Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-23-2009, 08:49 AM
 
Location: Europe
2,735 posts, read 2,459,521 times
Reputation: 639

Advertisements

This thread is not about your childish behaviour. Post your arguments and not your opinions about the other person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-23-2009, 08:59 AM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,783 posts, read 3,734,508 times
Reputation: 1336
Who me? I did post my arguments. My "opinions about the other person" are germane to the discussion because all political debate returns to interpretation of the law. Understanding one's interpretation is not possible without discussing the philosophical basis that forms the viewpoint from which it is observed. It is the avoidance of such discussion that ensures we will never reach understanding of the real difference between people's views when we deal only with the results reached by such philosophy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2009, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Europe
2,735 posts, read 2,459,521 times
Reputation: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow View Post
Who me? I did post my arguments. My "opinions about the other person" are germane to the discussion because all political debate returns to interpretation of the law. Understanding one's interpretation is not possible without discussing the philosophical basis that forms the viewpoint from which it is observed. It is the avoidance of such discussion that ensures we will never reach understanding of the real difference between people's views when we deal only with the results reached by such philosophy.
Not only you, but the last posts were just redundant imo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2009, 09:15 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,975,677 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow View Post
And what number power is it that makes Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Healthcare, or any other Collectivist policy Constitutional?
It comes under #1 the general welfare clause.

See U.S. v. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2009, 09:17 AM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,425,821 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
Help me out. I'm not a lawyer, but I had understood that the problem was apportionment. Before the 16th amendment Congress would be forced to apportion taxes like income taxes based upon state population. That obviously can't work. Is that correct?
Apportionment is an issue alright, but that is because all direct taxes must be apportioned. Income taxes are indirect taxes and, as the Court decisions cited earlier took care to point out, they were entirely constitutional from the moment the document was ratified. The 1895 decision in Pollock rested upon a newly invented theory of taxation holding that as taxation of income in such forms as rent and dividends worked a considerable effect upon the value of the underlying asset, it was in fact a direct tax in that degree, and therefore not constitutional. The 16th Amendment exploded that aberrant interpretation.

Last edited by saganista; 09-23-2009 at 09:29 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2009, 09:23 AM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,425,821 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
See U.S. v. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
Oh no, not BUTLER. You don't mean THIS part, do you...

The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2009, 09:54 AM
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
4,783 posts, read 3,734,508 times
Reputation: 1336
They also stated:

The act invades the reserved rights of the states.

However, I do agree that some correctly point out that the Butler ruling does seem to expand, without any logical limit whatsoever, the Power of Congress to create Collectivist policy. This simply means to me that we should have the Supreme Court address this matter again. It would be foolish to think that this Court acted rationally in any way given that The Raw..I mean The New Deal was still shiny and new. Obviously the Court understood that public support for Collectivism was very high at this time.

That not withstanding, is it believed that there should be no limit placed upon Congress to redistribute wealth in this country? I really am not trying to "force" a particular answer here. Do most people really think that Congress should be able to pick and choose which citizen's freedom is more important than others based only on their level of income? I really am alone in this world if this is the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2009, 09:55 AM
 
4,183 posts, read 6,512,952 times
Reputation: 1734
Methinks we should wait for that brilliant constitutional lawyer and scholar Rush Limbaugh to WEIGH IN with his legal opinions. I'm sure the right wingers here are waiting for him to back them up. If not, there's always that other scholar and genius, Sarah Palin. The intellectual bench of the right wing movement runs deep.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2009, 10:00 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,292,271 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Your preferences for continued dedication to ignorance are noted. Regardless, the government has always had the power to levy income taxes, and as the filer prepares his or her own tax bill, the system is voluntary. These facts are not altered by either refusal or inability to recognize them.
Voluntary - What a wonderful word!

"which is the way he wants it - well, he gets it!


YouTube - cool hand luke
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2009, 10:02 AM
 
Location: New Mexico
8,396 posts, read 9,426,996 times
Reputation: 4070
Default Is the Income Tax unconstitutional or not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pamky View Post
Do you as Americans do have to pay income tax or not? Do you have to face consequences if you do not pay income tax?


YouTube - Ron Paul on CNBC 2004 - UnConstitutional Income Tax

Here's a very simple way to answer your question...

Stop paying your income tax. See if anyone notices. Get back to us with a report.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:25 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top