Topic: Apparently Phil Hare doesn't care about the Constitution.

[Rocking-M]

And in the Constitution's Preamble it says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I really hate it when people get it all wrong, or better yet, modify or quote out of context for their own purpose.

"I really hate it when people get it all wrong, or better yet, modify or quote out of context for their own purpose."

I don't understand.... you just did that yourself.

The founding fathers use of the word welfare was not in the sense of today's politician's use of the word welfare.  In the sense that you are thinking of welfare, the founding fathers and people of the time would gather amongst themselves and give their own personal clothing and foods to the people who were in need.  They did not expect the government to provide in the sense you are thinking.

If you want to take such a literal translation by today's use of words, please take a look at Article IV, Section. 4:

    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government......

Does this mean the Republican Party of today?

Of course not.

If the founding fathers made it so open to such readings, well,to Insure Domestic Tranquility...... Why can't we all just be given Quaaludes?

  ~ ~ ~ jaknight ~ ~ ~

so your saying that in order to promote the "general welfare" their only referencing sharing cloths. Ah come on.
Among other things the "General Government" was to impose tariffs/import duties to protect the economy,
provide for the Postal Service, and other items that were in place then to promote the "general welfare."
I don't think anyone is arguing that they were promoting a welfare State. But, the fact remains things have changed.
For one, our founders would have chaffed at a 'Federal' Income Tax. Clearly outside the bounds of the constitution.
Since we find ourselves under that yoke it seems clear that if we're tax into poverty then the least the
Government can do is promote the general welfare of those paying the taxes and universal health care for tax
payers would be a perfect start.

Now, however, if you would be all for an abolishment of the excess of taxation we find ourselves yoked together with,
I'd say fine, I could afford my own health care. 

[Retro Rocket]

I would just like to point out that the constitution was written in 1787, we now live in 2010, last time i looked there was virtually nothing we have in common with 1787....Even the terminology has changed dramatically.

Mick

[seaweb11]

Here's to 1787

Cheers!

[BeSeeingYou]

And in the Constitution's Preamble it says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I really hate it when people get it all wrong, or better yet, modify or quote out of context for their own purpose.

"I really hate it when people get it all wrong, or better yet, modify or quote out of context for their own purpose."

I don't understand.... you just did that yourself.

The founding fathers use of the word welfare was not in the sense of today's politician's use of the word welfare.  In the sense that you are thinking of welfare, the founding fathers and people of the time would gather amongst themselves and give their own personal clothing and foods to the people who were in need.  They did not expect the government to provide in the sense you are thinking.

If you want to take such a literal translation by today's use of words, please take a look at Article IV, Section. 4:

    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government......

Does this mean the Republican Party of today?

Of course not.

If the founding fathers made it so open to such readings, well,to Insure Domestic Tranquility...... Why can't we all just be given Quaaludes?

  ~ ~ ~ jaknight ~ ~ ~

so your saying that in order to promote the "general welfare" their only referencing sharing cloths. Ah come on.
Among other things the "General Government" was to impose tariffs/import duties to protect the economy,
provide for the Postal Service, and other items that were in place then to promote the "general welfare."
I don't think anyone is arguing that they were promoting a welfare State. But, the fact remains things have changed.
For one, our founders would have chaffed at a 'Federal' Income Tax. Clearly outside the bounds of the constitution.
Since we find ourselves under that yoke it seems clear that if we're tax into poverty then the least the
Government can do is promote the general welfare of those paying the taxes and universal health care for tax
payers would be a perfect start.

Now, however, if you would be all for an abolishment of the excess of taxation we find ourselves yoked together with,
I'd say fine, I could afford my own health care. 

Article 1 section 8 clause 1 of the Constitution.
   The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

16th Amendment.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.    

I would say that a federal income tax is within the bounds of the Constitution.  While it is plausible that the founders may not have envisioned a federal income tax they did not specifically prohibit one. 

[Rocking-M]

The 16th Amendment was never ratified by the required 3/4ths.

"The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification."


Same thing happened with the 14th Amendment.

[Caaveman82]

CAV I have not done or said anything outta the way to  about you or your intelligence, U stepped over the line, u don't know me from adam. I am not a dumb arsh hillbilly like u predict to me to be. I said we all have our aopinions and that we should have left it at that, and now u attack me, I am sorry but I am leaving it at that, I am getting tired of being attacked and singled out by you for my opinion on the health care issuse and what is going on today, YOU HAVE YOURS AND I HAVE MINE PLEASE LEAVE IT AT THAT WITHOUT THE ATTACK ON ME, I NEVER ATTACKED YOU!

I apologize if you feel like I am attacking you because that is not my aim what so ever. So I apologize, honestly. I never said or assumed you are a 'dumb hill billy'. The statements you made are pretty bold. I'll leave it at that.

[HondaLover77]

Cavv no Problem, all is in the past now, I know my statements were pretty bold but was just my opinion on things and they could be wrong, like i said before just going on what i see on tv. Glad all is in past and we can move on .

[BeSeeingYou]

The 16th Amendment was never ratified by the required 3/4ths.

"The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification."


Same thing happened with the 14th Amendment.

Bill Benson's reasoning did not hold up in court.  I would tend to defer to the Judiciary in this matter and they have spoken on this issue as all these amendments are usually challenged in court at some time.  It has been shown time and again if you try and use this reasoning as an excuse to not pay your taxes you will get into legal jeopardy.

[joehardy]

I'm still stuck on the pubic option...

[Rocking-M]

Bill Benson's reasoning did not hold up in court.  I would tend to defer to the Judiciary in this matter and they have spoken on this issue as all these amendments are usually challenged in court at some time.  It has been shown time and again if you try and use this reasoning as an excuse to not pay your taxes you will get into legal jeopardy.

I'd not challenge it because the IRS Gestapo usually wins. BUT, that doesn't mean that the law is correct or
even legal. The Courts were never to make law, which they do on many occasions. Merely
enforce. This issue needs to be addressed by those who willy nilly pass laws. Fat chance.

[ryder60]

Life liberty and the  Pursuit of happiness are quite an abstract proposition.  Life can be verified biologically but what does liberty mean? And all the wise men of human history have told us that happiness isn't something that can be had by the pursuing of it.  T'is a puzzlement.

It's against the law to have sex with a fish?  Man I hate big government.  Bloody commies.  It'd be okay with a whale though?

[333]

I think so.  Isn't a whale a mammal and therefore not a fish?

[Rocking-M]

I think so.  Isn't a whale a mammal and therefore not a fish?

you fellows are sick, are you communist?