Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Ruble Noon, Jun 30, 2012.
from what i understand, the obama people were allowed to argue this as a tax, and as a penalty. as a tax, it's constitutional. as a penalty, it isn't.
the finger in the eye is, the pandora's box this opens as a tax.
I don't care what they say, I'll always believe somebody "got" to Roberts.
I would agree with this, but for the life of me I don't know why.
How in HELL can one co-equal branch of government, or any individual in it, threaten or intimidate another? So, Zero gives his Rose Garden speech, with all its falsehoods, its utter ignorance of Marbury and says like the pathological liar that he is that it's unprecedented to overturn a law. Wrong ***hole, its been done over 160 times.
So, Zero spews all this blather and nonsense, and is read as "threatening" the Supreme Court. With WHAT? Is he gonna go over there and arrest them? Withhold money from them, as if he had the power? Do a driveby on John Robert's house? Badmouth him at his favorite restaurant? Seat him in the back during the next SOTU speech? If I were John Roberts and that idiot did that to me, I'd stand out on the front steps of the SCOTUS, hold a presser and when all the cameras were on me live, give them a one finger salute and say, Mr President, this is for you! Then walk off back to my office.
Then write whatever opinion his stupid law deserved. Valid under the COTUS.
Guess what? The next day, nothing would have happened. The stupid law would have been struck down and life would have gone on. This stupid idea of some Kabuki theater where the president pretends to threaten and the Chief Justice pretends to be afraid, or maybe they all mean it, who cares…its utter nonsense.
The law could have been canned and life would have gone on.
Not a damn thing Zero could have done about it, either.
The power to tax as mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution only applies to the enumerated powers that immediately follow. These powers contain no reference or even hint that health, education or transfers of wealth of any kind are powers of the federal government. In Article 41 of "The Federalist Papers," James Madison (the "Father of the Constitution") clearly explains that, contrary to the fears of some that the taxing authority granted to the Congress would enable them to tax anything they wanted to obliteration, the taxing power was limited to funding those specific powers that were listed in Article 1, Section 8.
In the same article, Madison demolishes the idea that the "general welfare" phrase gives any kind of authority on it's own - the phrase is merely part of a preamble, or statement of purpose for the enumerated powers that follow in Section 8.
If the states thought that the expressions regarding general welfare, regulation of commerce, and taxation gave the federal government the infinite powers that modern day leftists say it does, they would NOT have ratified the Constitution. Most of the states today would never agree to those liberal "interpretations" (really distortions) of the Constitution if a Constitutional Convention was held today and the liberal "interpretations" of the original language was put out in the open, on the table for everyone to see and actually understand how much freedom they would be surrendering.
Perhaps some forum members are of the opinion that most states, their legislatures and voters would knowingly and willingly surrender most of their freedoms in such a hypothetical Constitutional Convention, but I certainly hope this would not be the case.
Please, everybody....read the Constitution and get a copy of "The Federalist Papers" and use it as a reference since it is not the kind of book you curl up with just for fun. "The Federalist Papers" are regarded by many as the first source to check when doing research on the Constitution.
You're right that taxing is one thing, and that spending is quite another.
This distinction has been lost or blurred in the instant situation, but it remains valid; hopefully a man or woman of honor will arise and bring this to the fore, but I have my doubts that anyone is interested in upsetting the gravy boat.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35TbGjt-weA"]I don't want to live on this planet anymore - YouTube[/ame]
Not far from my thoughts. When I read it was Roberts, I thought I wonder how much he sold out for, and then my next thought was or what do "they" have on him he doesn't wan't public?