Conservatives stamping their feet furiously like Veruca Salt is funny.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
Oh, but don’t you know that SMALL GOVERNMENT could take care of all those things? Because it’s so efficient and productive. Yep.
yeah, b/c there were NO traffic lights and stop signs before obama decided to quadruple the nat’l debt.
It seems clear enough to me: they support deficit spending.
I’m going to go ahead and make the wild, statistical assumption that the woman holding the “Cut taxes, not defense” sign will be getting a tax cut under Obama, like the vast majority of Americans are. She also seems unaware that the defense budget increased under Obama’s first budget. What a moran!
Off MY sidewalk you degenerate leeches!
Maybe we’ll aspportion a small dirt lot for you to “protest” in.
SAM NY -
Get a clue. The sign clearly states “ZERO TAXES”. Where does that woman think all the things labeled in the photo came from? The sign behind her appears to say ’stop taxing us’, it’s partially blocked, so it may not say that, but then again where does the person holding that sign think all the labeled items came from? You want to make this about increased sopending, that is fine, but you need to go find a photo showing protesters with signs saying that.
As for the woman holding the “CUT TAXES NOT DEFENSE” sign, I guess she missed the part where the defense budget has axctually increased under the new administration. Perhaps she meant to protest the cut in the F-22 budget. If so, maybe she can explain why we need the plane considering it’s been deployed for over 5 years now (we have been at war the entire time the plane has been in service) and it has yet to fire a shot. The F-35 and the F-18 are superior weapons systems, and they are being continued. Of course, I am only guessing as to what she meant.
Sorry to ramble, but you did leave the door open…
SAM N/Y -
You’re right. Let’s not build anything new and let’s leave everything else to fall apart.
If you complain about a pothole and fail to fill it yourself then you’re in favor of taxation.
Yes, because the government only limits itself to infrastructure. Render unto me a freakin’ break.
This is nearly as stupid as arguing that since libertarians want smaller government they actually want to recreate Somalia.
If you complain about a pothole and fail to fill it yourself then you’re in favor of taxation.
And a dirty fucking Swedish socialist.
This is nearly as stupid as arguing that since libertarians want smaller government they actually want to recreate Somalia.
Which is probably why I’ve never heard anyone sane make this argument.
“How small?” is the operative question. Most of the right seems to want to keep increasing defense spending above the rate of inflation (so, let’s say 600 Billion). And corporations are in no hurry to give up their tax shelters or various subsidies(100 Billion plus per year). You could eliminate Social Security and Medicare, but presumably if you did so it wouldn’t be fair to not refund at least some of that money (assume we’re paying back at least 200 Billion a year). Debt service is what, a couple hundred billion a year now? And if we cut discretionary spending in half, we’d still be looking at around 250 billion a year. Even if you miraculously cut the budget by 2/3, you’d still wind up with “big government”, because we have a large, prosperous, socioeconomically complex country. And some of those cuts would have to be offset by state and local spending, or some sort of private sector initiative, which means this isn’t really about big vs. small, but big vs. slightly less big.
Which is probably why I’ve never heard anyone sane make this argument.
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2009/04/18/its-like-they-want-to-pretend-away-the-past
C.S.Strowbridge: “And maybe he shouldn’t have to pay for the roads you use. We keep this up and eventually you turn the country into Somalia.”
And the context for that quote is a response that I shouldn’t be responsible for Oliver’s health care, a facet of advocating smaller government.
I guess you think he is insane.
I believe you can also see some lefty shouting about Somalia in this video of the tea party protest that Oliver attended:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21294.html
All righty then Colin, I call. Prove to the forum you aren’t a Somalia fetishist. What’s your idea of the ideal American tax burden, and from where do you propose making the necessary cuts? Since I’m sure you’re in favor of a Clintonesque balanced budget and all.
“How small?” is the operative question.
How about we just follow the Constitution?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Seems like a logical place to start. Just go through what the federal government does and if it doesn’t mesh with the Constitution we scrap it.
And for the record, it ought to be obvious to anyone paying attention that the Somalia reference is intended to call libertarians out on their small-government fantasies. Somewhere in the world someone is putting your philosophy to the test. Howis it insane exactly to point this out?
What’s your idea of the ideal American tax burden, and from where do you propose making the necessary cuts?
I think a flat tax of 20% with no deductions is a good place to start.
Again, I favor limiting the government to the powers granted it by the Constitution and think we should make cuts based on that.
Since I’m sure you’re in favor of a Clintonesque balanced budget and all.
What balanced budget? If we had a balanced budget the national debt should have declined under Clinton. Instead it increased every year:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif
Well, this is the statement I was actually responding to (emphasis mine):
This is nearly as stupid as arguing that since libertarians want smaller government they actually want to recreate Somalia.
This is what you quoted back at me:
C.S.Strowbridge: “And maybe he shouldn’t have to pay for the roads you use. We keep this up and eventually you turn the country into Somalia.”
…
I guess you think he is insane.
Now, Strawbridge is a Canucks fan, so he’s clearly more insane than I – a Penguins fan – am, but I didn’t see him saying you want to turn the country into Somalia, but that he believes the extreme views you espouse would lead to it. He’s suggesting a consequence and not a desire.
He’s also being hyperbolic when it would be more helpful not to be, but as a proud user of hyperbole yourself, I’m sure you can understand how alluring it can be.
And yes, I’m being specific because I was responding to what you specifically said. I have not heard anyone I respect or think is grounded say that libertarians want to turn the U.S. into a state like Somalia. If they did, I would lose some respect for them. But I haven’t, and what you quoted at me was not that.
What balanced budget? If we had a balanced budget the national debt should have declined under Clinton. Instead it increased every year:
This is misleading at best, and I’m not sure where Mr. Hall is getting his numbers. My suspicion is that he is using the so-called accrual budget used by most corporations but not the government, in which future expenditures beyond the current fiscal cycle are taken into account. However, it’s worth noting that even under accrual accounting, Clinton’s budget had no deficit from 1998-2000.
I think a flat tax of 20% with no deductions is a good place to start … Again, I favor limiting the government to the powers granted it by the Constitution and think we should make cuts based on that.
On what? Income? Payroll? Sales? Everything? Also, I’d recommend you take another look at the necessary and proper clause.
“I think a flat tax of 20% with no deductions is a good place to start.”
Which raises taxes on the vast majority of Americans. Including you. I hope the Constitutional part of your argument means you are also ok with disbandening the military, because the Constitution doesn’t provide for a standing army either.
And for the record, it ought to be obvious to anyone paying attention that the Somalia reference is intended to call libertarians out on their small-government fantasies. Somewhere in the world someone is putting your philosophy to the test. Howis it insane exactly to point this out?
Hey Eric, looks like I’ve identified some further insanity.
What the hell does a country run by warlords have to do with libertarian thinking? Do you really subscribe to this cartoonish version of libertarianism?
Which raises taxes on the vast majority of Americans. Including you.
I am aware of that. Currently we are voting for lots of government and not paying for it. I am a strong believer that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If we want all this government we should be willing to foot the bill.
I hope the Constitutional part of your argument means you are also ok with disbandening the military, because the Constitution doesn’t provide for a standing army either.
Section 8
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
This is misleading at best, and I’m not sure where Mr. Hall is getting his numbers. My suspicion is that he is using the so-called accrual budget used by most corporations but not the government, in which future expenditures beyond the current fiscal cycle are taken into account. However, it’s worth noting that even under accrual accounting, Clinton’s budget had no deficit from 1998-2000.
If you have some figures that disprove what I posted I would love to see them.
On what? Income? Payroll? Sales? Everything?
Sorry, should have been more specific. Income. All forms — cap gains, dividend, ordinary, etc.
Also, I’d recommend you take another look at the necessary and proper clause.
That changes nothing. This simply allows the government to pass laws to help support those powers that are given to it.
Further, does it make any sense that the framers would assiduously lay out the groundwork for limited government and then consciously obviate it with such a clause?
Jesus Eric, really?
Yes, Colin, really. I typed it for a reason.
But you win, someone sane made the argument. So I’ll revise: One person I assume is sane made the argument.
And for the record, I do think it’s an incorrect, extreme and misleading analogy. I don’t think Somalia has anything to do with Libertarian small government fantasies. Those ideals are bad enough on their own without running to an extreme to try and prove it.
75% of those people look like they qualify for Medicare. the dumbfucks are protesting themselves.
Damn, they look old.
Check out that tea party!
If you have some figures that disprove what I posted I would love to see them.
Gladly.
That changes nothing. This simply allows the government to pass laws to help support those powers that are given to it. Further, does it make any sense that the framers would assiduously lay out the groundwork for limited government and then consciously obviate it with such a clause?
Frankly, and this will sound like an insult to the authors but is not intended as such, I don’t care what they’d think about it. I try to base my opinion of a law strictly on its merits, and not on my guess at the opinion of men dead 200 years who wouldn’t fully grasp the issues relevant to the world in which we now live.
But let’s assume for a second I did. As you probably already know, this was a real debate at the time of the founding, roughly represented by Hamilton, Washington and the Federalists on one side, and probably Jefferson and the other anti-Federalists on the opposite. Long story short, Hamilton’s side won and has been continuing to win, as the economy, infrastructure and society grow steadily more complex.
Here’s the important thing, though: As far as I know, Congress generally can’t and doesn’t do anything not covered under the more liberal interpretation of the necessary and proper clause – if they did, one assumes that the SCOTUS would rightly strike it down, if the law had occasion to come before the court. Your assertion that ‘it changes nothing’ doesn’t take into account that there are multiple interpretations, and that the originalists’ interpretation has been eroding steadily for two centuries+ now.
Does that mean I support the right of Congress to make any law it deems necessary? Certainly not. I am wholly against, for instance, laws that seek to legislate morality, particularly ones that legislate morality from any particular religious point of view. But holding Congress in originalist handcuffs would seriously restrict its ability to function in the modern world, particularly the modern ‘first’ world.
When tax protesters say they are fighting government spending, they mean they’re against government spending on things they don’t approve of.
e.g., I have health insurance through my job, so I see no reason to spend tax dollars on health insurance for others who weren’t as “smart” as I was to get a job with health insurance, etc.
I’m not pro-tax, but nor do I oppose progressive taxation on principle. The latest right-wing hissy fit is on the expiration of the Bush tax cuts–and the expiration was designed by Bush’s budget brain trust. My advice to the wingers is to get into their [privately-funded] time-masheens, go back to 2002, and tell W to make the cuts permanent for ever and ever, amen. Otherwise, shut the fuck up and enjoy your still-breathable air and potable water.
Gladly.
So your source is President Clinton. Poor choice. How about we check with the Treasury Department, which offers national debt total for any day you want. I went over to their website:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
and searched from Jan. 1, 1998 through Jan. 1, 2000. The national debt increased almost every single day, with some declines during May and June 1998. Nevertheless, according to the Treasury Department figures the total outstanding debt on Jan. 1, 1998 was 5,481,924,290,553.50. On 12/31/99 it was 5,776,091,314,225.33.
Frankly, and this will sound like an insult to the authors but is not intended as such, I don’t care what they’d think about it. I try to base my opinion of a law strictly on its merits, and not on my guess at the opinion of men dead 200 years who wouldn’t fully grasp the issues relevant to the world in which we now live.
But let’s assume for a second I did. As you probably already know, this was a real debate at the time of the founding, roughly represented by Hamilton, Washington and the Federalists on one side, and probably Jefferson and the other anti-Federalists on the opposite. Long story short, Hamilton’s side won and has been continuing to win, as the economy, infrastructure and society grow steadily more complex.
Here’s the important thing, though: As far as I know, Congress generally can’t and doesn’t do anything not covered under the more liberal interpretation of the necessary and proper clause – if they did, one assumes that the SCOTUS would rightly strike it down, if the law had occasion to come before the court. Your assertion that ‘it changes nothing’ doesn’t take into account that there are multiple interpretations, and that the originalists’ interpretation has been eroding steadily for two centuries+ now.
Does that mean I support the right of Congress to make any law it deems necessary? Certainly not. I am wholly against, for instance, laws that seek to legislate morality, particularly ones that legislate morality from any particular religious point of view. But holding Congress in originalist handcuffs would seriously restrict its ability to function in the modern world, particularly the modern ‘first’ world.
Well, at least you are honest that you don’t think the Constitution should mean what it actually says. I wish the rest of the left would be as forthcoming.
When tax protesters say they are fighting government spending, they mean they’re against government spending on things they don’t approve of.
I’m against spending on things that the Constitution doesn’t approve of.
My advice to the wingers is to get into their [privately-funded] time-masheens, go back to 2002, and tell W to make the cuts permanent for ever and ever, amen.
Of course the Senate was split 50-50 at the time and permanent tax cuts weren’t politically possible, so your assertion completely ignores historical realities.
Well, at least you are honest that you don’t think the Constitution should mean what it actually says. I wish the rest of the left would be as forthcoming.
Funny, I think the same could be said about the right. The role of the Executive Branch went against both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution for 8 years, and on matters more troubling than just spending.
I hate to pull out a “you too!” argument, but this was such bullshit that I don’t know what else to say. You’ve decided to be very literal in regards to Constitutional law, then chide people for not wearing a sign that says “I’m less literal about the Constitution than Colin.”
“A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations found in the 9th section of the 1st article introduced? It is also in some degree warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation. In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding.”
–Marshall, CJ, in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 407 (1819).
and searched from Jan. 1, 1998 through Jan. 1, 2000. The national debt increased almost every single day, with some declines during May and June 1998. Nevertheless, according to the Treasury Department figures the total outstanding debt on Jan. 1, 1998 was 5,481,924,290,553.50. On 12/31/99 it was 5,776,091,314,225.33.
Interest, and probably also inflation. Doesn’t mean the great fiscal conservative president of the past quarter-century didn’t balance his budget.
Good for you guys, though. Searched far and wide for a metric to denigrate President Clinton’s fiscal conservatism. Were I you guys – and not just a party hack on your side, but an honest gent like yourself – I’d just be trying to figure out how he did it.
Well, at least you are honest that you don’t think the Constitution should mean what it actually says. I wish the rest of the left would be as forthcoming.
Personally, it’s not that I don’t, it’s that I don’t necessarily, particularly since it’s so open to interpretation. If a law has merit and wasn’t preapproved by dead people, I’m still all right with it. Legally, I understand that view has some issues and could never really be put into practice, which is why I fully support both the amendment system and the liberal view of the elastic clause.
Look, none of this is to denigrate the constitution. It’s a phenomonal foundation for a liberalised republic built on reason. I’m just not that concerned what George Washington would have thought about digital copyright fair use provisions, or a proposed restriction on assault weapons.
Look, none of this is to denigrate the constitution. It’s a phenomenal foundation for a liberalised republic built on reason. I’m just not that concerned what George Washington would have thought about digital copyright fair use provisions, or a proposed restriction on assault weapons.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. And I’ve tried. Using many, many words.
I like to use words.
Colin is 100% right: Somalia isn’t a libertarian utopia. Haiti is.
Funny, I think the same could be said about the right. The role of the Executive Branch went against both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution for 8 years, and on matters more troubling than just spending.
Agreed.
I hate to pull out a “you too!” argument, but this was such bullshit that I don’t know what else to say. You’ve decided to be very literal in regards to Constitutional law, then chide people for not wearing a sign that says “I’m less literal about the Constitution than Colin.”
I don’t even know what this means.
Interest, and probably also inflation. Doesn’t mean the great fiscal conservative president of the past quarter-century didn’t balance his budget.
Then please explain how one can run a surplus without the debt declining.
Good for you guys, though. Searched far and wide for a metric to denigrate President Clinton’s fiscal conservatism.
I wasn’t the one that brought it up.
Were I you guys – and not just a party hack on your side, but an honest gent like yourself – I’d just be trying to figure out how he did it.
Did what?
<Personally, it’s not that I don’t, it’s that I don’t necessarily, particularly since it’s so open to interpretation. If a law has merit and wasn’t preapproved by dead people, I’m still all right with it. Legally, I understand that view has some issues and could never really be put into practice, which is why I fully support both the amendment system and the liberal view of the elastic clause.
I don’t know what you are trying to say here. “Personally, it’s not that I don’t, it’s that I don’t necessarily…”? Look, the law either means what it says or it doesn’t. The Constitution either provides for certain limited powers or it doesn’t. If it’s all up for interpretation then it is essentially meaningless and defeats the purpose.
Look, none of this is to denigrate the constitution. It’s a phenomonal foundation for a liberalised republic built on reason. I’m just not that concerned what George Washington would have thought about digital copyright fair use provisions, or a proposed restriction on assault weapons.
And the founding fathers weren’t so arrogant as to think that they had all of the solutions. This is why the Constitution can be amended and why we have a Supreme Court to determine whether laws are in line with the Constitution’s principles.
We also have to keep in mind, however, that just because the Supreme Court rules a certain way doesn’t mean that they are right. Dred Scott for example.
But I am just dying to know how government-run health care is constitutional. Or the Department of Education.
Colin is 100% right: Somalia isn’t a libertarian utopia. Haiti is.
More insanity.
I hate to pull out a “you too!” argument, but this was such bullshit that I don’t know what else to say. You’ve decided to be very literal in regards to Constitutional law, then chide people for not wearing a sign that says “I’m less literal about the Constitution than Colin.”
—
I don’t even know what this means.
Sorry, I hit submit before being finished and edited and then got called away from the computer. Let me restate.
You basically set the standard for the correct way to interpret the Constitution, then denigrated people for not being clear that they’ve deviated from your interpretation. You framed it as if people had decided that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says it means, but it’s just not that simple.
I know you believe that a very strict, literal reading of the Constitution is proper, but that’s your opinion, not fact.
No one is under any obligation to come out and say “I have deviated from the communally accepted method of interpreting the Constitution” because there isn’t one.
Yes, we could be clearer that we aren’t bound by literalism, but doing so would be clarifying, not required.
You basically set the standard for the correct way to interpret the Constitution, then denigrated people for not being clear that they’ve deviated from your interpretation. You framed it as if people had decided that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says it means, but it’s just not that simple.
No, in this case it is that simple. This is what I was responding to:
I don’t care what they’d think about it. I try to base my opinion of a law strictly on its merits, and not on my guess at the opinion of men dead 200 years who wouldn’t fully grasp the issues relevant to the world in which we now live.
If you don’t base opinion on what was intended and instead prefer undefined “merit” as your criteria then you don’t favor going by the letter of the law. As I read this the poster is saying that we shouldn’t follow the letter of the law. He even later conceded that his view has some issues and could never really be put into practice.
My response was to thank him for the acknowledgment and wish that others would be this forthcoming with their views.
You’ve then extrapolated that into something else.
And while I am well aware that there are competing views — such as the “living constitution” — I happen to think that they are extremely misguided and wrong. Yes, that is my opinion rather than fact. All law is opinion. I don’t know where you are going with this.
And while I am well aware that there are competing views — such as the “living constitution” — I happen to think that they are extremely misguided and wrong. Yes, that is my opinion rather than fact. All law is opinion. I don’t know where you are going with this.
You made a mean-spirited backhanded compliment and I’m calling you on it.
Well, at least you are honest that you don’t think the Constitution should mean what it actually says. I wish the rest of the left would be as forthcoming.
Where in this was the acknowledgment that the view of holding to a literal, specific view of the powers granted in the Constitution is an opinion? Because I don’t see it.
This was you pretending to be polite while saying, essentially: “Thank you for admitting that my position is the default one and that you are deviating from it.”
Additionally, you made it a partisan issue even though, when called on it, you admitted that the same could be applied to either side. You wrapped your compliment in an incorrect and unnecessary jab at liberals when you could have just said “people.”
That’s where I’m going with this.
You made a mean-spirited backhanded compliment and I’m calling you on it.
Guilty as charged.
Where in this was the acknowledgment that the view of holding to a literal, specific view of the powers granted in the Constitution is an opinion? Because I don’t see it.
Where was it stated otherwise as fact?
This was you pretending to be polite while saying, essentially: “Thank you for admitting that my position is the default one and that you are deviating from it.”
Yes, I hold that going by the letter of the law and what the Constitution actually says is a superior method of interpreting it.
Additionally, you made it a partisan issue even though, when called on it, you admitted that the same could be applied to either side. You wrapped your compliment in an incorrect and unnecessary jab at liberals when you could have just said “people.”
That’s where I’m going with this.
So now I am being called out for being partisan. On this blog. Wow. Eric, if you are really concerned about partisanship then I would submit I am hardly the first or even most blatant offender around here. If you plan on calling everyone out who is partisan on this blog then you will be one busy dude. There’s this one guy — Oliver Willis I think is the name — who is particularly vicious in his partisanship that you may want to keep an eye out for.
I also find it instructive that you have taken far greater offense to what I said than the person I directed my comments at.
In fact, given your consistent nitpicking and parsing of my postings I would almost think that there’s something personal here, but I’m probably just flattering myself.
In fact, given your consistent nitpicking and parsing of my postings I would almost think that there’s something personal here, but I’m probably just flattering myself.
Don’t be such a baby. Liberals call out conservatives more often, conservatives call out liberals more often; that’s how blogs work. If I or you or anyone else is excessive or takes a stray step in our methods, one would hope we’d be more apt to focus on substance than sniping at our own side over process and procedure.
Then please explain how one can run a surplus without the debt declining.
This isn’t something on which I’m going to feign expertise, but given the dozens of diverse sources I’ve read suggesting that President Clinton was a driving force behind a balanced budget in the 90s, I’m going to hazard a guess: Interest on the debt runs ahead of your surplus. That doesn’t mean you haven’t balanced your budget, and that doesn’t mean your budget doesn’t have a surplus. It does mean that the debt would still increase.
Did what?
Ran the government in the black for a while. Or, even if you were to continue to insist upon this right-wing revisionism, ran it considerably less in the red (as President Carter did as well, by the way) than Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.
I don’t know what you are trying to say here. “Personally, it’s not that I don’t, it’s that I don’t necessarily…”?
Well let me see if I can’t help you out. Emphasis should have been on the word necessarily, that is to say, certain sections are quite clear and set in stone – the first amendment, for example – while others are far more flexible and vague, including much of Article II.
Look, the law either means what it says or it doesn’t.
Well interpretations aren’t always obvious, are they? Why do we have courts?
The Constitution either provides for certain limited powers or it doesn’t. If it’s all up for interpretation then it is essentially meaningless and defeats the purpose.
It’s not all up for interpretation, but much of it is. One could interpret the second amendment to grant rights to own an RPG, or one could interpret it to include the necessity of belonging to a militia to own any guns. Similarly the eminent domain clause of the fifth amendment was in 2005 interpreted to include economic development under the umbrella of the words ‘public use,’ infuriating those who disagreed with the interpretation. We have courts in the first place because language is inherently imbued with subtlety.
I understand that a government stuck in the 18th century is something of a libertarian dream, a joyous utopia of rugged frontiersmen Galts, but my advice to you is that you’re spitting in the wind.
And the founding fathers weren’t so arrogant as to think that they had all of the solutions. This is why the Constitution can be amended and why we have a Supreme Court to determine whether laws are in line with the Constitution’s principles.
Of course, and in so doing likely staved off the likelihood of future revolutions, save that bit of unpleasantness in the 1860s. They also made it next to impossible for the amendments, such that amendments have occurred about once every fifteen years, which is fine if you take a liberal view of congressional authority. The amendment process historically has been for major issues; it is the legal nuclear option when often more traditional means will do fine.
We also have to keep in mind, however, that just because the Supreme Court rules a certain way doesn’t mean that they are right. Dred Scott for example.
Quite so, the solitary and damning stain on Taney’s career. As is evidenced by later history though, the system of a living body of common legality through interpretation and case law is generally self-correcting.
But I am just dying to know how government-run health care is constitutional. Or the Department of Education.
Article I, section 8, clause I, if you insist. You’ll note that the power to tax provides that such taxation must be done for the ‘common defence and general welfare’ of the United States. To my knowledge the phrase is not well-defined legally and may be used rather liberally. Social security is authorised under the same clause.
Additionally, you made it a partisan issue even though, when called on it, you admitted that the same could be applied to either side.
With regard to Eric’s point about unconstitutionality existing in either ideology, I do find it pretty troubling to see the charge of unconstitutionality used to score political points.
If you don’t base opinion on what was intended and instead prefer undefined “merit” as your criteria then you don’t favor going by the letter of the law.
This is coming from an advocate of an ideology that supports killing people based on who they choose to mate with because of books written millenia ago.
This is coming from an advocate of an ideology that supports killing people based on who they choose to mate with because of books written millenia ago.
I haven’t the faintest idea of what you are talking about.
At one time the Supreme Court held that ‘Separate but Equal’ facilities were fine and if a child signed a contract to work a 60-hour week in a factory for pennies an hour, the State could not infringe his freedom of contract.
Those decisions were later overruled by justices who read the same Constitution and reached completely different conclusions. The letter of the law is not always so clear cut.
Don’t be such a baby. Liberals call out conservatives more often, conservatives call out liberals more often; that’s how blogs work. If I or you or anyone else is excessive or takes a stray step in our methods, one would hope we’d be more apt to focus on substance than sniping at our own side over process and procedure.
That’s pretty much what I am saying. Eric, however, finds me guilty of excessive partisanship.
This isn’t something on which I’m going to feign expertise, but given the dozens of diverse sources I’ve read suggesting that President Clinton was a driving force behind a balanced budget in the 90s, I’m going to hazard a guess: Interest on the debt runs ahead of your surplus. That doesn’t mean you haven’t balanced your budget, and that doesn’t mean your budget doesn’t have a surplus. It does mean that the debt would still increase.
Interest on the debt is part of the budget.
Ran the government in the black for a while. Or, even if you were to continue to insist upon this right-wing revisionism, ran it considerably less in the red (as President Carter did as well, by the way) than Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.
Quoting government stats is now “right-wing revisionism”? In any case, yes, the American economy boomed and provided massive increases in tax revenue that managed to almost sate the political class.
Well let me see if I can’t help you out. Emphasis should have been on the word necessarily, that is to say, certain sections are quite clear and set in stone – the first amendment, for example – while others are far more flexible and vague, including much of Article II.
Fair, although I don’t find Article II to be all that nebulous.
Well interpretations aren’t always obvious, are they? Why do we have courts?
Fair.
It’s not all up for interpretation, but much of it is. One could interpret the second amendment to grant rights to own an RPG, or one could interpret it to include the necessity of belonging to a militia to own any guns. Similarly the eminent domain clause of the fifth amendment was in 2005 interpreted to include economic development under the umbrella of the words ‘public use,’ infuriating those who disagreed with the interpretation. We have courts in the first place because language is inherently imbued with subtlety.
Again, assessing intent behind the words is of course up for debate. What is plain, however, is that we have strayed far from the document’s original intent. A document meant to serve as the basis for limited government with narrowly defined powers has given way to a federal government that involves itself in an ever expanding areas of our lives.
I understand that a government stuck in the 18th century is something of a libertarian dream, a joyous utopia of rugged frontiersmen Galts, but my advice to you is that you’re spitting in the wind.
The futileness of my cause makes it no less righteous.
Of course, and in so doing likely staved off the likelihood of future revolutions, save that bit of unpleasantness in the 1860s. They also made it next to impossible for the amendments, such that amendments have occurred about once every fifteen years, which is fine if you take a liberal view of congressional authority. The amendment process historically has been for major issues; it is the legal nuclear option when often more traditional means will do fine.
And of course for those smaller issues we have courts to interpret, an area we seem to agree on.
Quite so, the solitary and damning stain on Taney’s career. As is evidenced by later history though, the system of a living body of common legality through interpretation and case law is generally self-correcting.
I certainly hope so.
Article I, section 8, clause I, if you insist. You’ll note that the power to tax provides that such taxation must be done for the ‘common defence and general welfare’ of the United States. To my knowledge the phrase is not well-defined legally and may be used rather liberally. Social security is authorised under the same clause.
And here is the problem. It strikes me as perfectly obvious what that means — that Congress can collect taxes to carry out its activities. It makes no sense that the constitution would have specific and enumerated powers and then obviate it with such language that opens the door for Congress to do pretty much as it sees fit.
With regard to Eric’s point about unconstitutionality existing in either ideology, I do find it pretty troubling to see the charge of unconstitutionality used to score political points.
Sorry, I just call em like I see em. Much of what the government does strikes me as wildly unconstitutional.
Eric: You made a mean-spirited backhanded compliment and I’m calling you on it.
Colin: Guilty as charged.
Which is the point I was making from the beginning. Yet, here we are, debating whether I was being unfair in getting you to admit this.
So now I am being called out for being partisan. On this blog. Wow. Eric, if you are really concerned about partisanship then I would submit I am hardly the first or even most blatant offender around here.
Are you being obtuse on purpose?
Before complaining about my “constant nitpicking and parsing” perhaps you should also look at your own posts. You’re a smart guy, I can tell. You are, in fact, very deft at subtly adjusting your arguments from post to post to avoid having to admit any errors of your own. It’s not easy to do. You’re obviously a pretty sharp cookie.
Unfortunately, the only way to debate someone who chooses to do this is to be specific about both what I am saying and what you actually said (not what you are claiming or insinuating was said). Unless I pin you down on what you actually are saying, you’ll just step to the side and deride from another angle.
For instance, I did not accuse you of “being partisan.” If I had, you’d have had a point. I said something rather more specific. But, as I said, you stepped a little to the side and claimed I was making a broader statement than I actually was.
What I said was this:
Additionally, you made it a partisan issue even though, when called on it, you admitted that the same could be applied to either side. You wrapped your compliment in an incorrect and unnecessary jab at liberals when you could have just said “people.”
Being partisan is understandable. You get things wrong, you see things with blinders on and you interpret facts in a way that best suits you. While I could have accused you of this, it wouldn’t have been fair. You could accuse me right back and you’d be right.
I accused you have making something a partisan issue when you knew that it was not. I accused you of intentionally leaving something out so that you could score cheap points.
And what did you do in response? You accused me of saying something I did not so that you could score cheap points.
Look, I don’t know you beyond the posts that you’ve made. It’s not personal, though if flattering yourself makes you feel better, have at it.
I’m fine with idiots saying idiot things. It’s to be expected. But you’re a smart guy who uses your wits to argue things you know are not entirely true. This is something of a pet peeve of mine, so if I’m being a dick to you – and I probably am – that’s why. It’s not personal.
Either way, I should probably be ignoring you. It would be better for everyone involved. No promises, but I’ll do my best.