rid of the Federal Reserve without any authority from the Supreme Court or Congress.
illinawek 10-Nov-12, 05:43	Deleted by illinawek on 10-Nov-12, 05:47.
illinawek 10-Nov-12, 05:52	Sorry. My problem is I type before I research. I got a few minor details wrong. Jackson vetoed the recharter of the Second Bank of the United States. That he could do. But then, on his own, and without authority from Congress, he refused to deposit Federal securities in the Bank which caused its collapse. So Jackson didn't only defy the Supreme Court, but Congress also. Old Hickory was not a guy to be trifled with.
illinawek 10-Nov-12, 05:53	Citation. en.wikipedia.org
softaire 10-Nov-12, 07:05	Illi Thanks for all that. It just goes to show that "Constitutional Republic" needs participants who are will to adhere to a written Constitution and submit to the rule of written law. We lost it (or at least partially lost it with Andrew Jackson) and we are no better off today. I remember the Watergate hearings and the possibility of Nixon stepping down. There was a lot of serious thought and worry that he would declare Martial Law and try to be come a dictator. If the military decides NOT to play the game, whoever leads them will turn the country into a military dictatorship and there would be no stopping that. (I guess it is good that the military and the President dislike each other so much). I gave three general example of why I say our Constitutional Republic is gone. Only time will tell if I'm correct or not. I hope I am wrong but I think it'll only get worse from here. There is an economic disaster coming, the Benghazi affair portents some kind of corruption and misdoings (and will be interesting to watch play out), the Middle East will probably erupt into another war (possibly a world war, with us right smack dab in the middle of it)... and all these things will happen/are happening with NO American wanting them to happen.
chaz5 10-Nov-12, 08:08	... this thread has been educational for me ... thanks to good questions/research/dialogue. Thanks.
dmaestro 10-Nov-12, 08:38	At the time, Jackson was a see. populist feared by the establishment. He supported ignoring Indian treaties and slavery but threatened any southern states who might rebel. He defied the Supreme Court and the congress with the support of his populist base. Expansion of executive powers, class warfare, goes back to the beginning. The tea party ignores actual history and makes up their own.
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3

GameKnot: play chess online, online chess puzzles, Internet chess league, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, chess clubs, free online chess games database and more.