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.
If it isn't spelled out in the Constitution, It's not within the Fed's powers. You say you know The Constitution? HAH! It was NEVER intended to be a living document. Anyone who thinks that is a very ignorant of our history and the mindset of our Founding Fathers. They had a total mistrust of an overpowering Federal Government and the Constitution was designed to control the Federal Government's powers. By stating it's a living document you show you have no knowlege of it at all.
If you really think dedistributing wealth is just another way of lowering taxes, you are way beyond help. Who says income tax is Constitutional? just because it's been in effect for a long time doesn't mean it's Constitutional. This has been unsuccessfully challenged many times. You really do not have any true knowlege of The Constitution no matrer how many times you may have read it. You need to comprehent too ya know? You're dismissed.
Geez, you are a shining example of the quote:
"It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
If the Constitution is not a "living and breathing document" then how, pray tell, do you fathom that the Supreme Court has any right to interpret it? Does it so happen that one sitting court defines a gray area in our Constitution and that ends the argument?
Should be a pretty straight-forward document if it weren't meant to be flexible, but instead it is purposefully vague in many respects.
As an example, let me ask:
Do you have the right to own a nuclear weapon? Why not? You have the right to bear arms, don't you? Where in the Constitution does it restrict you from owning a nuke?
As to the Constitutionality of the Income Tax, refer to the 16th Amendment. Like it or not, it is actually IN the Constitution. Hate to break it to ya man, but that MAKES IT CONSTITUTIONAL..
Some years ago a British diplomat was visiting our house of congress watching the debate of a very hot issue. Much fighting going on between the two parties. The British diplomat turned to his Senator friend and asked him " so how do you like taxation with representation?"
Some years ago a British diplomat was visiting our house of congress watching the debate of a very hot issue. Much fighting going on between the two parties. The British diplomat turned to his Senator friend and asked him " so how do you like taxation with representation?"
OK now you said the stock market has recovered greatly. What do you see as the evidence of that. Ahead of schedule for getting out of IRAQ, again I still know alot of Marines there fighting with no end date. Health care reform that has not passed and that hopefully will never pass. And he has put our place in the world community as one of subserviant not the dominant nation we should be. Yeah great first year in office.
Are you joking? The DOW is above 10k again. After losing half it's value under George W Bush. Those Marines are only for support of the Iraqi military who is now in charge of security in Iraq and all are scheduled out by 2011. Health care reform has passed in the House. It will be signed into law by this next spring. The only question is what form will it take after the Senate. As far as I know, the US is still the World's only superpower. Yet you think we are "subserviant"? Very strange thinking indeed!
"It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
If the Constitution is not a "living and breathing document" then how, pray tell, do you fathom that the Supreme Court has any right to interpret it? Does it so happen that one sitting court defines a gray area in our Constitution and that ends the argument?
Should be a pretty straight-forward document if it weren't meant to be flexible, but instead it is purposefully vague in many respects.
As an example, let me ask:
Do you have the right to own a nuclear weapon? Why not? You have the right to bear arms, don't you? Where in the Constitution does it restrict you from owning a nuke?
As to the Constitutionality of the Income Tax, refer to the 16th Amendment. Like it or not, it is actually IN the Constitution. Hate to break it to ya man, but that MAKES IT CONSTITUTIONAL..
Not to mention the fact that we have "amendments" to the Constitution demonstrates a living document.
"It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
If the Constitution is not a "living and breathing document" then how, pray tell, do you fathom that the Supreme Court has any right to interpret it? Does it so happen that one sitting court defines a gray area in our Constitution and that ends the argument?
Should be a pretty straight-forward document if it weren't meant to be flexible, but instead it is purposefully vague in many respects.
As an example, let me ask:
Do you have the right to own a nuclear weapon? Why not? You have the right to bear arms, don't you? Where in the Constitution does it restrict you from owning a nuke?
As to the Constitutionality of the Income Tax, refer to the 16th Amendment. Like it or not, it is actually IN the Constitution. Hate to break it to ya man, but that MAKES IT CONSTITUTIONAL..
The U.S. Constitution is not a “living and breathing document.”
Americans are guided by contracts, and the biggest of these contracts is the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is the defining document of our republic; it enables our rights and freedoms.
We could not have a stable society if our contracts were living and breathing documents subject to change without notice, to do so would invite anarchy. As the country goes thru good times and bad, as new fads in our culture come and go, the U.S. Constitution is there to provides the solid foundation which holds our republic and society together, it must be timeless and durable, so we can live our lives secure in the knowledge that no matter how the times change around us, our rights and freedoms will always remain. A “living and breathing document” provides none of those reassurances. It is not perfect but the Framers gave us the ability to perfect it through the amendment process.
Not to mention the fact that we have "amendments" to the Constitution demonstrates a living document.
If it is "living" then I would use the analogy of a guard dog. You can create amendments and train the dog to be a better more efficient guard dog. You cannot decide that the guard dog is fundamentally flawed, and change it into a snake.
$2 a week? Sorry bout your luck I guess... I didn't ask for it, I don't necessarily want it, but the difference in my pay check is between $100 and $200 a month.
As to your example. Is this something he's done as President? Or is it something Chicago-specific? Currently gun laws seem to be a state-to-state thing. I've seen no push to limit guns or ammunition on the federal level by Obama.
Your paycheck went up between $100 and $200 per month because of something Obama did?
You need to provide proof of the fiscal policy and the financial statistics that drove that increase. Otherwise, I call bullsh*t. No one in this country can claim that Barack Obama put that much additional money in their regular paycheck. Period. Show us the proof or quit lying.
From the IRS:
"It all depends on your marital status, how much you make, and the number of exemptions you claim on your W-4 form. Typically, individuals will get an extra $10 to $15 per week, and married couples who file jointly will see an extra $15 to $20 per paycheck. Single filers will receive up to $400 per year for the rest of 2009 and part of 2010, and married and filing jointly couples will receive up to $800."
Assuming you're married, you should have gotten ~$20 per two week paycheck = $40 extra per month x 2 (you and your spouse) = $80 per month.
$2 a week? Sorry bout your luck I guess... I didn't ask for it, I don't necessarily want it, but the difference in my pay check is between $100 and $200 a month.
As to your example. Is this something he's done as President? Or is it something Chicago-specific? Currently gun laws seem to be a state-to-state thing. I've seen no push to limit guns or ammunition on the federal level by Obama.
Obama is pushing as his role of President for Chicago Legislation. Everyone is buying up as much ammo because he is on his way to limit it.
He is a joke.
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.
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.
