J. Clarke wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting the
Congress to vote the way I want them to.

Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come from
a
million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from Microsoft
contributing 10 million.

...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.

Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer". Geezer
Power!!!!

And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you to.


Right, but the geezers are now beginning to demand that government
do things for them that: a) They should have done for themselves,
b) Will be borne on the backs of their children and grandchidren,
and c) The government has no legal right to do.

I have NO problem with PACS - I am a life NRA member which is the
2nd largest lobbying group in D.C. (next to the AARP). I have
a problem with PACs/lobbies demanding *illegal* activity from
the Federal government. The NRA affirms our laws. The AARP
attacks them.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:


I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting the
Congress to vote the way I want them to.

Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come from a
million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from Microsoft
contributing 10 million.


...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.


Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer". Geezer
Power!!!!

And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you to.

AARP (American Association of Retired People) is something of a
misnomer. You don't have to be old, you can join AARP at age 50. And
you don't have to be retired, either. I joined because AARP members can
get hotel discounts, and the first time I used the discount saved me
more money than a three year membership.

And you supported an organization that believes in force and extortion
(directed at the younger generation) to support actions by the
Federal government that are illegal and destructive to our freedom.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Doug Winterburn said:

Most excellent fog, and petty at that ;-)

Glad you liked it.
When the government and it's courts, agents, and representatives
refuse to do their jobs in accordance with long standing precedent in
lieu of protecting their crony pals, I feel no obligation to be kind.
And when the general public then further protects rank criminals at my
great personal expense in order to shield their local political
"wunderboys", I harbor no allegiance towards them either.


Greg G.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP

Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily
a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.

This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
add to the GDP.

The effect is indirect.

Only in the sense that government can apply more- or less
force to make the private sector produce less- or more.
The government itself is a consumer unbound by the rules
of supply and demand AND one which has the legal use of
force at its disposal.

So the boom during WWII was due to ther governmnent forcing the
private sector to produce more?

But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".

Comes under "promote the general welfare".

No sir:

1) That statement is in the Preamble. It is not a foundation of
law. It carries all the weight of some Hollyweirdo getting
up at an awards ceremony and saying "I love you all". We
understand the sentiment but do not take it literally.

I seem to recall there being something in the Constitution about
"Supreme Law of the Land".

2) In James Madison's own words, the 'general welfare' was
not to be understood to be a carte blanche for the Feds
to do whatever they wanted. As he pointed out (sorry, do
not have the precise cite), that such an interpretation would
completely undermine the "enumerated powers" doctrine that
drives the whole Constitution.

And James Madison spoke for the Supreme Court when? I'm sorry, but an
opinion expressed by a President is not law. And we were not talking
about "a carte blanche". We were talking about legislation intended
to benefit the economy. Is such legislation forbidden or is it not?
If it is, what ruling of the Supreme Court forbade it?

Step Three
----------

Instantiate a flat tax like the Fair Tax via a Constitutional
Amendment that forbids the institution of *any* other kind of
tax.
So no protective tariffs on foreign trade even if other countries
do
enact such tariffs?
Right. Tariffs are yet another attempt to "manage" economics.

So it's OK for the Chinese to charge a 30 percent tariff on
American
goods imported into China but we have to let them bring theirs into
the US without the same disadvantage? Sorry, but there's a
difference between "managing economics" and "levelling the playing
field".

You live in a world of illusion. No government has enough juice to
actually control economics short of using violent force.

Oh, _beat_ that straw man. Tariffs are not "controlling economics",
they are controlling the prices of imports.

In the
scenario you describe, markets would seek to be efficient and would
punish such bad behavior by the Chinese pretty effectively.

How so? It costs more to bring something into China than it does for
the Chinese to bring an equivalent product into the US. So Americans
buy Chinese goods but Chinese don't buy American goods.

After
all, if people in the US could not get their goods sold overseas,
they
would lack the resource to buy the even very cheap Chinese goods.

And the Chinese, who have Americans outnumbered 3 to 1 care about this
because?

Tariffs these days are primarily political and policy pressure
tools,
not meaningful economic levers (no matter what Carter, Bush,
Clinton,
Bush seem to think).

Yes, they are. And you would deny them. To what purpose would you do
this?

The "Fair Tax" proposal seems to be a 23% sales
tax, which is a "soak the poor" scheme.
Go reread it. It does no such thing. It rebates *everyone* the
amount of money a "poor" family would pay in taxes. This means
the truly poor pay no taxes.

I see. Sounds simple, but now it's yet another "soak the rich"
scheme.


No it's not. It's a "pay in proportion to what you spend" scheme.
The more you spend, the more "sales tax" you pay. If you don't
spend it, this creates working capital for market action. If you
do spend it, you fund your nation. Simple, effective, and fair.

So poor people who don't buy much don't pay any tax and rich people
who buy more pay lots of tax. Sounds like a "soak the rich" scheme to
me, no matter how you sugarcoat it.

And what happens if everybody gets ****ed off at the government and
decides to keep their spending below the limit at which the refund
exceeds the taxes paid?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP

Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is
necessarily
a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.
This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence
cannot
add to the GDP.
The effect is indirect.


But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".
Comes under "promote the general welfare".


That language comes from the preamble to the constitution,
which,
despite what some people including apparently you believe, does
NOT
grant the federal government any power.
No, it gives them a duty. The power to perform that duty is
implied.
Are you saying that the Federal government is _forbidden_ to
enact
legislation that is beneficial to the economy?

Yes.

So you are saying then that any piece of legislation must be
carefully evaluated for its effect on the economy and any that is
found to be beneficial must not be enacted? Would that not mean
then that they would be obligated to err on the side of caution and
only pass legislation that they were sure was _damaging_ to the
economy?

Or are you so naive as to believe that passing a budget for the
Federal government will have _no_ effect on the economy?


I am saying that it is illegal for the Federal government to act
without having *specific* permission to do so in the matter at hand
in the Constitution. Examples of things where no such permission
is granted: Economic regulation, Education, Research, Healthcare,
Welfare, etc. Example of things specifically permitted: Defense
of the borders, running the courts, interstate commerce, running
the post office, etc.

And you of course have Supreme Court rulings to support this argument.
I didn't think so. Hint--the fact that you _think_ something is
unlawful doesn't make it so.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
NoOne N Particular wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
... snip
Then, change the voting rules so that only people within the
middle
class income range can vote. Only income from actual work
counts.
Interest, dividends, stock sales, etc. don't count. No more
freeloaders and no more richies. Just the so-called "average
joe".

Not sure why you want to exclude those who exceed a certain
income
threshold from voting. That kind of shows a certain amount of
dedication and success capability. In truth, they don't have
enough
numbers to significantly influence election results by much
anyway.

What should be required is that people who are living from
government benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the
people voting themselves the treasury that the founders were
warned
against. You have a dependency class voting for those who
promise
to take money from the people who are working and provide it
those
who are not. Self-support should be a pre-requisite for the
franchise.

And while we're at it, I think there should be a civics test,
required every decade or so - in English - as a pre-requisite to
voting.

That sort of thing has a very, very bad reputation. When such
testing was used, in some localities it was impossible for a black
man, even if he had a PhD in English from Harvard, to pass such a
test.


Right. It has been abused. That needs to be watched for. But the
idea that any sub-literate knucklehead without a hint of what
animates
our laws should be able to vote is terrifying. That's how you
get a nation demanding that a "conservative" president fund all
manner
of social do-gooding that is fundamentally illegal.

Uh, the President doesn't fund anything.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting the
Congress to vote the way I want them to.

Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come
from
a
million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from Microsoft
contributing 10 million.

...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.

Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer". Geezer
Power!!!!

And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you to.


Right, but the geezers are now beginning to demand that government
do things for them that: a) They should have done for themselves,
b) Will be borne on the backs of their children and grandchidren,
and c) The government has no legal right to do.

"Now beginning"? Social Security went in before WWII.

I have NO problem with PACS - I am a life NRA member which is the
2nd largest lobbying group in D.C. (next to the AARP). I have
a problem with PACs/lobbies demanding *illegal* activity from
the Federal government. The NRA affirms our laws. The AARP
attacks them.

You say "The NRA affirms our laws". Others disagree. And guess what,
they have just as much basis for their opinion as you do for your
opinion that legislation intended to aid the economy is "illegal".

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:


I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting the
Congress to vote the way I want them to.

Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come
from a million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from
Microsoft contributing 10 million.


...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.


Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer". Geezer
Power!!!!

And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you
to.

AARP (American Association of Retired People) is something of a
misnomer. You don't have to be old, you can join AARP at age 50.
And you don't have to be retired, either. I joined because AARP
members can get hotel discounts, and the first time I used the
discount saved me more money than a three year membership.

And you supported an organization that believes in force and
extortion
(directed at the younger generation) to support actions by the
Federal government that are illegal and destructive to our freedom.

You know, I had no intention of joining AARP, but if people doing so
****es off twits like you then it can't be all bad.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Tim Daneliuk said:

As opposed to, say, the "honest" middle class that wants to
steal the wealth of the very rich to pay for their schools,
parks, libraries, and swimming pools? Oh please.

So, what is your problem with the Eeevil middle class? And where do
you hear this stuff. I know no one who expects a disproportionate
amount of money from the "very rich" to pay for anything, and they've
certainly never offered or been forced to pay anything to anyone I
know. Maybe it's a northern, failing industrial city thing.
What I do hear is the parroting of Rush Limbough and Neil Bortz.

Don't you think that those who are enabled by this society to reap
such benefits should fairly contribute towards the well being of that
society, or is it purely dog eat dog?

Oh really? Over half the Federal budget is entitlements of
one sort or another. Every single one of the recipients of
these - including Social Security and Medicare - will almost
certainly take more out of the system than they ever put in.
And that's just one example ... there are many more.

Out of $2.568 trillion spent in 2006:

460 billion went to the Treasury and 406 billion of this was for
payment of Interest to bankers on loans.

520 billion went to the DOD/Military Industrial.

610 billion went towards Heath and Human services.

Education ate a whopping 61 billion.
The DOT received 56 billion.
NASA blew up 15 billion.
The EPA wasted 12 billion.
National Science Foundation collected 6 billion.

Currently, there is more being paid into the Social Security Trust
Fund than is being paid out to beneficiaries. What's left is routinely
"borrowed" and used as if it were general budget revenue. Government
agencies using that money promise to pay it back, yet all of the money
in the Social Security Trust Fund has been spent. That is now part of
the $9.1 trillion National Debt. Social Security is currently
operating as a very large tax collection tool.

As you can see, the bulk of expenditures are wasted on bankers,
military industrialists, and medical/subsidies. As far as I'm
concerned, the bulk of it could be eliminated. These are some of the
most concentrated groups of corrupt players on the dole.

Who are largely middle-class ... the builders, I mean.

Not around here they're not. Unless your definition of middle class
includes those who make $46 million a year - plus bonuses.

Maybe you never built your own company. I have. Try it sometime
and get back to us on how easy all this lying cheating and stealing
is to achieve instant success.

I've worked in electronics since childhood. And haven't worked for
anyone but myself in over 25 years. I've also never seen one thin dime
from the government in handouts, loans, or entitlements; and neither
have my family or friends. So wherever the money is going, it sure
isn't benefiting THIS "middle class moocher" one iota. I can't even
get these 'tards to do their freaking jobs equitably.

I have seen plenty of crooked mortgage companies, war profiteers,
developers, sports franchise owners, lawyers, hospital owners,
ambulance services, and politicians who game the system to their
advantage and against the public interest.

Still, it's a fraction of the money the Feds waste. But as bad as the
government is, privatization has typically faired far worse; with the
one glaring exception being the postal service.

Is there some law that says the government can't run a given program
as efficiently or more so than private industry? No? Then try
electing people who will demand performance and clean house of the
slackers who drag it down. The problem isn't the system per se, it's
the imbedded idiots who mismanage it for personal or political gain,
or through sheer incompetence.

I don't disagree with all of your contentions, but when the media
talking points appear I tune out.

G'Night.


Greg G.

Greg G. wrote:

Just Wondering said:


That language comes from the preamble to the constitution, which, despite what
some people including apparently you believe, does NOT grant the federal
government any power.


And where is the Constitutional provision that empowers the IRS?


Don't change the subject. The subject is the preamble. Here's what the United
States Supreme Court had to say on the subject:

"Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people
ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the
source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United
States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly
granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those
so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution
was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction
and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the
United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express
delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom."

Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358 (U.S. 1905).

On Dec 10, 3:53 am, Just Wondering wrote:
Greg G. wrote:
Just Wondering said:

That language comes from the preamble to the constitution, which, despite what
some people including apparently you believe, does NOT grant the federal
government any power.

And where is the Constitutional provision that empowers the IRS?

Don't change the subject. The subject is the preamble. Here's what the United
States Supreme Court had to say on the subject:

"Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people
ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the
source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United
States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly
granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those
so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution
was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction
and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the
United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express
delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom."

Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct. 358 (U.S. 1905).

Now that all the Constitutional lawyers have had their say, I have to
go out to the shop and replace the belt on a 10" bandsaw, tune a 16"
Steel City bandsaw, and put the tables on a 15" Craftsman planer.
After that, I have to set up to write a handle-replacment article,
which means cleaning up a fall's worth of mess, moving some studio
flash units and cleaning off the top of a battered workbench.

Have fun with the blather.

J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting the
Congress to vote the way I want them to.

Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come
from
a
million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from Microsoft
contributing 10 million.

...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.
Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer". Geezer
Power!!!!

And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you to.

Right, but the geezers are now beginning to demand that government
do things for them that: a) They should have done for themselves,
b) Will be borne on the backs of their children and grandchidren,
and c) The government has no legal right to do.

"Now beginning"? Social Security went in before WWII.

I have NO problem with PACS - I am a life NRA member which is the
2nd largest lobbying group in D.C. (next to the AARP). I have
a problem with PACs/lobbies demanding *illegal* activity from
the Federal government. The NRA affirms our laws. The AARP
attacks them.

You say "The NRA affirms our laws". Others disagree. And guess what,
they have just as much basis for their opinion as you do for your
opinion that legislation intended to aid the economy is "illegal".


No they don't. The 2nd Amendment is a part of our legal code and
provides positive affirmation of a particular right. "Aid for the
economy" is not an enumerated power. There is a huge difference
between the two.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 08:32:51 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

-snip-

If you don't like the current government, consider the alternative.
-snip

What a cowardly statement!

Consider instead...

"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its
government."
Thomas Paine

Just Wondering wrote:
Greg G. wrote:

Just Wondering said:


That language comes from the preamble to the constitution, which,
despite what some people including apparently you believe, does
NOT
grant the federal government any power.


And where is the Constitutional provision that empowers the IRS?


Don't change the subject. The subject is the preamble. Here's what
the United
States Supreme Court had to say on the subject:

"Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the
people
ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been
regarded
as the
source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the
United
States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those
expressly
granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied
from those
so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the
Constitution
was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign
jurisdiction
and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that
end by the
United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some
express
delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied
therefrom."

The power to tax is granted to the government by the Constitution. So
is the power to establish a budget. By the reasoning above both of
those powers may be used to secure the general welfare. As can
others.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 10, 3:53 am, Just Wondering wrote:
Greg G. wrote:
Just Wondering said:

That language comes from the preamble to the constitution, which,
despite what some people including apparently you believe, does
NOT grant the federal government any power.

And where is the Constitutional provision that empowers the IRS?

Don't change the subject. The subject is the preamble. Here's
what
the United States Supreme Court had to say on the subject:

"Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which
the
people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been
regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the
government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such
powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the
Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted.
Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the
Constitution
was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign
jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be
exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the
preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in
some power to be properly implied therefrom."

Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S.Ct.
358
(U.S. 1905).

Now that all the Constitutional lawyers have had their say, I have
to
go out to the shop and replace the belt on a 10" bandsaw, tune a 16"
Steel City bandsaw, and put the tables on a 15" Craftsman planer.
After that, I have to set up to write a handle-replacment article,
which means cleaning up a fall's worth of mess, moving some studio
flash units and cleaning off the top of a battered workbench.

Lucky you. I gotta put a new roof on the garage and it's 33 degrees
and raining.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Renata wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 08:32:51 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

-snip-

If you don't like the current government, consider the alternative.
-snip

What a cowardly statement!

Consider instead...

"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its
government."
Thomas Paine

Consider instead that the current government came from people who were
following that advice.

So how would you change the government? Not just what changes would
you make, but how would you bring them about?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting
the
Congress to vote the way I want them to.

Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come
from
a
million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from
Microsoft
contributing 10 million.

...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.
Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer".
Geezer
Power!!!!

And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you
to.

Right, but the geezers are now beginning to demand that government
do things for them that: a) They should have done for themselves,
b) Will be borne on the backs of their children and grandchidren,
and c) The government has no legal right to do.

"Now beginning"? Social Security went in before WWII.

I have NO problem with PACS - I am a life NRA member which is the
2nd largest lobbying group in D.C. (next to the AARP). I have
a problem with PACs/lobbies demanding *illegal* activity from
the Federal government. The NRA affirms our laws. The AARP
attacks them.

You say "The NRA affirms our laws". Others disagree. And guess
what, they have just as much basis for their opinion as you do for
your opinion that legislation intended to aid the economy is
"illegal".


No they don't. The 2nd Amendment is a part of our legal code and
provides positive affirmation of a particular right. "Aid for the
economy" is not an enumerated power. There is a huge difference
between the two.

And it's their opinion, based on just as much evidence as you have
presented, that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual
right.

I find it interesting that you have responded to this post but not to
any in which you are asked to provide some credible evidence to
support yout claim that governement actions benefitting the economy
are unlawful. And I also find it interesting that you don't address
the point that many government actions are going to affect the economy
in some fashion even if they are not intended to, and so by your
reasoning would be unlawful.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article , "J. Clarke" wrote:

The power to tax is granted to the government by the Constitution. So
is the power to establish a budget. By the reasoning above both of
those powers may be used to secure the general welfare. As can
others.

Well, yes, but the point is that "to secure the general welfare" is *not* a
blanket authorization for the Congress to exercise powers that are *not*
granted to it.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "J. Clarke"
wrote:

The power to tax is granted to the government by the Constitution. So
is the power to establish a budget. By the reasoning above both of
those powers may be used to secure the general welfare. As can
others.

Well, yes, but the point is that "to secure the general welfare" is *not* a
blanket authorization for the Congress to exercise powers that are *not*
granted to it.

Sadly, it seems that securing the general warefare has become
*exactly* that kind of blanket authorization. I do agree with
you; this was almost certainly NOT the intent of the framers.

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Yup!

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Malcolm Hoar wrote:
In article , (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , "J. Clarke"
wrote:


The power to tax is granted to the government by the Constitution. So
is the power to establish a budget. By the reasoning above both of
those powers may be used to secure the general welfare. As can
others.

Well, yes, but the point is that "to secure the general welfare" is *not* a
blanket authorization for the Congress to exercise powers that are *not*
granted to it.


Sadly, it seems that securing the general warefare has become
*exactly* that kind of blanket authorization. I do agree with
you; this was almost certainly NOT the intent of the framers.


Sadly so. Here's what happened. In the throes of the depression, Franklin
Roosevelt wanted the federal government to jump start the economy by doing
things it clearly was not authorized to do under the Constitution. But he
couldn't get the laws he wanted to stand up. The darn Supreme Court kept
declaring them unconstitutional. So he threatened to have Congress increase the
Supreme Court from 9 to 15 judges, and pack it with new blood who would support
him. This pressure led the Supremes to back off, which led to a massive
expansion of the federal government to what we have today. One of the things
they did was to use the clause in the Constitution that says Congress shall have
the power to regulate commerce among the states in a way it was never intended.
Before Roosevelt, the clause meant what it says - the commerce clause was used
to regulate commerce. Now, it's used to regulate schools, small businesses, and
a horde of other things it was never intended to do. Here's how it works.
Suppose there's a small local bakery in your town. It hires only local labor,
buys its flour and ingredients locally, and sells its baked goods out of its
front store. That doesn't look much like interstate commerce, does it? But the
local mill it buys its flour from buys the wheat it grinds into flour from a
farmer who raised the wheat on his farm fifty miles away, which just happens to
be across state lines. The result? The local bakery's local purchase of wheat
has a down the line "effect" on interstate commerce, so Congress jumps in to
regulate this purely local business, regulating not only the purchase of its
flour, but how much it pays its employees, the bakery's working conditions, and
on and on and on ...
You get the idea? Our federal government finds its power to grow so large, not
from the preamble saying the Constitution's purpose is to promote the general
welfare, but from a gross distortion of the commerce clause and similar
distortions of similar grants of power. Among other things, the result has been
a virtual disappearance of the 9th and 10 Amendments.



It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting
the
Congress to vote the way I want them to.

Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come
from
a
million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from
Microsoft
contributing 10 million.

...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.
Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer".
Geezer
Power!!!!

And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you
to.

Right, but the geezers are now beginning to demand that government
do things for them that: a) They should have done for themselves,
b) Will be borne on the backs of their children and grandchidren,
and c) The government has no legal right to do.
"Now beginning"? Social Security went in before WWII.

I have NO problem with PACS - I am a life NRA member which is the
2nd largest lobbying group in D.C. (next to the AARP). I have
a problem with PACs/lobbies demanding *illegal* activity from
the Federal government. The NRA affirms our laws. The AARP
attacks them.
You say "The NRA affirms our laws". Others disagree. And guess
what, they have just as much basis for their opinion as you do for
your opinion that legislation intended to aid the economy is
"illegal".

No they don't. The 2nd Amendment is a part of our legal code and
provides positive affirmation of a particular right. "Aid for the
economy" is not an enumerated power. There is a huge difference
between the two.

And it's their opinion, based on just as much evidence as you have
presented, that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual
right.

Wrong. There is a considerable body of scholarship that supports
the individual rights centricity in the 2nd Amendment as being the
intent of the Framers. There is *no mention* of Federal intervention
into the economy *at all* in the Constitution. The latter is the
invention of activists who want the Constitution to say what they
want it to. The former is long established in legal history in
our nation.


I find it interesting that you have responded to this post but not to
any in which you are asked to provide some credible evidence to
support yout claim that governement actions benefitting the economy
are unlawful. And I also find it interesting that you don't address
the point that many government actions are going to affect the economy
in some fashion even if they are not intended to, and so by your
reasoning would be unlawful.


I have already responded, but will do so again. The doctrine of enumerated
powers upon which the US Constitution rests, requires that the Federal
government must have *explicit* (Constitutional) permission to do something.
Failing such permission, the activity in question belongs to the states and/or
the individual. In short, the Federal government does not have explicit
permission to intervene in the economy. The "general welfare" clause does
not open that door because reading it as you apparently do would undermine
the *very clear* intent of the Framers that the law of the land be explicitly
enumerated. If you don't understand this line of argument, go read a book
on the writing of the Constitution. If you do understand it, and just don't
like it - and thus want the Feds to do what suits you - you are in the company
of a great many people in this nation who don't care about the law, just as long
as they get what they want ...

Greg G. wrote:

J. Clarke said:

Greg G. wrote:

.... snip
No, you're creating additional wealth. Giving money to the producer
doesn't "redistribute it" except to the extent that the value of the
goods is greater than the cost.

Sure it does, it takes it from my account and deposits it into theirs.
They now have it, I no longer do. The difference between what it costs
to produce and market versus what the market will bear equates to
profit. Too many economics 101 victims in here.
I've heard the abstractions, I just don't agree with them.


It takes from your account and you receive in return a product. That is
not stealing from you, it is you engaging in a transaction.

What abstractions are you talking about? This isn't abstraction or even
Econ101 anymore, it's capitalism101.


The rest is economic double speak.
Point being that within a given span of time, there is a relatively
constant amount of currency in circulation and a constant value
associated with it.

You were complaining a bit earlier that its value is _not_ constant.

Notice the "within a given span of time" caveat. Of course it
fluctuates, unfortunately in a downward spiral these days.


What? Part of the problem is that there are more dollars out there such
that the value of those dollars is lower. i.e., it takes more dollars to
buy the same thing than several years ago.

So who did Bill Gates take it from?

Lots of disappointed customers?


Fair shot right between the goal posts. :-)


.... snip

You guys are too easy... ;-)

If you say so.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

J. Clarke wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP

Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is necessarily
a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.

This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence cannot
add to the GDP.

The effect is indirect.

Only in the sense that government can apply more- or less
force to make the private sector produce less- or more.
The government itself is a consumer unbound by the rules
of supply and demand AND one which has the legal use of
force at its disposal.

So the boom during WWII was due to ther governmnent forcing the
private sector to produce more?


Umm, yes it was. It was called the "war effort". Businesses were pushed
to produce war materiel, strategic goods were rationed, women went to work
in the factories producing military products while men of military age were
serving in the armed forces. Now, those people who were working in those
factories and businesses were making money and being paid. They had to eat
and have services and other goods. The whole economy benefited from that
effect; however, this was still being done on government borrowing
(remember war bonds?).

But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".

Comes under "promote the general welfare".

No sir:

1) That statement is in the Preamble. It is not a foundation of
law. It carries all the weight of some Hollyweirdo getting
up at an awards ceremony and saying "I love you all". We
understand the sentiment but do not take it literally.

I seem to recall there being something in the Constitution about
"Supreme Law of the Land".

i.e., you would like to be able to mold the Constitution into anything
that you feel would be good at any one time. That is not how or why it was
written. Read the federalist and anti-federalist papers sometime. Nothing
in there about being a "living, breathing document that says whatever an
activist judiciary or other authority says at any time". Instead there is
concern about a runaway federal government and how the constitution was
designed to limit the powers of the federal government.


2) In James Madison's own words, the 'general welfare' was
not to be understood to be a carte blanche for the Feds
to do whatever they wanted. As he pointed out (sorry, do
not have the precise cite), that such an interpretation would
completely undermine the "enumerated powers" doctrine that
drives the whole Constitution.

And James Madison spoke for the Supreme Court when? I'm sorry, but an
opinion expressed by a President is not law. And we were not talking
about "a carte blanche". We were talking about legislation intended
to benefit the economy. Is such legislation forbidden or is it not?
If it is, what ruling of the Supreme Court forbade it?

OK, you really do view the be all and end all of federal power to be
whatever some activist federal judge says it is. I fear for our country
with this kind of viewpoint. You are basically enabling the government,
through judicial fiat to do whatever the @#$% it wants to do with no
bounds.


.... snip



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Just Wondering wrote:

Malcolm Hoar wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , "J. Clarke"
wrote:


The power to tax is granted to the government by the Constitution. So
is the power to establish a budget. By the reasoning above both of
those powers may be used to secure the general welfare. As can
others.

Well, yes, but the point is that "to secure the general welfare" is *not*
a blanket authorization for the Congress to exercise powers that are
*not* granted to it.


Sadly, it seems that securing the general warefare has become
*exactly* that kind of blanket authorization. I do agree with
you; this was almost certainly NOT the intent of the framers.


,,, snip
Before Roosevelt, the clause meant what it says - the commerce clause
was used
to regulate commerce. Now, it's used to regulate schools, small
businesses, and
a horde of other things it was never intended to do. Here's how it works.
Suppose there's a small local bakery in your town. It hires only local
labor, buys its flour and ingredients locally, and sells its baked goods
out of its
front store. That doesn't look much like interstate commerce, does it?
But the local mill it buys its flour from buys the wheat it grinds into
flour from a farmer who raised the wheat on his farm fifty miles away,
which just happens to
be across state lines. The result? The local bakery's local purchase of
wheat has a down the line "effect" on interstate commerce, so Congress
jumps in to regulate this purely local business, regulating not only the
purchase of its flour, but how much it pays its employees, the bakery's
working conditions, and on and on and on ...

That, and the fact that the citizens of the US foolishly allowed
themselves to be suckered into allowing the federal government to institute
a direct tax on the citizens through the income tax enabled by the 16'th
amendment. It started out small, but has now grown to a huge burden on
citizens. In doing this, it has used its power of the purse to strong-arm
states into implementing laws that the fed still believes are out of bounds
for federal law. The force is the threat of denying return of monies from
taxes taken from the citizens of those states via the income tax.
Something tells me the framers had this kind of blackmail in mind when they
denied the federal government the ability to levy direct taxes on the
citizens of the states of the union.


.... snip

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting
the
Congress to vote the way I want them to.

Yeah, PACs get their power from money but that money can come
from
a
million people contributing ten bucks as easily as from
Microsoft
contributing 10 million.

...or from a bunch of geezers contributing to AARP.
Hey, it's not going to be long before I become a "geezer".
Geezer
Power!!!!

And unless you luck out and die young, it's gonna happen to you
to.

Right, but the geezers are now beginning to demand that
government
do things for them that: a) They should have done for
themselves,
b) Will be borne on the backs of their children and
grandchidren,
and c) The government has no legal right to do.
"Now beginning"? Social Security went in before WWII.

I have NO problem with PACS - I am a life NRA member which is
the
2nd largest lobbying group in D.C. (next to the AARP). I have
a problem with PACs/lobbies demanding *illegal* activity from
the Federal government. The NRA affirms our laws. The AARP
attacks them.
You say "The NRA affirms our laws". Others disagree. And guess
what, they have just as much basis for their opinion as you do
for
your opinion that legislation intended to aid the economy is
"illegal".

No they don't. The 2nd Amendment is a part of our legal code and
provides positive affirmation of a particular right. "Aid for the
economy" is not an enumerated power. There is a huge difference
between the two.

And it's their opinion, based on just as much evidence as you have
presented, that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual
right.

Wrong. There is a considerable body of scholarship that supports
the individual rights centricity in the 2nd Amendment as being the
intent of the Framers.

Please re read the paragraph to which you responded. Look very
carefully for the word "not" and consider its significance.

There is *no mention* of Federal intervention
into the economy *at all* in the Constitution. The latter is the
invention of activists who want the Constitution to say what they
want it to. The former is long established in legal history in
our nation.

Just as there seems to be on mention of a collective rights
interpretation.

I find it interesting that you have responded to this post but not
to
any in which you are asked to provide some credible evidence to
support yout claim that governement actions benefitting the economy
are unlawful. And I also find it interesting that you don't
address
the point that many government actions are going to affect the
economy in some fashion even if they are not intended to, and so by
your reasoning would be unlawful.


I have already responded, but will do so again. The doctrine of
enumerated powers upon which the US Constitution rests, requires
that the Federal government must have *explicit* (Constitutional)
permission to do something.

Which they do. The power to enact a budget, to raise an army, to tax,
to spend, etc. All of these affect the economy. Do you deny that
they have these powers? Do you deny that their exercise affects the
economy?

Failing such permission, the activity in
question belongs to the states and/or the individual. In short, the
Federal government does not have explicit permission to intervene in
the economy.

It doesn't need one. It has many powers, the exercise of which affect
the economy regardless of the intent.

The "general welfare" clause does
not open that door because reading it as you apparently do would
undermine
the *very clear* intent of the Framers that the law of the land be
explicitly enumerated.

So what clause forbids the use of the many enumerated powers of the
Federal government in such a manner as to benefit the economy?

If you don't understand this line of
argument, go read a book
on the writing of the Constitution.

If you don't understand that that particular argument was abandoned
several posts back then go read a book on reading comprehension.

If you do understand it, and
just don't like it - and thus want the Feds to do what suits you -
you are in the company of a great many people in this nation who
don't care about the law, just as long as they get what they want
...

And again you are dodging the question.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

I know that NRA/ILA has been reasonably effective in getting
the
Congress to vote the way I want them to.
.... snip

No they don't. The 2nd Amendment is a part of our legal code and
provides positive affirmation of a particular right. "Aid for the
economy" is not an enumerated power. There is a huge difference
between the two.

And it's their opinion, based on just as much evidence as you have
presented, that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual
right.

Wrong. There is a considerable body of scholarship that supports
the individual rights centricity in the 2nd Amendment as being the
intent of the Framers.

Please re read the paragraph to which you responded. Look very
carefully for the word "not" and consider its significance.

There is *no mention* of Federal intervention
into the economy *at all* in the Constitution. The latter is the
invention of activists who want the Constitution to say what they
want it to. The former is long established in legal history in
our nation.

Just as there seems to be on mention of a collective rights
interpretation.

What part of "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" does not
imply a collective right? If your interpretation of over-reaching federal
powers can be derived from a general purpose statement in the preamble, I
would certainly think you would be even more emphatic about rights that are
specifically enumerated and affirmed.

... snip


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP

Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is
necessarily
a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.
This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence
cannot
add to the GDP.
The effect is indirect.


But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".
Comes under "promote the general welfare".


That language comes from the preamble to the constitution,
which,
despite what some people including apparently you believe, does
NOT
grant the federal government any power.
No, it gives them a duty. The power to perform that duty is
implied.
Are you saying that the Federal government is _forbidden_ to
enact
legislation that is beneficial to the economy?

Yes.
So you are saying then that any piece of legislation must be
carefully evaluated for its effect on the economy and any that is
found to be beneficial must not be enacted? Would that not mean
then that they would be obligated to err on the side of caution and
only pass legislation that they were sure was _damaging_ to the
economy?

Or are you so naive as to believe that passing a budget for the
Federal government will have _no_ effect on the economy?


I am saying that it is illegal for the Federal government to act
without having *specific* permission to do so in the matter at hand
in the Constitution. Examples of things where no such permission
is granted: Economic regulation, Education, Research, Healthcare,
Welfare, etc. Example of things specifically permitted: Defense
of the borders, running the courts, interstate commerce, running
the post office, etc.

And you of course have Supreme Court rulings to support this argument.
I didn't think so. Hint--the fact that you _think_ something is
unlawful doesn't make it so.


SCOTUS is not the law of the land. The Constitution is. The fact that activist
judges (on both sides of the political divide) have granted themselves power
to make law in their own image does not make it right.

J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP

So the boom during WWII was due to ther governmnent forcing the
private sector to produce more?

Clearly, even when government acts *within* its proper domain, it can
have economic effect. It simply has no permission to act to *specifically*
achieve economic outcomes.


But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".
Comes under "promote the general welfare".
No sir:

1) That statement is in the Preamble. It is not a foundation of
law. It carries all the weight of some Hollyweirdo getting
up at an awards ceremony and saying "I love you all". We
understand the sentiment but do not take it literally.

I seem to recall there being something in the Constitution about
"Supreme Law of the Land".

It is indeed. But it exists in a context. Its context is the history
of its creation and the intent of its authors ... who did not, as
a group, intend for the Federal government to be granted a blank
check by hiding behind the general welfare clause. This is not some
wild interpretation on my part. This is well supported by the history
of our nation's laws.


2) In James Madison's own words, the 'general welfare' was
not to be understood to be a carte blanche for the Feds
to do whatever they wanted. As he pointed out (sorry, do
not have the precise cite), that such an interpretation would
completely undermine the "enumerated powers" doctrine that
drives the whole Constitution.

And James Madison spoke for the Supreme Court when? I'm sorry, but an

SCOTUS is not the final authority on this matter. The Constitution is.

opinion expressed by a President is not law. And we were not talking

Agreed. But Madison wrote his piece on the general welfare clause not
with the authority of a President, but with the authrority of
a Framer who was there for the Federalist Papers debate and the crafting
of the Constitution in the first place. He *knew* what the intent was
on both sides of the Federalist debate (having actually written some
of the Federalist material and then later backing away from it).
The general welfare clause is simply not supportable as a source for
granting the Federal government unlimited power as you imply.


about "a carte blanche". We were talking about legislation intended
to benefit the economy. Is such legislation forbidden or is it not?

Yes is forbidden as is anything not enumerated as a power of the
Federal go ernment.

If it is, what ruling of the Supreme Court forbade it?

From Marbury v. Madison, SCOTUS has taken power unto itself not
granted explicitly by the Constitution. What they forbid is, at least
in some cases, irrelevant. We do not need SCOTUS to weigh in on this
one. The Constitution is crystal clear about the doctrine of
enunmerated powers.


Step Three
----------

Instantiate a flat tax like the Fair Tax via a Constitutional
Amendment that forbids the institution of *any* other kind of
tax.
So no protective tariffs on foreign trade even if other countries
do
enact such tariffs?
Right. Tariffs are yet another attempt to "manage" economics.
So it's OK for the Chinese to charge a 30 percent tariff on
American
goods imported into China but we have to let them bring theirs into
the US without the same disadvantage? Sorry, but there's a
difference between "managing economics" and "levelling the playing
field".
You live in a world of illusion. No government has enough juice to
actually control economics short of using violent force.

Oh, _beat_ that straw man. Tariffs are not "controlling economics",
they are controlling the prices of imports.

They are an attempt to regulate economic outcomes and are doomed
therefore.


In the
scenario you describe, markets would seek to be efficient and would
punish such bad behavior by the Chinese pretty effectively.

How so? It costs more to bring something into China than it does for
the Chinese to bring an equivalent product into the US. So Americans
buy Chinese goods but Chinese don't buy American goods.

If we can afford to. Economics is not bounded by national borders.
Americans unable to earn sufficient amounts because of punative
foreign tariffs would not be able to buy foreign goods. Econ 101.


After
all, if people in the US could not get their goods sold overseas,
they
would lack the resource to buy the even very cheap Chinese goods.

And the Chinese, who have Americans outnumbered 3 to 1 care about this
because?

I do not understand your point here.


Tariffs these days are primarily political and policy pressure
tools,
not meaningful economic levers (no matter what Carter, Bush,
Clinton,
Bush seem to think).

Yes, they are. And you would deny them. To what purpose would you do
this?

Because tariffs distort natural economic forces to no good end.
It is better to trade openly and honestly even if the other party
wants to play economic games. They will eventually lose that battle.


The "Fair Tax" proposal seems to be a 23% sales
tax, which is a "soak the poor" scheme.
Go reread it. It does no such thing. It rebates *everyone* the
amount of money a "poor" family would pay in taxes. This means
the truly poor pay no taxes.
I see. Sounds simple, but now it's yet another "soak the rich"
scheme.

No it's not. It's a "pay in proportion to what you spend" scheme.
The more you spend, the more "sales tax" you pay. If you don't
spend it, this creates working capital for market action. If you
do spend it, you fund your nation. Simple, effective, and fair.

So poor people who don't buy much don't pay any tax and rich people
who buy more pay lots of tax. Sounds like a "soak the rich" scheme to
me, no matter how you sugarcoat it.

Again, you are missing the central point. We already have an very
abusive soak the rich scheme. Fair Tax at least makes it more
proportionally fair and administratively simple.


And what happens if everybody gets ****ed off at the government and
decides to keep their spending below the limit at which the refund
exceeds the taxes paid?


The same thing as if everybody gets "****ed off", quits their job
and stops earning taxable income. i.e., It is a fantasy.

J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
NoOne N Particular wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
... snip
Then, change the voting rules so that only people within the
middle
class income range can vote. Only income from actual work
counts.
Interest, dividends, stock sales, etc. don't count. No more
freeloaders and no more richies. Just the so-called "average
joe".

Not sure why you want to exclude those who exceed a certain
income
threshold from voting. That kind of shows a certain amount of
dedication and success capability. In truth, they don't have
enough
numbers to significantly influence election results by much
anyway.

What should be required is that people who are living from
government benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the
people voting themselves the treasury that the founders were
warned
against. You have a dependency class voting for those who
promise
to take money from the people who are working and provide it
those
who are not. Self-support should be a pre-requisite for the
franchise.

And while we're at it, I think there should be a civics test,
required every decade or so - in English - as a pre-requisite to
voting.
That sort of thing has a very, very bad reputation. When such
testing was used, in some localities it was impossible for a black
man, even if he had a PhD in English from Harvard, to pass such a
test.

Right. It has been abused. That needs to be watched for. But the
idea that any sub-literate knucklehead without a hint of what
animates
our laws should be able to vote is terrifying. That's how you
get a nation demanding that a "conservative" president fund all
manner
of social do-gooding that is fundamentally illegal.

Uh, the President doesn't fund anything.


No, but he approves and advocates for it as Bush did with the entirely
illegal senior drug benefit program, for example.

Greg G. wrote:
Tim Daneliuk said:

As opposed to, say, the "honest" middle class that wants to
steal the wealth of the very rich to pay for their schools,
parks, libraries, and swimming pools? Oh please.

So, what is your problem with the Eeevil middle class? And where do
you hear this stuff. I know no one who expects a disproportionate
amount of money from the "very rich" to pay for anything, and they've
certainly never offered or been forced to pay anything to anyone I
know. Maybe it's a northern, failing industrial city thing.
What I do hear is the parroting of Rush Limbough and Neil Bortz.

Neither of whom I listen to on any serious level. The simple fact is
that middle class wants schools, healthcare, libraries, and so on
that it cannot itself afford. It wants laws passed that make the
wealthy pick up the tab for middle-class demands. This is ordinarily
called "theft", but you and yours have turned this into a
form of moral "obligation".


Don't you think that those who are enabled by this society to reap
such benefits should fairly contribute towards the well being of that
society, or is it purely dog eat dog?

And who gets to decide what is "fair"? The mere fact that you want
something does not morally entitle you to theft. "Fair" means being
able to keep what you earn, not pick up the tab for everyone around
you who cannot earn what they want in their own right.


Oh really? Over half the Federal budget is entitlements of
one sort or another. Every single one of the recipients of
these - including Social Security and Medicare - will almost
certainly take more out of the system than they ever put in.
And that's just one example ... there are many more.

Out of $2.568 trillion spent in 2006:

460 billion went to the Treasury and 406 billion of this was for
payment of Interest to bankers on loans.

520 billion went to the DOD/Military Industrial.

610 billion went towards Heath and Human services.

Education ate a whopping 61 billion.
The DOT received 56 billion.
NASA blew up 15 billion.
The EPA wasted 12 billion.
National Science Foundation collected 6 billion.

Now add social security and medicare and you will see that well over half of
that 2.5 trillion is social entitlement. NONE of which have Constitutional
authority for the Feds to play in.


Currently, there is more being paid into the Social Security Trust
Fund than is being paid out to beneficiaries. What's left is routinely

Not quite true. Or at least that's not the whole story. Given the
expanding lifespans of the beneficiaries, a disproportionate number
of social sec recipients will live long enough to well extract more
than thye ever paid.

"borrowed" and used as if it were general budget revenue. Government
agencies using that money promise to pay it back, yet all of the money
in the Social Security Trust Fund has been spent. That is now part of
the $9.1 trillion National Debt. Social Security is currently
operating as a very large tax collection tool.

That is true. But this is the fault of social activists who see
government as the instrument for remediating any social ill and thus
wish to spend money like drunk sailors on leave on any and all of
their pet do-gooder programs.


As you can see, the bulk of expenditures are wasted on bankers,
military industrialists, and medical/subsidies. As far as I'm
concerned, the bulk of it could be eliminated. These are some of the
most concentrated groups of corrupt players on the dole.

So ... you fix this by getting the Feds out of the equation entirely.
Watch healthcare costs plummet the moment the industry cannot count
on government payouts, for example.


Who are largely middle-class ... the builders, I mean.

Not around here they're not. Unless your definition of middle class
includes those who make $46 million a year - plus bonuses.

Maybe you never built your own company. I have. Try it sometime
and get back to us on how easy all this lying cheating and stealing
is to achieve instant success.

I've worked in electronics since childhood. And haven't worked for
anyone but myself in over 25 years. I've also never seen one thin dime
from the government in handouts, loans, or entitlements; and neither
have my family or friends. So wherever the money is going, it sure
isn't benefiting THIS "middle class moocher" one iota. I can't even
get these 'tards to do their freaking jobs equitably.

So when you retire, do the rest of us owe you healthcare and retirement
income beyond what you ever paid in? Are you entitled to lifetime
drug benefits? Just how far do you get to reach into my wallet
to pickup the costs of your life?


I have seen plenty of crooked mortgage companies, war profiteers,
developers, sports franchise owners, lawyers, hospital owners,
ambulance services, and politicians who game the system to their
advantage and against the public interest.

Still, it's a fraction of the money the Feds waste. But as bad as the
government is, privatization has typically faired far worse; with the
one glaring exception being the postal service.

Is there some law that says the government can't run a given program
as efficiently or more so than private industry? No? Then try
electing people who will demand performance and clean house of the
slackers who drag it down. The problem isn't the system per se, it's
the imbedded idiots who mismanage it for personal or political gain,
or through sheer incompetence.

I don't disagree with all of your contentions, but when the media
talking points appear I tune out.

This is really simple. When government runs something, it has no
feedback from a market. When the private sector runs something it
either: a) Get's feedback from the marketplace or b) Acts dishonestly.
If a) then business either responds or goes away. If b) the
perps should go to jail. But government will always spend all it
can tax and borrow with *no* economic feedback whatsoever. What I
find astonishing in all these conversations is that government is
somehow better/more noble/more honest than those of us who actually
work for a living. Are you kidding? Poltiticians and their hack
appointees? Please. I'll take a dozen Enron execs over the putrid
pieces of garabage that inhabit D.C. any day. Enron went under
because it could neith succeed in the marketplace as a matter of reality
AND because the principals were caught with their hands in the cookie
jar. When was the last time a government appointee got booted out
for incompetence, fraud, or waste?

G'Night.


Greg G.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:17:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Renata wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 08:32:51 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

-snip-

If you don't like the current government, consider the alternative.
-snip

What a cowardly statement!

Consider instead...

"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its
government."
Thomas Paine

Consider instead that the current government came from people who were
following that advice.

Not sure that they're so into protecting the _country_ from it's
government, but rather using that government for their own purposes.


So how would you change the government? Not just what changes would
you make, but how would you bring them about?


And that is THE question. Rather complex, no?
For example, I have read several articles with suggestions, but, quite
frankly, none of them seemed to propose ideas that would be effective
given today's complacent populous, who aren't inclined to "rock the
boat" from their seemingly comfortable enclaves. Meanwhile, it seems
that something rather unpleasant is sneaking up on all of us...

How 'bout you?

R

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP

Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is
necessarily
a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.
This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence
cannot
add to the GDP.
The effect is indirect.


But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".
Comes under "promote the general welfare".


That language comes from the preamble to the constitution,
which,
despite what some people including apparently you believe,
does
NOT
grant the federal government any power.
No, it gives them a duty. The power to perform that duty is
implied.
Are you saying that the Federal government is _forbidden_ to
enact
legislation that is beneficial to the economy?

Yes.
So you are saying then that any piece of legislation must be
carefully evaluated for its effect on the economy and any that is
found to be beneficial must not be enacted? Would that not mean
then that they would be obligated to err on the side of caution
and
only pass legislation that they were sure was _damaging_ to the
economy?

Or are you so naive as to believe that passing a budget for the
Federal government will have _no_ effect on the economy?


I am saying that it is illegal for the Federal government to act
without having *specific* permission to do so in the matter at
hand
in the Constitution. Examples of things where no such permission
is granted: Economic regulation, Education, Research, Healthcare,
Welfare, etc. Example of things specifically permitted: Defense
of the borders, running the courts, interstate commerce, running
the post office, etc.

And you of course have Supreme Court rulings to support this
argument. I didn't think so. Hint--the fact that you _think_
something is unlawful doesn't make it so.


SCOTUS is not the law of the land. The Constitution is. The fact
that activist judges (on both sides of the political divide) have
granted themselves power
to make law in their own image does not make it right.

So let's see, we've on the one hand got the opinions of a group of
experienced jurists, whose Constitutionally mandated job it is to
intrpret the Constitution and apply it as required to existing
statutes and case law, and on the other hand we've got the opinion of
some guy nobody ever heard of posting on USENET.

So who ya gonna believe?

Now you're talking "does not make it right". If you had taken that
tack you might have gotten more support, but you didn't, instead you
claimed "Illegal".

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP

So the boom during WWII was due to ther governmnent forcing the
private sector to produce more?

Clearly, even when government acts *within* its proper domain, it
can
have economic effect. It simply has no permission to act to
*specifically* achieve economic outcomes.

I see. So they can in fact take actions that benefit the economy. So
where's your problem?


But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".
Comes under "promote the general welfare".
No sir:

1) That statement is in the Preamble. It is not a foundation of
law. It carries all the weight of some Hollyweirdo getting
up at an awards ceremony and saying "I love you all". We
understand the sentiment but do not take it literally.

I seem to recall there being something in the Constitution about
"Supreme Law of the Land".

It is indeed. But it exists in a context. Its context is the
history
of its creation and the intent of its authors ... who did not, as
a group, intend for the Federal government to be granted a blank
check by hiding behind the general welfare clause. This is not some
wild interpretation on my part. This is well supported by the
history
of our nation's laws.

And yet you could not find one Supreme Court ruling to support your
case and instead started bashing the Supreme Court.

2) In James Madison's own words, the 'general welfare' was
not to be understood to be a carte blanche for the Feds
to do whatever they wanted. As he pointed out (sorry, do
not have the precise cite), that such an interpretation would
completely undermine the "enumerated powers" doctrine that
drives the whole Constitution.

And James Madison spoke for the Supreme Court when? I'm sorry, but
an

SCOTUS is not the final authority on this matter. The Constitution
is.

It is a greater authority than James Madison.

opinion expressed by a President is not law. And we were not
talking

Agreed. But Madison wrote his piece on the general welfare clause
not
with the authority of a President, but with the authrority of
a Framer who was there for the Federalist Papers debate and the
crafting of the Constitution in the first place.

One of more than 200. Did they all agree with him?

He *knew* what the
intent was
on both sides of the Federalist debate (having actually written some
of the Federalist material and then later backing away from it).
The general welfare clause is simply not supportable as a source for
granting the Federal government unlimited power as you imply.

I see. So now it's "the intent" that matters, not the content.

So we have coming from you that the words contained in the
Constitution have no force in law, but the opinions of the people who
wrote it do have force in law.

about "a carte blanche". We were talking about legislation
intended
to benefit the economy. Is such legislation forbidden or is it
not?

Yes is forbidden as is anything not enumerated as a power of the
Federal go ernment.

And yet you said earlier that the large scale procurement during WWII
that had a beneficial effect on the economy was acceptable. So which
is it, is it forbidden or not?

If it is, what ruling of the Supreme Court forbade it?

From Marbury v. Madison, SCOTUS has taken power unto itself not
granted explicitly by the Constitution. What they forbid is, at
least
in some cases, irrelevant. We do not need SCOTUS to weigh in on
this
one. The Constitution is crystal clear about the doctrine of
enunmerated powers.

More Supreme Court bashing. I'm sure that when you get your case in
front of them they're going to be real impressed with "You should rule
this to be unlawful because you are irrelevant".

Hint--the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to decide
what is and is not lawful under the Constitution. It gives you no
such power.

Step Three
----------

Instantiate a flat tax like the Fair Tax via a Constitutional
Amendment that forbids the institution of *any* other kind of
tax.
So no protective tariffs on foreign trade even if other
countries
do
enact such tariffs?
Right. Tariffs are yet another attempt to "manage" economics.
So it's OK for the Chinese to charge a 30 percent tariff on
American
goods imported into China but we have to let them bring theirs
into
the US without the same disadvantage? Sorry, but there's a
difference between "managing economics" and "levelling the
playing
field".
You live in a world of illusion. No government has enough juice
to
actually control economics short of using violent force.

Oh, _beat_ that straw man. Tariffs are not "controlling
economics",
they are controlling the prices of imports.

They are an attempt to regulate economic outcomes and are doomed
therefore.

Tell it to the Chinese.

In the
scenario you describe, markets would seek to be efficient and
would
punish such bad behavior by the Chinese pretty effectively.

How so? It costs more to bring something into China than it does
for
the Chinese to bring an equivalent product into the US. So
Americans
buy Chinese goods but Chinese don't buy American goods.

If we can afford to. Economics is not bounded by national borders.
Americans unable to earn sufficient amounts because of punative
foreign tariffs would not be able to buy foreign goods. Econ 101.

And when the US ceases to have the largest single economy in the
world, then that might become an issue.

After
all, if people in the US could not get their goods sold overseas,
they
would lack the resource to buy the even very cheap Chinese goods.

And the Chinese, who have Americans outnumbered 3 to 1 care about
this because?

I do not understand your point here.

Honesty for once.

Tariffs these days are primarily political and policy pressure
tools,
not meaningful economic levers (no matter what Carter, Bush,
Clinton,
Bush seem to think).

Yes, they are. And you would deny them. To what purpose would you
do this?

Because tariffs distort natural economic forces to no good end.
It is better to trade openly and honestly even if the other party
wants to play economic games. They will eventually lose that
battle.

Why would they "lose that battle"? You seem to think that if China
manages to drive the US into bankruptcy that's bad for China.

The "Fair Tax" proposal seems to be a 23% sales
tax, which is a "soak the poor" scheme.
Go reread it. It does no such thing. It rebates *everyone* the
amount of money a "poor" family would pay in taxes. This means
the truly poor pay no taxes.
I see. Sounds simple, but now it's yet another "soak the rich"
scheme.

No it's not. It's a "pay in proportion to what you spend" scheme.
The more you spend, the more "sales tax" you pay. If you don't
spend it, this creates working capital for market action. If you
do spend it, you fund your nation. Simple, effective, and fair.

So poor people who don't buy much don't pay any tax and rich people
who buy more pay lots of tax. Sounds like a "soak the rich" scheme
to me, no matter how you sugarcoat it.

Again, you are missing the central point. We already have an very
abusive soak the rich scheme. Fair Tax at least makes it more
proportionally fair and administratively simple.

So an "administratively simple" "soak the rich" scheme is OK?

And what happens if everybody gets ****ed off at the government and
decides to keep their spending below the limit at which the refund
exceeds the taxes paid?


The same thing as if everybody gets "****ed off", quits their job
and stops earning taxable income. i.e., It is a fantasy.

Nope. Very different scenario. If everyone quits their job then they
have no income and they go hungry. If everyone decides to be frugal
then they all have income and all have food on the table and their
savings grow and the goverment has no income at all.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
NoOne N Particular wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
... snip
Then, change the voting rules so that only people within the
middle
class income range can vote. Only income from actual work
counts.
Interest, dividends, stock sales, etc. don't count. No more
freeloaders and no more richies. Just the so-called "average
joe".

Not sure why you want to exclude those who exceed a certain
income
threshold from voting. That kind of shows a certain amount of
dedication and success capability. In truth, they don't have
enough
numbers to significantly influence election results by much
anyway.

What should be required is that people who are living from
government benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the
people voting themselves the treasury that the founders were
warned
against. You have a dependency class voting for those who
promise
to take money from the people who are working and provide it
those
who are not. Self-support should be a pre-requisite for the
franchise.

And while we're at it, I think there should be a civics test,
required every decade or so - in English - as a pre-requisite to
voting.
That sort of thing has a very, very bad reputation. When such
testing was used, in some localities it was impossible for a
black
man, even if he had a PhD in English from Harvard, to pass such a
test.

Right. It has been abused. That needs to be watched for. But the
idea that any sub-literate knucklehead without a hint of what
animates
our laws should be able to vote is terrifying. That's how you
get a nation demanding that a "conservative" president fund all
manner
of social do-gooding that is fundamentally illegal.

Uh, the President doesn't fund anything.


No, but he approves and advocates for it as Bush did with the
entirely
illegal senior drug benefit program, for example.

If it's illegal the Supreme Court will knock it down. If they don't
then in your mind it's because they are part of the conspiracy. Now
I'm getting it.

Your tinfoil hat isn't working--maybe you should get some titanium
foil.

plonk

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Renata wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:17:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Renata wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 08:32:51 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

-snip-

If you don't like the current government, consider the
alternative.
-snip

What a cowardly statement!

Consider instead...

"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its
government."
Thomas Paine

Consider instead that the current government came from people who
were following that advice.

Not sure that they're so into protecting the _country_ from it's
government, but rather using that government for their own purposes.


So how would you change the government? Not just what changes
would
you make, but how would you bring them about?


And that is THE question. Rather complex, no?
For example, I have read several articles with suggestions, but,
quite
frankly, none of them seemed to propose ideas that would be
effective
given today's complacent populous, who aren't inclined to "rock the
boat" from their seemingly comfortable enclaves. Meanwhile, it
seems
that something rather unpleasant is sneaking up on all of us...

How 'bout you?

The options seem to be to leave, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere
else that's an improvement, or armed insurrection, but there aren't
enough people opposed to the current government to support such an
insurrection, or read legislation and write letters critical of it and
see what happens. One time I wrote a 30 page critique of a piece of
legislation and sent it to my representative and was surprised to find
that just about every comment I made was addressed in the bill that
was passed. I suppose I could run for office but I've never been very
good at popularity contests.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Greg G. wrote:

Out of $2.568 trillion spent in 2006:

460 billion went to the Treasury and 406 billion of this was for
payment of Interest to bankers on loans.

520 billion went to the DOD/Military Industrial.

610 billion went towards Heath and Human services.

Education ate a whopping 61 billion.
The DOT received 56 billion.
NASA blew up 15 billion.
The EPA wasted 12 billion.
National Science Foundation collected 6 billion.

Currently, there is more being paid into the Social Security Trust
Fund than is being paid out to beneficiaries. What's left is routinely
"borrowed" and used as if it were general budget revenue. Government
agencies using that money promise to pay it back, yet all of the money
in the Social Security Trust Fund has been spent. That is now part of
the $9.1 trillion National Debt. Social Security is currently
operating as a very large tax collection tool.

The "routine borrowing" is the law since the inception of SS. the trust
funds (and there are approx 150 of them) portion of the national debt is
about 4 trillion of the 9 trillion.

Folks that want the national debt eliminated should realize that it
would require 100% privatization of the SS and other trust funds as if
that debt were paid off, the trust funds would have to invest in non
government notes and equities, stuff it in matresses or bury it in
coffee cans somewhere.

As you can see, the bulk of expenditures are wasted on bankers,
military industrialists, and medical/subsidies. As far as I'm
concerned, the bulk of it could be eliminated. These are some of the
most concentrated groups of corrupt players on the dole.

Over 60% of the federal budget is for social programs. How SS and
medicare were justified under the commerce clause must have been an
interesting exercise in logic and law.

J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
SNIP

Not sure that penalizing them for deficit spending is
necessarily
a
good idea. Sometimes that helps the economy.
This is arguable. The government produces nothing, hence
cannot
add to the GDP.
The effect is indirect.


But even if it did so, the Federal Government
has no Constitutional authority to "help the economy".
Comes under "promote the general welfare".


That language comes from the preamble to the constitution,
which,
despite what some people including apparently you believe,
does
NOT
grant the federal government any power.
No, it gives them a duty. The power to perform that duty is
implied.
Are you saying that the Federal government is _forbidden_ to
enact
legislation that is beneficial to the economy?

Yes.
So you are saying then that any piece of legislation must be
carefully evaluated for its effect on the economy and any that is
found to be beneficial must not be enacted? Would that not mean
then that they would be obligated to err on the side of caution
and
only pass legislation that they were sure was _damaging_ to the
economy?

Or are you so naive as to believe that passing a budget for the
Federal government will have _no_ effect on the economy?
I am saying that it is illegal for the Federal government to act
without having *specific* permission to do so in the matter at
hand
in the Constitution. Examples of things where no such permission
is granted: Economic regulation, Education, Research, Healthcare,
Welfare, etc. Example of things specifically permitted: Defense
of the borders, running the courts, interstate commerce, running
the post office, etc.
And you of course have Supreme Court rulings to support this
argument. I didn't think so. Hint--the fact that you _think_
something is unlawful doesn't make it so.

SCOTUS is not the law of the land. The Constitution is. The fact
that activist judges (on both sides of the political divide) have
granted themselves power
to make law in their own image does not make it right.

So let's see, we've on the one hand got the opinions of a group of
experienced jurists, whose Constitutionally mandated job it is to
intrpret the Constitution and apply it as required to existing
statutes and case law, and on the other hand we've got the opinion of
some guy nobody ever heard of posting on USENET.

So who ya gonna believe?

Now you're talking "does not make it right". If you had taken that
tack you might have gotten more support, but you didn't, instead you
claimed "Illegal".


OK, you win.

Greg G. wrote:

As for me, I don't buy pharmaceuticals other than Ibuprofen and the
occasional antibiotic every few decades. I believe that a good 80% of
the "medicine" that is dumped onto the market is crap promoted by
abject sophistry.

You guys are too easy... ;-)

G'Night.
Greg G.

I must be in that 20% minority.....$10 a month pills keep me alive and to
this point combined with a previous surgery have given me 8 years I never
would have had. I'm sure your own personal experience justifies your silly
80% claimG....Rod

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:40:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

SNIPPING all kinds of silliness from all sides

More Supreme Court bashing. I'm sure that when you get your case in
front of them they're going to be real impressed with "You should rule
this to be unlawful because you are irrelevant".

Hint--the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to decide
what is and is not lawful under the Constitution. It gives you no
such power.

I have read the document thoroughly, including all amendments thereto
and just can't seem to find that part of the document that gives the
Supreme Court that power. Seems to me that the Supreme Court "found"
that power in deciding the case of Marbury v. Madison, and has used it
ever since. Only one President seemed to clearly choose to ignore that
concept - Jackson, when he simply ignored the Supreme Court ruling
regarding removal of indians from tribal lands. What the SC says is
meaningless if ignored by the executive who is not then impeached by
the legislative branch or is ignored by the legislative branch which
answers to nobody (until the next election). Oh, how easy the whole
deal could crumble if the various branches ever decide to really push
an issue against one another.


SNIPPING of more meaningless drivel

In article , Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:40:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

SNIPPING all kinds of silliness from all sides

More Supreme Court bashing. I'm sure that when you get your case in
front of them they're going to be real impressed with "You should rule
this to be unlawful because you are irrelevant".

Hint--the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to decide
what is and is not lawful under the Constitution. It gives you no
such power.

I have read the document thoroughly, including all amendments thereto
and just can't seem to find that part of the document that gives the
Supreme Court that power. Seems to me that the Supreme Court "found"
that power in deciding the case of Marbury v. Madison, and has used it
ever since.

Seems to me that it's not necessary to look very hard to find it, either: "The
judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
this Constitution..." [Article III, Section 2]

Only one President seemed to clearly choose to ignore that
concept - Jackson, when he simply ignored the Supreme Court ruling
regarding removal of indians from tribal lands. What the SC says is
meaningless if ignored by the executive who is not then impeached by
the legislative branch or is ignored by the legislative branch which
answers to nobody (until the next election). Oh, how easy the whole
deal could crumble if the various branches ever decide to really push
an issue against one another.

Certainly one problem is that the checks and balances on the power of the
Supreme Court are few and far between. Perhaps a solution would be an
amendment granting the President the power to veto a Court decision, with
Congress able to override the veto as they can now in the case of a bill.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.