Is the bonus tax unconstitutional?

Is the tax constitutional?

  • Total voters
    21
Amazing that for such a "simple to understand" document there can be so many viewpoints taken from it.

This is another appeal to the God of common sense, and this is usually perpetrated by the immensely ignorant.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Amazing that for such a "simple to understand" document there can be so many viewpoints taken from it.
Click to expand...
Like I said before, In the beginning of this countries history, the constitution was easily understood. It took lots of policitians, lawyers, and judges to fuck it all up.

ib1yysguy said:
This is another appeal to the God of common sense, and this is usually perpetrated by the immensely ignorant.
Click to expand...
Is the constitution easy or difficult for you to comprehend and understand?
 
ib1yysguy said:
Amazing that for such a "simple to understand" document there can be so many viewpoints taken from it.

This is another appeal to the God of common sense, and this is usually perpetrated by the immensely ignorant.
Click to expand...
There are many opinions on many topics and as many among "scholars" and yet I still have an opinion. But you can't, you've told me that you have no knowledge of the topic. What are you even commenting in this thread for? I invoke the "not a constitutional scholar" clause.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Like I said before, In the beginning of this countries history, the constitution was easily understood. It took lots of policitians, lawyers, and judges to fuck it all up.


Is the constitution easy or difficult for you to comprehend and understand?
Click to expand...


This is nonsense. I'm not going to say that the Constitution was never easily understood (by whom?) but what the text of the Constitution means is something that has been fought over since its inception.
 
Dungheap said:
This is nonsense. I'm not going to say that the Constitution was never easily understood (by whom?) but what the text of the Constitution means is something that has been fought over since its inception.
Click to expand...

negative. if the meaning of the constitution has always been fought over because of misunderstandings, how did it ever get ratified?

The only reason that the meaning of the text has ever been questioned is because a politician didn't like the constraint on his power and thought he could get a judge to re-interpret it.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
negative. if the meaning of the constitution has always been fought over because of misunderstandings, how did it ever get ratified?

The only reason that the meaning of the text has ever been questioned is because a politician didn't like the constraint on his power and thought he could get a judge to re-interpret it.
Click to expand...


Agreeing on the text and agreeing on the application of the text to a particular dispute are two very very different things. It's not necessarily the meaning of the text that is questioned, just the application of the text to the facts of a particular dispute.

It's not a matter of reinterpretation, it's a matter of implementation.
 
Dungheap said:
Agreeing on the text and agreeing on the application of the text to a particular dispute are two very very different things. It's not necessarily the meaning of the text that is questioned, just the application of the text to the facts of a particular dispute.

It's not a matter of reinterpretation, it's a matter of implementation.
Click to expand...

so my analysis was pretty much spot on. when a politician/lawmaker disagrees with the constraint on his power, he petitions the courts to 'modify' the meaning of the text. That is exactly how 'shall not be infringed' is defined as 'reasonable restrictions', how 'shall not be violated' is defined as dui checkpoints are ok, even though it technically violates the 4th amendment.

this is the problem we run in to by accepting the theory that the courts have the last say on the constitution.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so my analysis was pretty much spot on. when a politician/lawmaker disagrees with the constraint on his power, he petitions the courts to 'modify' the meaning of the text. That is exactly how 'shall not be infringed' is defined as 'reasonable restrictions', how 'shall not be violated' is defined as dui checkpoints are ok, even though it technically violates the 4th amendment.

this is the problem we run in to by accepting the theory that the courts have the last say on the constitution.
Click to expand...


1) Pointing to particular aspects of the Constitution that you think are straight-forward does not mean that the entire document has a facially clear meaning. For example, "shall not be violated" may be clear, but "unreasonable search and seizure" is anything but self-explanatory, particularly as applied.

2) What is your alternative theory?
 
Dungheap said:
1) Pointing to particular aspects of the Constitution that you think are straight-forward does not mean that the entire document has a facially clear meaning. For example, "shall not be violated" may be clear, but "unreasonable search and seizure" is anything but self-explanatory, particularly as applied.
Click to expand...
good point and I can accept that in most cases. This example does show why certain issues must be resolved through the courts I guess.

Dungheap said:
2) What is your alternative theory?
Click to expand...

The people wrote the constitution. If certain empowered bodies, like the courts, supercede the authority they've been given or override aspects of the constitution, we the people still have two options. We can override that decision by amending the constitution to remove a bad decision (kelo v. new london anyone?) or we can outright ignore it and force the government to use force to enact an illegal mandate. preferably in that order.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Like I said before, In the beginning of this countries history, the constitution was easily understood. It took lots of policitians, lawyers, and judges to fuck it all up.
Click to expand...

Actually it took putting it in the modern world. It would've been easy to tell back then that 90% of the provisions would become pretty pointless by this time (they have specific a provision for funding a POST OFFICE but no for scientific research or anything else, short sightedness to the highest degree) and that nearly all the power the federal government was ever going to get was going to be from the commerce and general welfare clauses - because they were just general power clauses, instead of giving power specifically to some 18th century issue the founders were thinking of at the moment.
 
Watermark said:
Actually it took putting it in the modern world. It would've been easy to tell back then that 90% of the provisions would become pretty pointless by this time (they have specific a provision for funding a POST OFFICE but no for scientific research or anything else, short sightedness to the highest degree) and that nearly all the power the federal government was ever going to get was going to be from the commerce and general welfare clauses - because they were just general power clauses, instead of giving power specifically to some 18th century issue the founders were thinking of at the moment.
Click to expand...

so your basic premise is that it was ok in the 18th century for the federal government to be limited in power, because we were so primitive, but now that we're such a progressed society, the federal government should have unlimited power. that about right?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so your basic premise is that it was ok in the 18th century for the federal government to be limited in power, because we were so primitive, but now that we're such a progressed society, the federal government should have unlimited power. that about right?
Click to expand...

The 18th century government had all the powers an 18th century government needed, with all the 18th century issues of the time being taken care of in one way or the other. The only powers that really have any significance today are the commerce and general welfare clauses, though. And actually you could take care of patents and the post office with them.
 
Watermark said:
The 18th century government had all the powers an 18th century government needed, with all the 18th century issues of the time being taken care of in one way or the other. The only powers that really have any significance today are the commerce and general welfare clauses, though. And actually you could take care of patents and the post office with them.
Click to expand...

you DO realize how many of our federal laws are based on the commerce clause yet have zero to do with real commerce, right?
 
I consider the bank and AIG part of the bailout to be unconstitutional.
The bonus thing is just a distraction from the real issues.
 
Dixie said:
It's unconstitutional... but then, so is all income tax.
Click to expand...

I once fell into this trap. There is an argument to be made that a federal income tax is unconstitutional, but it is a fairly weak one that requires adherence to a very narrow interpretation in all areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top