Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lagslayer]

So... you're saying that it isn't against the constitution but you think it's bad and therefore it's a loophole being exploited?

Not exactly. I'm saying even if it is determined to be constitutional, then it is a loophole, and that in my opinion is unconstitutional.

[Phmcw]

1:  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

"Provide for the general Welfare" is very wide, and I think it mean that the congress may subsidies whatever it want in the name of general welfare.

[Lagslayer]

1:  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

"Provide for the general Welfare" is very wide, and I think it mean that the congress may subsidies whatever it want in the name of general welfare.

That's one interpretation, but as to what extent this should apply is debatable. At some point, a boundary has to be defined.

[Phmcw]

1:  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

"Provide for the general Welfare" is very wide, and I think it mean that the congress may subsidies whatever it want in the name of general welfare.

That's one interpretation, but as to what extent this should apply is debatable. At some point, a boundary has to be defined.

Of course, of course. The constitution is only the skeleton of the law, and the rest is needed to flesh it out.
But this passage prove that the constitution itself don't restrict the means or the end of funding program of general interest.

I really love the American constitution, so much clearer and more practical that the cluster-fuck that is the European constitution.
How can an European tell what are his fundamentals right?

[Earthquake Damage]

I really love the American constitution, so much clearer and more practical that the cluster-fuck that is the European constitution.
How can an European tell what are his fundamentals right?

We had to amend ours to add some at all, let alone clarify them.

[mainiac]

That's one interpretation, but as to what extent this should apply is debatable. At some point, a boundary has to be defined.

The very first congress passed a healthcare mandate and it was signed into law by George Washington.  Sailors were required to buy healthcare insurance and the profits from that insurance were used to fund government hospitals.  This was literally passed by the exact same people who wrote the constitution.

This same congress also passed laws requiring a substantial portion of the population to equip and train themselves for compulsory military service, laws creating what was at the time the worlds most ambitious infrastructure projects, laws appropriating land from it's rightful owners for the public good, laws extensively regulating the entire American banking system through the creation of a huge bank that ran things nationwide.

And that was just the first congress.  The second congress was when they really got down to business.

What people don't seem to understand is that the constitution was a reaction against the pathetic failure of limited governance seen in the articles of confederation.  We tried a weak federal government and it failed miserably.  That's why we made the constitution, so we could have a government that was powerful enough to build a successful nation economically but not be allowed to trample over civic freedoms and become a tyranny.  Trampling over economic "freedoms" was 100% A-ok and George Washington drove that point home at the point of a bayonet when a bunch of hicks tried to disagree.  God, I wish we had him back today.

[Lagslayer]

The Articles of Confederation gave no real power at all to the federal government, so it couldn't do anything. The Constitution, I believe, was intended to give the federal government enough to unify the states. Any government can have corruption, no matter how it is set up, but you can influence how quickly it spreads.

I can't find anything about the mandated healthcare for sailors anywhere. Could you please provide a link?

The draft was temporary and imperative to national defense at the time (meaning it was allowed under the constitution). The draft was never made permanent.

I can't find anything about the government "appropriating land from it's rightful owners for the public good" back then. Could you please provide a link?

Thomas Jefferson was against the national bank idea, but George Washington trusted Alexander Hamilton's opinion at the time as he was the secretary of the treasury. This was a mistake, as Hamilton used the bank in a corrupt manner. the bank was a mistake, one that was later rectified by being declared unconstitutional in 1811.

You seem to talk in too absolute of terms. By your logic, anything that breaks the rules is a horrible, unforgivable thing, regardless of the situation, results, and/or weather or not they gave the power back later. If you feel the need to re-clarify your statement, I am willing to reconsider your stance, but I can't guarantee I will change my mind.


edit: spelling

[Bauglir]

I can't find anything about the government "appropriating land from it's rightful owners for the public good" back then. Could you please provide a link?

I can help out with this one, I think. Eminent domain is probably what was being referred to.

Thomas Jefferson was against the national bank idea, but George Washington trusted Alexander Hamilton's opinion at the time as he was the secretary of the treasury. This was a mistake, as Hamilton used the bank in a corrupt manner. the bank was a mistake, one that was later rectified by being declared unconstitutional in 1811.

I think you may have to back that up. I don't agree with that and I'd like to see evidence of it (other than its being declared unconstitutional, which only made it against the rules; not necessarily a mistake, assuming that the following statement was made in good faith)

By your logic, anything that breaks the rules is a horrible, unforgivable thing, regardless of the situation, results, and/or weather or not they gave the power back later.

[Lagslayer]

This is where I pulled up the bank information. It's the only thing I could find on such short notice that went into any detail about the people involved and the intent. Feel free to find something else to supplement this.

http://www.civil-liberties.com/cases/bank.html

[lemon10]

This is where I pulled up the bank information. It's the only thing I could find on such short notice that went into any detail about the people involved and the intent. Feel free to find something else to supplement this.

http://www.civil-liberties.com/cases/bank.html

I'm afraid i'm going to have to veto that as a accurate source. If you go to the main page, http://www.civil-liberties.com/ and look at all of the articles, you will see that they are pretty crazy (eg. "GEORGE WASHINGTON'S PSYCIC PROPHESY FOR AMERICA", "The U.S. is Still a British Colony", "Abe Lincoln's Prophesy of his own Death", "The White Supremacist who Freed the Slaves").

Also, the bank wasn't declared unconstitutional, as the supreme court didn't have that power yet.
Some people thought it was unconstitutional, others didn't, and it wasn't renewed (partially because the president at the time when the charter ended thought it was unconstitutional).

[Criptfeind]

That is a pretty highly suspect info source. It is certainly willing to lie in some aspects to fit whatever agenda it has.

[Lagslayer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_North_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_central_banking_in_the_United_States

I can't believe I didn't check wikipedia in the first place. It backs up the previously linked article.

I guess that site I linked did have some pretty wonky stuff in it, though. I should have checked it more thoroughly, but I was in a rush.


I'm going to bed now.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

Edit:  erased everything.  After criptfiends statement below, I  realize discussion and answering statements here are meaningless.  I can only assume we dont speak the same language.  I will bow out of this discussion.  have at it fella's and filly's.

[Criptfeind]

It backs up the previously linked article.

Not really :I

That was quite a long post Gorjo, but it seems like you missed almost everything.

[GlyphGryph]

Hell, there's a lot of cases like the stock market where you might be putting money in and then taking it back out many, many times.  Do you get taxed every time you take the money back out?  That's fucked up, man.  And investing isn't something that only rich people do.

If the stock market is being used as intended... not so much. Remember, it was originally created to be used as a means of an investment, where profit was made over time through the use of dividends. Using it as a high tech gambling ring is very much a perversion of its intended purpose, and thats the only situation where someone would really be hit quite brutally by taxing profit on stocks.