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.

So in your opinion when there is some question as to whether a
particular statute violates the Constitution there is some _other_
agency of government that is responsible for making the determination?
If so, what agency is that?

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.

What you say about the SC being "meaningless" also applies to the
President if nobody decides to obey him and the Congress if everyody
ignores them and the Constitution as well. It can't even have a hissy
fit.

If you want to ignore the Supreme Court and decide that you are the
final arbiter of law, go ahead.

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

Damn, this puppy has legs if nothing else.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message ...

Damn, this puppy has legs if nothing else.

We hope that they are wooden legs.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:16:15 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

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.

--

Most of what I've seen involved writing your congress critters and
such. Sometimes a "strike" (e.g. don't go to work on such and such a
day) of some sort.

I am quite surprised that writing may actually be effective (from your
example)! Have to remember that.

I think that it's not that people aren't opposed to some of the things
going on, but that (without getting into too long a dissertation):
* they don't want to disrupt their relatively comfortable lives;
* they don't think it's going to be effective;
* they aren't personally impacted by any of the shenanigans (yet);
* they aren't really as well informed as they think (the corporate
media does an abysmal job, among other factors);
* they don't realize the implications of some of the shenanigans;
* they feel powerless.

Among others...

Renata

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:16:16 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

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.

So in your opinion when there is some question as to whether a
particular statute violates the Constitution there is some _other_
agency of government that is responsible for making the determination?
If so, what agency is that?

I didn't say that I thought that the Supreme Court making such
decisions was "bad", I was simply commenting on the statement that
"the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to decide
what is and is not lawful under the Constitution". This concept was
in fact discussed in the Federalist Papers (#78 if memory serves) and
in the "anti-federalist papers" too (I've no idea which one) and the
anti-federalists had it right by saying that they believed the
judicail powers given by the Constitution would make the Supreme Court
an oligarchy and despotic. Certainly nothing in prior governmental
structures allowed the judiciary to have final say as to what was
legal or not. British judiciary (upon which our judicial system was
essentially based) can have decisions over-ruled by parliment. The
fact of judicial review was conceptual and theoretical until Marbury
v. Madison established it and nobody impeached the Justices for their
actions and everyone decided to abide by the decision. It was indeed a
risky decision at a time when this type of governmental structure was
new and had a real possibility of failure if any group tried to take
too much 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.

What you say about the SC being "meaningless" also applies to the
President if nobody decides to obey him and the Congress if everyody
ignores them and the Constitution as well. It can't even have a hissy
fit.

If you want to ignore the Supreme Court and decide that you are the
final arbiter of law, go ahead.
Again, you read my comments wrongly. I certainly am not advocating
any such thing. I am simply pointing out the fragility of the
structure. It was far more fragile back when Marbury v. Madison
established judicial review and was still quite fragile when Jackson
blatantly ignored the SC and Congress allowed him to. It is
considerably less fragile now, but with the presidency trying to take
more and more power and the judiciary making up laws as they see fit,
while congress seemily simply ignores the constitution and makes up
federal authority as they want (commerce clause indeed), there are
some stresses showing. Clearly, I think most people can agree that the
strong federal govenment structure that we have today has no
resemblance to the fairly loose union of soverign states originally
established by the Constitution. Some of that change was done
officially via amendments to the Constitution, while most was done by
usurption of authority that was accepted by all branches of the
government and the vast majority of citizens (based on the lack of
action to stop it), but never formalized as amendments.
--

Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:16:16 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

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.

So in your opinion when there is some question as to whether a
particular statute violates the Constitution there is some _other_
agency of government that is responsible for making the
determination? If so, what agency is that?

I didn't say that I thought that the Supreme Court making such
decisions was "bad",

And I didn't say anything about "good" or "bad", I asked you what
agency was responsible for addressing that particular issue if it was
not the Supreme Court.

I was simply commenting on the statement that
"the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to decide
what is and is not lawful under the Constitution". This concept was
in fact discussed in the Federalist Papers (#78 if memory serves)
and
in the "anti-federalist papers" too (I've no idea which one) and the
anti-federalists had it right by saying that they believed the
judicail powers given by the Constitution would make the Supreme
Court
an oligarchy and despotic. Certainly nothing in prior governmental
structures allowed the judiciary to have final say as to what was
legal or not. British judiciary (upon which our judicial system was
essentially based) can have decisions over-ruled by parliment.

And the US Supreme Court does not have "the final say". It can have
decisions overrulled by Congress working in conjunction with the state
legislatures.

The
fact of judicial review was conceptual and theoretical until Marbury
v. Madison established it and nobody impeached the Justices for
their
actions and everyone decided to abide by the decision. It was indeed
a
risky decision at a time when this type of governmental structure
was
new and had a real possibility of failure if any group tried to take
too much 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.

What you say about the SC being "meaningless" also applies to the
President if nobody decides to obey him and the Congress if
everyody
ignores them and the Constitution as well. It can't even have a
hissy fit.

If you want to ignore the Supreme Court and decide that you are the
final arbiter of law, go ahead.
Again, you read my comments wrongly. I certainly am not advocating
any such thing. I am simply pointing out the fragility of the
structure. It was far more fragile back when Marbury v. Madison
established judicial review and was still quite fragile when Jackson
blatantly ignored the SC and Congress allowed him to. It is
considerably less fragile now, but with the presidency trying to
take
more and more power and the judiciary making up laws as they see
fit,
while congress seemily simply ignores the constitution and makes up
federal authority as they want (commerce clause indeed), there are
some stresses showing. Clearly, I think most people can agree that
the
strong federal govenment structure that we have today has no
resemblance to the fairly loose union of soverign states originally
established by the Constitution. Some of that change was done
officially via amendments to the Constitution, while most was done
by
usurption of authority that was accepted by all branches of the
government and the vast majority of citizens (based on the lack of
action to stop it), but never formalized as amendments.

So if you think it's busted tell us how to fix it.

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

Mark & Juanita wrote:
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.



Tis a sad country that discriminates simply because of age, health or
income.....You'd deny the vote simply because someone became ill or
disabled.....Not a world I'd choose to embrace. Rod

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
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.


A bit Odd....isn't the Supreme Court charged or empowered to determine legal
or illegal, the limits of federal power or what is or is not constitutional?
Did I miss a ruling that demonstrates your position? Are you not confusing
your own personal preference for the actual law of the land? Rod

Doug Miller wrote:
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.

We already have that.....It is called a constitutional amendment.......Not
particularly easy but always possible. Rod

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:52:03 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:16:16 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

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.

So in your opinion when there is some question as to whether a
particular statute violates the Constitution there is some _other_
agency of government that is responsible for making the
determination? If so, what agency is that?

I didn't say that I thought that the Supreme Court making such
decisions was "bad",

And I didn't say anything about "good" or "bad", I asked you what
agency was responsible for addressing that particular issue if it was
not the Supreme Court.

I was simply commenting on the statement that
"the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to decide
what is and is not lawful under the Constitution". This concept was
in fact discussed in the Federalist Papers (#78 if memory serves)
and
in the "anti-federalist papers" too (I've no idea which one) and the
anti-federalists had it right by saying that they believed the
judicail powers given by the Constitution would make the Supreme
Court
an oligarchy and despotic. Certainly nothing in prior governmental
structures allowed the judiciary to have final say as to what was
legal or not. British judiciary (upon which our judicial system was
essentially based) can have decisions over-ruled by parliment.

And the US Supreme Court does not have "the final say". It can have
decisions overrulled by Congress working in conjunction with the state
legislatures.

I guess that you are talking about a constitutional amendment every
time the Supreme Court rules on a case in a manner enough people
dislike. Could make the charter of the EU look simple beside what the
Constitution would become under such a concept. But, YOU ARE CORRECT,
we do indeed have the power to override the Supreme Court.

The
fact of judicial review was conceptual and theoretical until Marbury
v. Madison established it and nobody impeached the Justices for
their
actions and everyone decided to abide by the decision. It was indeed
a
risky decision at a time when this type of governmental structure
was
new and had a real possibility of failure if any group tried to take
too much 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.

What you say about the SC being "meaningless" also applies to the
President if nobody decides to obey him and the Congress if
everyody
ignores them and the Constitution as well. It can't even have a
hissy fit.

If you want to ignore the Supreme Court and decide that you are the
final arbiter of law, go ahead.
Again, you read my comments wrongly. I certainly am not advocating
any such thing. I am simply pointing out the fragility of the
structure. It was far more fragile back when Marbury v. Madison
established judicial review and was still quite fragile when Jackson
blatantly ignored the SC and Congress allowed him to. It is
considerably less fragile now, but with the presidency trying to
take
more and more power and the judiciary making up laws as they see
fit,
while congress seemily simply ignores the constitution and makes up
federal authority as they want (commerce clause indeed), there are
some stresses showing. Clearly, I think most people can agree that
the
strong federal govenment structure that we have today has no
resemblance to the fairly loose union of soverign states originally
established by the Constitution. Some of that change was done
officially via amendments to the Constitution, while most was done
by
usurption of authority that was accepted by all branches of the
government and the vast majority of citizens (based on the lack of
action to stop it), but never formalized as amendments.

So if you think it's busted tell us how to fix it.

You mean if I was in charge ;-)

Clearly the "fix" would be far more complicated than can (or certainly
should) be debated in a woodworking newsgroup. The original concept of
a group of soveriegn states united under a federal government whose
purpose was to be in charge of international affairs and squabbles &
interactions between or among the states seems better to me (The
United States ARE instead of the United States IS). I am not
intelligent enough to even postulate a reasonably achievable means of
getting that particular genie back in the bottle though and I am
pretty sure that most Americans don't actually want it back that way.
We do in fact have the government that most of us apparently want.

Dave Hall

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
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.



Tis a sad country that discriminates simply because of age, health or
income.....You'd deny the vote simply because someone became ill or
disabled.....Not a world I'd choose to embrace. Rod

No, I'd deny the vote to people who are going to use the vote to obtain a
government that uses its power to take money from other people who are
productive and "redistribute" it to themselves.


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

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
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.


A bit Odd....isn't the Supreme Court charged or empowered to determine
legal or illegal, the limits of federal power or what is or is not
constitutional?

If the Supremes limited themselves to doing that, life would be grand.
When you have a Supreme court justice who has publicly declared that he
also consults the laws and judicial decisions of other countries in helping
arrive at his decisions, we have a real problem.

Did I miss a ruling that demonstrates your position? Are you not
confusing
your own personal preference for the actual law of the land? Rod

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

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
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.


A bit Odd....isn't the Supreme Court charged or empowered to determine legal
or illegal, the limits of federal power or what is or is not constitutional?

Well ... SOCTUS kind of seized more power than they were actually granted
by the Constitution back when they heard Marbury v. Madison. But in any
case, it doesn't matter if the SCOTUS does not choose to "Defend And Protect
The Constitution" as their swearing in declares. Defending And Protecting
does not mean making up new law from whole cloth as the recent courts
have done, nor does it include ignore clear overreaching by the legislature
which the court has been ignoring in large part since the time of FDR (and
possibly before.)


Did I miss a ruling that demonstrates your position? Are you not confusing
your own personal preference for the actual law of the land? Rod



No. I am reflecting the very well documented intent of the Framers that they
wanted a legal system of "enumerated powers". It something is not "enumerated"
as a power granted to the Federal government it is automatically forbidden
for the Feds to do. This is not some accidental thing. This was a conscious
and purposeful decision made when the Constitution was drafted and eventually
ratified. So -in this example - if the Federal government is acting upon one
of its enumerated powers and this happens to be beneficial to the economy, this
is not a problem. But if they act specifically and narrowly to benefit the
economy, this is forbidden because 'improving the economy' is not an enumerated
power granted to the Federal government.

I read the Declaration and the Constitution every single year. I also take a moment
at that time to read something from on the Framers or one of their intellectual
influencers like Locke. I am certain they would be disgusted with what the
Federal government has become: A low-grade do-gooding institution that
practices wealth redistribution at the point of a gun (or at least the
threat of same - try not paying your taxes and see what happens).

We have essentially abandoned the key precept of the
Constitution ("preserve Liberty") and replaced with a gooey feel-good version
of government as everyone's Mommy (the Liberals) or Daddy (the Conservatives).
Instead of "preserve Liberty" we now demand that "government should do good things",
we just don't agree on which "good things" they should do. This abandonment
of liberty as the central purpose of government comes at a very high price.
We are getting less and less liberty AND fewer and fewer "good things". This is
possible because of an unholy alliance between the legislature, executive branch,
SCOTUS, and, most of all, the voting public, who have turned their backs on what
actually made the American experiment work. In less than 5 decades of living here
(I am an immigrant) I have seen:

1) A decline in personal liberty

2) An increase in average taxation

3) An increasing portion of the population demanding whatever they want and
calling it a "right"

4) And increasing level of Federal government involvement in virtually
every aspect of what ought properly to be private: Education, savings, sexual choices,
healthcare, recreational substance use just to name a few ... NONE of which
exist as subjects of enumerated power for the Federal government.

5) A demand by the population that government solve all problems on their behalf.

In short, we shall surely get what we've asked for. A big, bloated, unaccountable
bureaucracy put in place by the sheeple so they can raid each other's wallets.
In the mean time Liberty has left the building (or is at leas on Her way out) ...

No, this is not *my* wishlist. It was the intent of the Framers. But it's too late.
Americans as a whole would rather loot each other than be free. I won't live long enough
to see the end game, and for that at least, I am grateful. But it is tragic that the
nation that transformed the world in less than 250 years - a world that had been a misery
for most people in the prior 10 millenia - will disappear with a whimper from bloated,
greedy, and dishonest citizens who want what they have not earned for themselves and
demand their government steal it from other people. RIP.

P.S. If you don't think so, ask yourself just why the dollar is so weak at the moment.
Here's a hint. By tinkering with monetary policy, the dollar can be weakened
so that old debt it paid back with relatively weaker dollars. Why do we
"need" to do that? Because the sheeple put the Feds on a major spending binge
ever since the 1960s, so we have debt - a lot of debt. I am always amused
to hear the anti-war bunch squealing about how much money is being spent on
the military. It is a pittance compared the sheeple's looting of the
treasure for their pet social entitlement programs.

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
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.



Tis a sad country that discriminates simply because of age, health or
income.....You'd deny the vote simply because someone became ill or
disabled.....Not a world I'd choose to embrace. Rod



No - he would deny a vote because someone is living off someone else's wallet.
There is no "discrimination" involved. No one forces any of the people in
the aforementioned classes to use government as their proxy for stealing
Other People's Money.

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

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.



A bit Odd....isn't the Supreme Court charged or empowered to determine legal
or illegal, the limits of federal power or what is or is not constitutional?

Your question is more complicated than you think. It can't be answered with a
simple yes or no. The answer is sometimes Yes, sometimes No, and sometimes Yes
but ...

The role of all courts, including the SCT, is simply to decide cases other
parties bring to the courts for resolution. In deciding those cases, the courts
have to make rulings on what the law is. Technically, those rulings are binding
only on the parties to that case. But to avoid inconsistent judgments, the
courts follow a principle that, once an issue has been decided a certain way,
the courts on future cases will decide the same issue the same way. Lower
courts are obligated to follow the decisions of higher courts, which can
overrule themselves but are reluctant to do so for many reasons.

Courts can't simply come out and say something is or is not constitutional.
When they rule on such things, it is always in the context of a case someone has
brought before them. What the issue is, and who the parties are, and the
particular facts of a case, can make the answer to your question very complicated.

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

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.


We already have that.....It is called a constitutional amendment.......Not
particularly easy but always possible. Rod


The President commands the armed forces, Congress controls the purse strings.
Both are inherently political. The Courts are insulated from partisan politics.
They can only decide cases presented to them, and their only power is that of
the pen. You fellers ought to consider those facts before advocating a system
that would scrap a person's right to a trial by jury and the right to an
attorney, where the President rather than the courts would decide private cases
without even giving the parties the benefit of a trial, and where Congress, that
eternal fount of infinite wisdom, has the final say on those private cases.

Dave Hall wrote:


I guess that you are talking about a constitutional amendment every
time the Supreme Court rules on a case in a manner enough people
dislike. Could make the charter of the EU look simple beside what the
Constitution would become under such a concept. But, YOU ARE CORRECT,
we do indeed have the power to override the Supreme Court.


That's not accurate. To override the Supreme Court would be to exercise a power
over the Supreme Court, saying a decision it made was wrongly decided under
existing law, and reversing the decision. A constitutional amendment wouldn't
do that. It would CHANGE the law, which is a much different thing. It wouldn't
even change the outcome of the case the SCT decided unless the change in the law
was retroactive, which is often not possible because of the constitutional
prohibition against ex post facto laws.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Tis a sad country that discriminates simply because of age, health or
income.....You'd deny the vote simply because someone became ill or
disabled.....Not a world I'd choose to embrace. Rod



No - he would deny a vote because someone is living off someone
else's wallet. There is no "discrimination" involved. No one forces
any of the people in the aforementioned classes to use government as their
proxy for
stealing Other People's Money.

My point is the elderly, ill or disabled ......Indeed there are those among
us whom cannot through no fault of their own support themselves. To deny
these as less worthy to vote than those blessed with good health is quite
despicable. And I would suggest quite contrary to the basic ideals of a
freedom loving people. How with a clear conscious can one support such
arrogance? Rod

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:20:49 -0700, Just Wondering
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


I guess that you are talking about a constitutional amendment every
time the Supreme Court rules on a case in a manner enough people
dislike. Could make the charter of the EU look simple beside what the
Constitution would become under such a concept. But, YOU ARE CORRECT,
we do indeed have the power to override the Supreme Court.


That's not accurate. To override the Supreme Court would be to exercise a power
over the Supreme Court, saying a decision it made was wrongly decided under
existing law, and reversing the decision. A constitutional amendment wouldn't
do that. It would CHANGE the law, which is a much different thing. It wouldn't
even change the outcome of the case the SCT decided unless the change in the law
was retroactive, which is often not possible because of the constitutional
prohibition against ex post facto laws.

Yeah, semantically you are probably correct on the first part. The
effect would certainly be the same though. However, by the very nature
of a constitutional amendment anything in the new amendment would
override anything in the existing constitution, so if the amendment
stated that it was retroactive that would override the prohibition on
ex post facto application.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
A bit Odd....isn't the Supreme Court charged or empowered to
determine legal or illegal, the limits of federal power or what is
or is not constitutional?

If the Supremes limited themselves to doing that, life would be
grand. When you have a Supreme court justice who has publicly
declared that he also consults the laws and judicial decisions of
other countries in helping arrive at his decisions, we have a real
problem.


Very true and a strong argument to pick a President whom will appoint Judges
that prefer not to create law but rather interpret.....nonetheless if one
believes in this country, its laws, heritage and potential.....picking which
laws you agree with and claiming everything else illegal is downright
stupid...among other things. Rod

On Dec 12, 6:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
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.

Tis a sad country that discriminates simply because of age, health or
income.....You'd deny the vote simply because someone became ill or
disabled.....Not a world I'd choose to embrace. Rod

No - he would deny a vote because someone is living off someone else's wallet.
There is no "discrimination" involved. No one forces any of the people in
the aforementioned classes to use government as their proxy for stealing
Other People's Money.

Ah. Get to a certain age, or have your health fail, and be unable to
work and then...Soylent Green.

What horse****.

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Tis a sad country that discriminates simply because of age, health or
income.....You'd deny the vote simply because someone became ill or
disabled.....Not a world I'd choose to embrace. Rod


No - he would deny a vote because someone is living off someone
else's wallet. There is no "discrimination" involved. No one forces
any of the people in the aforementioned classes to use government as their
proxy for
stealing Other People's Money.

My point is the elderly, ill or disabled ......Indeed there are those among
us whom cannot through no fault of their own support themselves. To deny
these as less worthy to vote than those blessed with good health is quite
despicable. And I would suggest quite contrary to the basic ideals of a
freedom loving people. How with a clear conscious can one support such
arrogance? Rod



How can you support the forced redistribution of personal property by
threat of government force? I am all for helping those who are in need
by no action on their own part. I am NOT for being forced to do so with
the government's gun in my ear while some third party decides for me just
who is and who is not worthy of *my* assets.

Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 12, 6:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
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.
Tis a sad country that discriminates simply because of age, health or
income.....You'd deny the vote simply because someone became ill or
disabled.....Not a world I'd choose to embrace. Rod

No - he would deny a vote because someone is living off someone else's wallet.
There is no "discrimination" involved. No one forces any of the people in
the aforementioned classes to use government as their proxy for stealing
Other People's Money.

Ah. Get to a certain age, or have your health fail, and be unable to
work and then...Soylent Green.

No. Plan to get old and unable to work so you are prepared for that day.
OR ... find people who practice private charity (like me) and ask for
their help. Don't go to the government and demand the contents of other
people's wallets. That is ordinarily called "stealing".


What horse****.

You advocate the use of (government) force to take assets from one person, lift some
of it for government overhead, and give the remainder to some faceless stranger and
you cal *my* idea, BS?

FWIW, the "deny them the vote thing" is impractical and anti-Constitutional, so
I don't actually support it. The right thing to do is quit wealth redistribution
by force entirely. But ... since you apparently are like so many others and
are happy to see you government engage in theft on your own behalf, how can you
expect those of us who object to this practice to play nice?

In article , Just Wondering wrote:

The President commands the armed forces, Congress controls the purse strings.
Both are inherently political. The Courts are insulated from partisan
politics.

That's only partly correct...

They can only decide cases presented to them

... because the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to restrict the
Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, i.e. what cases are presented to them.
The areas in which the Court has *original* jurisdiction are limited to "all
Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in
which a State shall be Party". Congress could, if it wished, effectively
prevent the Court from hearing any appellate cases at all.

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

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

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
My point is the elderly, ill or disabled ......Indeed there are
those among us whom cannot through no fault of their own support
themselves. To deny these as less worthy to vote than those blessed
with good health is quite despicable. And I would suggest quite
contrary to the basic ideals of a freedom loving people. How with
a clear conscious can one support such arrogance? Rod



How can you support the forced redistribution of personal property by
threat of government force? I am all for helping those who are in
need by no action on their own part. I am NOT for being forced to do
so with the government's gun in my ear while some third party decides
for me just who is and who is not worthy of *my* assets.

The issue I was specifically addressing is whom is allowed to vote......

On taxation itself, society as we know it as well as the ability to earn
said taxed income would not exist without a tax funded Government. People by
their very nature would not voluntarily send in sufficient funds to finance
even a shell of what we have today. Oddly worldwide as well as historically
countries that spend money and tax their people have the highest standard of
living and are the most productive societies. One may rationally argue that
being on the lower end of the curve works better U.S. Vs Europe but
societies with little or no tax do not do well at all......Rod

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
My point is the elderly, ill or disabled ......Indeed there are
those among us whom cannot through no fault of their own support
themselves. To deny these as less worthy to vote than those
blessed
with good health is quite despicable. And I would suggest quite
contrary to the basic ideals of a freedom loving people. How
with
a clear conscious can one support such arrogance? Rod



How can you support the forced redistribution of personal property
by
threat of government force? I am all for helping those who are in
need by no action on their own part. I am NOT for being forced to
do
so with the government's gun in my ear while some third party
decides
for me just who is and who is not worthy of *my* assets.

The issue I was specifically addressing is whom is allowed to
vote......

On taxation itself, society as we know it as well as the ability to
earn said taxed income would not exist without a tax funded
Government. People by their very nature would not voluntarily send
in
sufficient funds to finance even a shell of what we have today.
Oddly
worldwide as well as historically countries that spend money and tax
their people have the highest standard of living and are the most
productive societies. One may rationally argue that being on the
lower end of the curve works better U.S. Vs Europe but societies
with
little or no tax do not do well at all......Rod

Is it that they are wealthy because they are taxed or that they are
taxed because they are wealthy? Taxing people who don't have
anything to tax is a losing proposition.

And the fact that people would not voluntarily send in funds in the
amount that they are taxed shows how far from the truth the assertion
that the US is a "democracy" actually lies.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
My point is the elderly, ill or disabled ......Indeed there are
those among us whom cannot through no fault of their own support
themselves. To deny these as less worthy to vote than those blessed
with good health is quite despicable. And I would suggest quite
contrary to the basic ideals of a freedom loving people. How with
a clear conscious can one support such arrogance? Rod


How can you support the forced redistribution of personal property by
threat of government force? I am all for helping those who are in
need by no action on their own part. I am NOT for being forced to do
so with the government's gun in my ear while some third party decides
for me just who is and who is not worthy of *my* assets.

The issue I was specifically addressing is whom is allowed to vote......

Noted


On taxation itself, society as we know it as well as the ability to earn
said taxed income would not exist without a tax funded Government. People by
their very nature would not voluntarily send in sufficient funds to finance
even a shell of what we have today. Oddly worldwide as well as historically
countries that spend money and tax their people have the highest standard of
living and are the most productive societies. One may rationally argue that
being on the lower end of the curve works better U.S. Vs Europe but
societies with little or no tax do not do well at all......Rod



I do not object to taxation per se. I object to taxation beyond that
necessary to maintain the liberty in a nation-state. History does
indeed show that some kind of government is needed to preserve
liberty. But "defending liberty" in terms of monies expended by the US
Federal government (for military and the DOJ - the primary instruments
thereof) is relatively the smaller of our spendings. Between the
social do-gooding that has polluted our government and the consequent
debt this created, something well north of 60% of the Federal treasury
gets burned down ... for something the Feds have *no* permission to
do. It's absurd.


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

J. Clarke wrote:
Is it that they are wealthy because they are taxed or that they are
taxed because they are wealthy? Taxing people who don't have
anything to tax is a losing proposition.

But not a realistic position......there is always someone to tax.

It does prove that taxes do not destroy a country otherwise the poorest
least taxed countries would prosper....incidentally I do feel a Government
should tax and spend as little as possible but they are responsible for
fulfilling the publics mandate for desired services or functions.

And the fact that people would not voluntarily send in funds in the
amount that they are taxed shows how far from the truth the assertion
that the US is a "democracy" actually lies.


I'd be happy to question our level of freedom in a country that requires me
to wear a seatbelt or that requires a permit(permission) to trim a parking
strip tree etc.....however the likely failure of voluntary taxation only
demonstrates that grocery stores can't survive on the honor system
either.....its human nature. Realistically people vote every year for taxes
via whom they elect, school levies they pass....majority rule is a bitch
when yours is a minority position. Rod

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
I do not object to taxation per se. I object to taxation beyond that
necessary to maintain the liberty in a nation-state. History does
indeed show that some kind of government is needed to preserve
liberty. But "defending liberty" in terms of monies expended by the US
Federal government (for military and the DOJ - the primary instruments
thereof) is relatively the smaller of our spendings. Between the
social do-gooding that has polluted our government and the consequent
debt this created, something well north of 60% of the Federal treasury
gets burned down ... for something the Feds have *no* permission to
do. It's absurd.

I'd dispute the lack of "permission" for the most part ....the public has a
clear and proper voice and the courts have clearly spoken to the legality.
The individual may not approve but we are not a country of one. While one
could spend hours discussing Gov. waste, this program or another, the sheer
scope of the bureaucracy to manage 300,000,000 people makes it largely
inevitable. I'd challenge one to find any household or business that doesn't
routinely "waste" money in some fashion or another.....even worse "waste"
for one may be a "necessary" expenditure for another.

However one very bad national policy we suffer from is the federal
deficit....we should run a deficit when the economy sours, even a large one.
In-between economic cycles the budget should be nearly balanced, when in
full expansion we should have large surpluses thereby paying back the "sour"
deficits.....Such would soften economic extremes and would be fiscally
responsible......Rod

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Is it that they are wealthy because they are taxed or that they are
taxed because they are wealthy? Taxing people who don't have
anything to tax is a losing proposition.

But not a realistic position......there is always someone to tax.

It does prove that taxes do not destroy a country otherwise the
poorest least taxed countries would prosper....

If taxes were the only factor.

incidentally I do feel
a Government should tax and spend as little as possible but they are
responsible for fulfilling the publics mandate for desired services
or functions.

Does a majority in the US want those "services or functions"? And
don't say "if they didn't they'd vote the suckers out"--that is a very
naive view of American politics. At every election we vote some of
the suckers out and with every election the new suckers just go do the
same thing the old ones did but with a different line of bull****.

And the fact that people would not voluntarily send in funds in the
amount that they are taxed shows how far from the truth the
assertion
that the US is a "democracy" actually lies.


I'd be happy to question our level of freedom in a country that
requires me to wear a seatbelt or that requires a permit(permission)
to trim a parking strip tree etc.....however the likely failure of
voluntary taxation only demonstrates that grocery stores can't
survive on the honor system either.....its human nature.

I've seen no armed guards searching people leaving grocery stores. In
point of fact they _do_ substantially survive on the honor system. In
fact some local stores are almost completely on the honor system--it's
quite easy to sneak things through the automated checkout.

Realistically people vote every year for taxes via whom they elect,
school levies they pass....majority rule is a bitch when yours is a
minority position. Rod

So find me a candidate who will promise to lower taxes and keep that
promise. Remember Bush Senior and "read my lips, no new taxes" and
then what does he do, he turns right around and signs a tax increase.

Or is it your contention that the majority in the US wants higher
taxes?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
I do not object to taxation per se. I object to taxation beyond
that
necessary to maintain the liberty in a nation-state. History does
indeed show that some kind of government is needed to preserve
liberty. But "defending liberty" in terms of monies expended by the
US Federal government (for military and the DOJ - the primary
instruments thereof) is relatively the smaller of our spendings.
Between the social do-gooding that has polluted our government and
the consequent debt this created, something well north of 60% of
the
Federal treasury gets burned down ... for something the Feds have
*no* permission to do. It's absurd.

I'd dispute the lack of "permission" for the most part ....the
public
has a clear and proper voice and the courts have clearly spoken to
the legality.

Well, clearly once they were informed "if you don't reverse your
ruling declaring this socialist crap to be a violation of the
Constitution then we'll add enough more justices to the Court to
overrule you and we'll make sure they are all intending to vote _our_
way". That's how Roosevelt got the New Deal through you know.

The individual may not approve but we are not a country
of one. While one could spend hours discussing Gov. waste, this
program or another, the sheer scope of the bureaucracy to manage
300,000,000 people makes it largely inevitable.

Where does the Constitution give the government a mandate to "manage"
anybody who is not a government employee? The government trying to
micromanage the lot of us is part of the problem.

I'd challenge one to
find any household or business that doesn't routinely "waste" money
in some fashion or another.....even worse "waste" for one may be a
"necessary" expenditure for another.

However one very bad national policy we suffer from is the federal
deficit....we should run a deficit when the economy sours, even a
large one. In-between economic cycles the budget should be nearly
balanced, when in full expansion we should have large surpluses
thereby paying back the "sour" deficits.....Such would soften
economic extremes and would be fiscally responsible......Rod

Oh, but according to the people who actually think that democracy
works, the pee-pull must want deficits otherwise they'd vote them
away.

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

On Dec 13, 9:42 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 12, 6:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:
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.
Tis a sad country that discriminates simply because of age, health or
income.....You'd deny the vote simply because someone became ill or
disabled.....Not a world I'd choose to embrace. Rod
No - he would deny a vote because someone is living off someone else's wallet.
There is no "discrimination" involved. No one forces any of the people in
the aforementioned classes to use government as their proxy for stealing
Other People's Money.

Ah. Get to a certain age, or have your health fail, and be unable to
work and then...Soylent Green.

No. Plan to get old and unable to work so you are prepared for that day.
OR ... find people who practice private charity (like me) and ask for
their help. Don't go to the government and demand the contents of other
people's wallets. That is ordinarily called "stealing".



What horse****.

You advocate the use of (government) force to take assets from one person, lift some
of it for government overhead, and give the remainder to some faceless stranger and
you cal *my* idea, BS?

FWIW, the "deny them the vote thing" is impractical and anti-Constitutional, so
I don't actually support it. The right thing to do is quit wealth redistribution
by force entirely. But ... since you apparently are like so many others and
are happy to see you government engage in theft on your own behalf, how can you
expect those of us who object to this practice to play nice?

And you advocate letting those unable to make enough money to save for
their old age starve or die of medical complications. Typical
Libertian horse****.

On Dec 14, 7:39 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:


Oh, but according to the people who actually think that democracy
works, the pee-pull must want deficits otherwise they'd vote them
away.


The pee-pull want deficits just about as much as they want hanging
chad and Supreme Court interference in elections.

On Dec 14, 7:34 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:

So find me a candidate who will promise to lower taxes and keep that
promise. Remember Bush Senior and "read my lips, no new taxes" and
then what does he do, he turns right around and signs a tax increase.

Or is it your contention that the majority in the US wants higher
taxes?
--

They are going to get them. The current Bush has run us in debt for an
unnecessary war to the point where our grandchildren's grandchildren
will still be paying the costs (even assuming we can get out within a
reasonable period, which probably isn't the case). All done without a
tax increase, and, in fact, with a tax cut for those making over 100K.

Whoever gets elected next is going to have to raise taxes, and quite
probably by a considerable amount.

Look for it.

J. Clarke wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

However one very bad national policy we suffer from is the federal
deficit....we should run a deficit when the economy sours, even a
large one. In-between economic cycles the budget should be nearly
balanced, when in full expansion we should have large surpluses
thereby paying back the "sour" deficits.....Such would soften
economic extremes and would be fiscally responsible......Rod

Oh, but according to the people who actually think that democracy
works, the pee-pull must want deficits otherwise they'd vote them
away.


Can't get rid of the national debt without privatizing the Social
Security Trust Fund as over 40% of the debt is a result of this "intra
governmental debt". Part of FDR's new deal mandated that the federal
government sell any extra SS taxes (above what was paid out) to the
general fund in exchange for an IOU.

And a BTW, there hasn't been a real surplus since 1960 under Eisenhower.

Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
I do not object to taxation per se. I object to taxation beyond that
necessary to maintain the liberty in a nation-state. History does
indeed show that some kind of government is needed to preserve
liberty. But "defending liberty" in terms of monies expended by the US
Federal government (for military and the DOJ - the primary instruments
thereof) is relatively the smaller of our spendings. Between the
social do-gooding that has polluted our government and the consequent
debt this created, something well north of 60% of the Federal treasury
gets burned down ... for something the Feds have *no* permission to
do. It's absurd.

I'd dispute the lack of "permission" for the most part ....the public has a
clear and proper voice and the courts have clearly spoken to the legality.
The individual may not approve but we are not a country of one. While one

Translation: The mooching public has convinced the legislative, executive,
and judicial branches to ignore the very clear intent of enumerated
powers in the Constitution. It has done so dishonestly and has not
even bothered to go through the process that exists to change the
Constitution legally.

could spend hours discussing Gov. waste, this program or another, the sheer
scope of the bureaucracy to manage 300,000,000 people makes it largely
inevitable. I'd challenge one to find any household or business that doesn't

The amount of waste spent on actually running the government itself
is tiny. The real abusive spending comes from social entitlements
which are huge, out of control, growing, and unsustainable. The head
of the GAO says so. Most economists agree. The sheeple mooch on...

routinely "waste" money in some fashion or another.....even worse "waste"
for one may be a "necessary" expenditure for another.

Except that households and businesses do not extract money from their
constituents at the point of a gun - or, if they do, they go to
jail. Big difference.



However one very bad national policy we suffer from is the federal
deficit....we should run a deficit when the economy sours, even a large one.

Which is a *direct* result (primarily) of the mooching public. The
something-for-nothing social entitlements are bankrupting the public
treasury over time. Wait till the rest of us 'boomers retire - anyone
currently under the age of 40 or so, is going to get hit with massive
taxation and/or the nation will inflate the currency to pay of the old
debt (thereby crushing the economic future of the people) and/or
new and interesting wars will be invented as necessary, since they
tend to stimulate the economy in the short term. Money is not magic;
you cannot spend more and more money you do not have every year and
expect economic health. When $1+ Trillion is spent on social entitlement
(again, activity which the Constitution does not grant the Feds)
the debt grows like crazy. We apparently have the same problem the
Communists had in the 20th Century: They thought they could legislate
their way out of economic reality. They couldn't, and we can't either.

In-between economic cycles the budget should be nearly balanced, when in
full expansion we should have large surpluses thereby paying back the "sour"
deficits.....Such would soften economic extremes and would be fiscally
responsible......Rod


No. We should shrink the Federal government to its Constitutionally
mandated size and quit trying to use government as the uncle with
a pocket full of money.

Viva Ron Paul...

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

Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 14, 7:39 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:

Oh, but according to the people who actually think that democracy
works, the pee-pull must want deficits otherwise they'd vote them
away.


The pee-pull want deficits just about as much as they want hanging
chad and Supreme Court interference in elections.

That's right - they want economic magic: No deficits AND big fat
mooching public entitlements: Taking more out of Social Security
than they ever paid in, A drug program for elders that NO one paid
into ahead of time, blah, blah, blah ... Moochers Unite ... and then
demand that there be no debt. It's pathetic.

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

Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 14, 7:34 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
So find me a candidate who will promise to lower taxes and keep that
promise. Remember Bush Senior and "read my lips, no new taxes" and
then what does he do, he turns right around and signs a tax increase.

Or is it your contention that the majority in the US wants higher
taxes?
--

They are going to get them. The current Bush has run us in debt for an
unnecessary war to the point where our grandchildren's grandchildren
will still be paying the costs (even assuming we can get out within a
reasonable period, which probably isn't the case). All done without a
tax increase, and, in fact, with a tax cut for those making over 100K.

Whoever gets elected next is going to have to raise taxes, and quite
probably by a considerable amount.

Look for it.

We need to update Godwin's Law to make it say "Bush" instead of
"Hitler". You Bush-haters (I am not a Republican and am not
defending him here) start frothing at the mouth at every
opportunity you get to blame him for something...

You are dead *wrong* about this. Bush did not crank up
the debt primarily because of war. He cranked up the debt to
pay for the mooching retirees who wanted "free" drugs. That
cost far and away exceeds our war debt. Moreover, and to his
credit, he anticipated the economic downturn that was handed to
him by his predecessor and was smart enough to cut taxes to
stimulate private-sector wealth formation ... and thus tax
revenues have increased.

The domestic moochers are bankrupting us, not the Pentagon.

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

Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 13, 9:42 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 12, 6:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
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.
Tis a sad country that discriminates simply because of age, health or
income.....You'd deny the vote simply because someone became ill or
disabled.....Not a world I'd choose to embrace. Rod
No - he would deny a vote because someone is living off someone else's wallet.
There is no "discrimination" involved. No one forces any of the people in
the aforementioned classes to use government as their proxy for stealing
Other People's Money.
Ah. Get to a certain age, or have your health fail, and be unable to
work and then...Soylent Green.
No. Plan to get old and unable to work so you are prepared for that day.
OR ... find people who practice private charity (like me) and ask for
their help. Don't go to the government and demand the contents of other
people's wallets. That is ordinarily called "stealing".



What horse****.
You advocate the use of (government) force to take assets from one person, lift some
of it for government overhead, and give the remainder to some faceless stranger and
you cal *my* idea, BS?

FWIW, the "deny them the vote thing" is impractical and anti-Constitutional, so
I don't actually support it. The right thing to do is quit wealth redistribution
by force entirely. But ... since you apparently are like so many others and
are happy to see you government engage in theft on your own behalf, how can you
expect those of us who object to this practice to play nice?

And you advocate letting those unable to make enough money to save for
their old age starve or die of medical complications. Typical
Libertian horse****.


Guess what Sparky, we are ALL gonna die. Better get used to it.
No amount of government spending will fix that despite what all
the moochers want. The only possible way we might be able to
avoid or delay it is to have the morons in government declare
a "War On Living". Since they fail at every other "War On ...",
perhaps a "War On Living" would prolong our lives, I dunno.

Most of us Libertarians are happy to contribute to decent and
useful charities - I am about to do so this weekend. But do please
explain to me how it is morally legitimate to yank money out of
my pocket by force - so that I cannot spent it on my family -
to serve some cause *you* believe in? I don't steal from you.
I don't wish my government to do so on my behalf. But you defend
this as if it were normal and natural. So do explain: How is
theft by proxy morally just? Here is one big hint: Your deep
compassion for the elderly underclass is fraudulent if it depends
on Other People's Money. If you care so much about others, YOU
pony up the money and/or convince others to join you. That's
what charities do...

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

On Dec 14, 11:57 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 14, 7:34 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
So find me a candidate who will promise to lower taxes and keep that
promise. Remember Bush Senior and "read my lips, no new taxes" and
then what does he do, he turns right around and signs a tax increase.

Or is it your contention that the majority in the US wants higher
taxes?
--

They are going to get them. The current Bush has run us in debt for an
unnecessary war to the point where our grandchildren's grandchildren
will still be paying the costs (even assuming we can get out within a
reasonable period, which probably isn't the case). All done without a
tax increase, and, in fact, with a tax cut for those making over 100K.

Whoever gets elected next is going to have to raise taxes, and quite
probably by a considerable amount.

Look for it.

We need to update Godwin's Law to make it say "Bush" instead of
"Hitler". You Bush-haters (I am not a Republican and am not
defending him here) start frothing at the mouth at every
opportunity you get to blame him for something...

You are dead *wrong* about this. Bush did not crank up
the debt primarily because of war. He cranked up the debt to
pay for the mooching retirees who wanted "free" drugs. That
cost far and away exceeds our war debt. Moreover, and to his
credit, he anticipated the economic downturn that was handed to
him by his predecessor and was smart enough to cut taxes to
stimulate private-sector wealth formation ... and thus tax
revenues have increased.

The domestic moochers are bankrupting us, not the Pentagon.

--

Say what? Free drugs? Why the hell are my friends paying for insurance
that now leaves them paying thousands of bucks after **** poor
coverage to start the year?

Your view of reality is interesting. Sort of.