My position continues to be that Supreme Court justices are much more knowledgeable on this topic than I am, so I defer to them.
The cancer of Arbitrary government that took hold in the early 20th century has metastasized … Eisenhower could have saved our economy and system of laws for essentially no cost but he rubber stamped FDR era lawlessness instead.
It is a mirror world of that met by the fictional Scrooge. Once again folks imagine that the welfare of their neighbors is the providence of professionals, paid with tax money this time, and everyone gets their pockets proverbially picked at the office. It’s kinder than the version in Victorian times, but the same ugliness still under the skin.
There is no good way out. The social programs will end when the funny money train ends and people who still may be able, though having become accustomed to turning others over to the tax paid professionals, will have to learn again that humanity is their own personal concern and not something to pay others to deal with out of their sight.
And thus, you believe in the Humpty Dumpty theory of language being applied to our Constitution which is what our Supreme Court has been doing, and willingly admits this fact. Case in point is the Kelo decision.
Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion of the Court writes:
"while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed “use by the public” as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the “use by the public” test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.”
The irrefutable fact is, the people did not erode the meaning of “public use” via an appropriate constitutional amendment process which is the only lawful way to change the meaning of words in a Constitution. The Court took it upon itself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves with a constitutional amendment as required by our Constitution, and, the Court brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society” to justify its own “broader and more natural interpretation” of “public use”. And this amounts to judicial tyranny!
On the other hand, Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, observes the rules of constitutional law and carefully documents the meaning of the words “public use” as they were understood during the time the constitution was adopted. He then concludes:
”The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court’s prior cases to derive today’s far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham’s high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution’s original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O’Connor’s dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners’ favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.”
And what is the fundamental rule regarding the meaning of words and phrases in our Constitution?
“Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption… (my emphasis), see: 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language
So, your position about the Supreme Court is to blindly accept its opinions as being factual and upholding the true meaning of our Constitution, even when documented evidence is presented showing it has engaged in judicial tyranny by ignoring specific protections being written into it?
JWK
“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story
Why haven’t we run out of money already? Do you have a projection for when we will run out of money? Seems like unless you seriously ■■■■ up like Venezuela did, we’ll be fine just as we have been and all the other countries that have social programs funded by progressive taxation.
There’s documented evidence for both sides but I’m not going to hash it out because it doesn’t matter. We live in the now so what’s the point of arguing about the past? Instead you should focus on the future. So what are you going to do or can do to resolve this?
Also, do you believe stimulus payments to citizens help stimulate the economy? Yes or no?
The printing press with continue to provide the “money” just as it does in Venezuela.
And we all know what you mean by “progressive taxation”: “From each according to their ability to pay, to each who needs help living a decent life.” ___ fallenturtle
JWK
When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Revolutionary Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens who have invaded America’s borders.
There you go again, just as I stated in THIS ABOVE POST . . you find great comfort in declaring you “have no intentions of engaging with” the mountain of evidence I present confirming your opinions are based on the Humpty Dumpty theory of language . . . “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
In any event, and to substantiate my assertions, here is a LINK to a recent post confirming you are uninterested in determining the true meaning of our Constitution with regard to Congress’ taxing and spending powers as understood during our Constitution’s framing and ratification process, and you prefer the Humpty dumpty theory of language being applied to our Constitution, in addition to a taxing authority promoting “From each according to their ability to pay, to each who needs help living a decent life.”
How sweet of you to be so generous with other people’s property, especially the property earned by the sweat of one’s labor!
JWK.
Venezuela’s problem wasn’t simply it printed too much money… it was mismanaged (not surprising consider its a dictatorship) and overly dependent on a single industry.
lol, what the hell dude. I mean by progressive taxation what everyone else means by progressive taxation which is only the first half of that quote of mine that is clearly living rent-free in your head (and hard drive):
“from each according to their ability to pay.”
If you’re going to repeat, then I’m going to repeat:
We live in the now so what’s the point of arguing about the past? Instead you should focus on the future. So what are you going to do or can do to resolve this?
Also, do you believe stimulus payments to citizens help stimulate the economy? Yes or no?
I pay taxes too.
Pretty much like our federal government has mismanaged its spending and borrowing . . . its current debt, including unfunded debt liabilities being, $ 220 TRILLION!
But hey, let the printing press run and introduce another $4.38 BILLION in Federal Reserve Notes to the M1 money supply, and give this cash to illegal entrants so they can pay for their economic needs . . . free of charge.
JWK
"We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it". — Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 (Rep. Pa)
Of course you are going to repeat and ignore the mountain of evidence I present confirming your opinions are based on the Humpty Dumpty theory of language . . . “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”
JWK
The bottom line is, there is no better way to weaken, destroy and bring to its knees a prosperous country than by flooding it with the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled, disease carrying, disabled and criminal populations of other countries.
Do you believe stimulus payments to citizens help stimulate the economy? Yes or no?
We live in the now so what’s the point of arguing about the past? Instead you should focus on the future. So what are you going to do or can do to resolve this?
.
Well, once again you deflect and refuse to engage in a dialogue and support your “opinions” regarding the meaning of our Constitution. Are we not still living under a Constitution which regulates our “future.”
JWK
“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story
I refuse to engage in a dialogue?! Hilarious… I keep asking you questions and you ignore them and accuse me of deflection. dialogues are two sided.
Still deflecting I see.
Your questions have nothing to do with the true meaning of our Constitution, nor printing and handing over $4.38 BILLION in Federal Reserve Notes to illegal entrants so they may acquire “free” economic needs.
JWK
When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Revolutionary Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens who have invaded America’s borders.
Still deflecting by accusing me of deflecting I see.
Do you believe stimulus payments to citizens help stimulate the economy? Yes or no?
Your above accusation brings to mind the following:
Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
In regard to your above deflective question, it is irrelevant to what we are discussing which is, handing over $4.38 BILLION in Federal Reserve Notes to illegal entrants so they may acquire and consume free of charge their economic needs from our nation’s cupboard, and you indicating this a beneficial economic “stimulus” for our nation’s economy.
Asserting your “stimulus” idea ___ allowing the current flow of illegal entrants to consume $4.38 BILLION worth of goods and services from our nation’s cupboard ___ is somehow beneficial to our nation’s economy is absurd to say the least.
The next time a major fire sweeps across California and consumes $4.38 BILLION in property, I doubt any sane person will rejoice and claim such a consumption of property is a beneficial “stimulus”, which is what your absurd thinking indicates such an event would be.
JWK
When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Revolutionary Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens who have invaded America’s borders.
You’re using those words wrong.
Dude.
I’m trying to ascertain if your issue is that stimulus payments don’t stimulate the economy in general or only when its given to illegal immigrants. Based on what you’ve said, it seems like its stimulus payments in general. Hence my question.
And yes, if a major fire causes people to have to buy enough things minus the losses the insurance companies take, that would be good for the economy, but no one rejoices because its way overshadowed by the lost and destruction caused by the fire. It’s not a good analogy.
I stated my “issue” in crystal clear language.
My issue is specifically with regard to handing over $4.38 BILLION in Federal Reserve Notes to illegal entrants so they may acquire and consume free of charge their economic needs from our nation’s cupboard, and you indicating this is a beneficial economic “stimulus” for America’s taxpaying citizens.
I don’t know what you mean by “stimulus” but from where I stand when the force of our federal government is used to take $4.38 BILLION from the American Citizen’s Federal Treasury, and hand it over to illegal entrants so they may consume free of charge their economic need’s from our nation’s cupboard, that is a net loss to taxpaying American Citizens, and to replenish the wealth consumed by the illegal entrants, American citizens will be “stimulated” to work and sweat to replace what the illegal entrants have consumed free of charge.
As I correctly pointed out, if a fire swept across California and consumes $4.38 BILLION in property, I doubt any sane person will rejoice and claim the fire created a beneficial “stimulus”, which is what your absurd thinking indicates such an event would be.
The fact is, after such a fire, instead of the economy generating additional wealth for future use, the fire will have “stimulated” the people to work and sweat to simply replace that which has been consumed by the fire.
But hey, I think I know what afflicts you and why you are so adamant in defending the use of government force and the American Citizen’s Federal Treasury to finance the economic needs of those flooding into the United States from Central America. It appears you think with the wrong part of your anatomy. You think with your heart, and not your brain, and have no moral compunction in using government force to take the property of your neighbor to carry out your lofty, self-righteous desires, and, you have confessed as much when you stated “From each according to their ability to pay, to each who needs help living a decent life.” ___ fallenturtle
JWK
When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Revolutionary Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens who have invaded America’s borders.
