Who decides "excessive" or "unfair"? To whom is the accountability owed? Who has the responsibility to be accountable?

:congrats:

At least I'm not the only one asking...thanks Lauri

How about this question. I've seen/heard this thrown out by the tea baggers many times. Still not sure what they are talking about, maybe you could clarify. What does this mean? "Take Back America"

I believe they think the government needs to stop bailing out private industry - get away from the "too big to fail" policy - return to more limited government with fewer entitlements - and get out of the business of over regulating small businesses and individuals. They believe this supports the intent of the Constitution. I am sure there is more to it but the bottom line is to encourage personal responsibility, hold the government more accountable for how it handles our money and get out of the way of private enterprise.

One thing that is very important is that the tea party is not really fueled by social conservatism. What the followers share is fiscal conservatism and most aren't interested in getting into the social issues. It is about money, taxes, business, jobs, government accountability, return to Constitutional principals (federalism) and personal accountability.

What has traditionally divided the GOP is that there is the social conservative wing and the fiscally conservative wing. Of course there is quite a bit of over lap but most people who are conservatives will tell you if they are fiscally conservative but not socially conservative. Or vice versa. You don't see that so much with the liberals (i.e., that they fiscally liberal but not socially liberal - although you frequently hear people say they are socially liberal but a fiscally conservative). I'd say the Tea Partiers, when compared to the GOP, could roughly be called the a group that believes in the same things as the fiscally conservative wing except that many flat out don't want to be associated with the GOP. There are a ton of independants who support the movement because they are fiscal conservatives but socially moderate or liberal - but mad at hell at both parties for being spendthrifts. None of the tea baggers that I know or have read about support this health care bill, in large part because they don't think it will work and we can't afford it. They also believe it is too far an intrusion into our lives by the federal government and don't trust them to not screw everything up.

If those are their main 4 I guess the only one is personal responsibilities

So you "lean conservative" yet you think taxes should be higher, the government should spend irresponsibly, the government should be big and intrusive, and that the government should control the economy? LOL what conservative ideals DO you stand behind?

So you "lean conservative" yet you think taxes should be higher, the government should spend irresponsibly, the government should be big and intrusive, and that the government should control the economy? LOL what conservative ideals DO you stand behind?

Didn't say taxes should be higher...just sayin they really don't have a gripe in that area...could change of course but for now they seem rather reasonable

I'll answer your questions, JerzeeGrl...


1.) What is a "smaller and less intrusive scale" to you? Which government services do you think should be removed?
I advocate constitutional government according to the 10th amendment. There are numerous government services that should be removed. Dept. of Education, Dept. of Labor, the EPA. There are numerous agencies that need to be downsized drastically such as DOT, Homeland Security, FDA, FCC, and others. While tricky, I support phasing out Social Security, Medicare, and any federal welfare program.


2.) Are taxes really too high? That's just like saying gas prices are too high without knowing what the money goes for. What is "too high" to you? What is a more acceptable range? And for that question, again, refer to my first question.
Personally, my issue is less with the amount of taxes I pay and more with the purpose of the taxes. I want to support the military, transportation infrastructure, and other critical pieces of the Federal government described in the Constitution. I do not wish to fund any government services that I feel are a violation of the Constitution. Is my opinion or wishes supreme and more important than others? Nope, but I do get to vote and I do get to exercise my right to voice my opinion to my elected officials. Why villify the tea partiers for doing that?


3.) Sure I agree with you in principle. But I have to ask, what do you think things would be like if these services were removed? Would there be no exceptions? How would you reform the system if you had the chance?
This is particularly tricky, and one I'm not sure Tea Partiers have thought through completely. To return to constitutional government immediately would be disastrous for many people. I believe in voting for people who will not expand already overreaching federal powers, who will be willing to make steps and cuts toward constitutional government as opportunities present themselves. It is impossible to get everything we want. It would be too disruptive. I just want steps in the right direction and to stop running the wrong way.


4.) I agree with you totally. But, what in our current system is really preventing this? What kind of intrusions do you object to? Are there intrusions that are perhaps necessary to keep safety and peace that you haven't considered?
I object to federal intrusion into personal and state's freedom in many areas... I firmly believe the people of Oklahoma should be able to outright ban abortion if that be the will of Oklahoma's voters. I believe the people of Oklahoma should be able to educate our children without taking money from other states and without the Federal government's interference. I believe the people of Oklahoma should be able to determine what forms of retirement or health care should be mandated if any, and tax or fund those programs on a local level. I also oppose a federal ban on gay marriage (though I support Oklahoma's right to ban it). In other words, I believe we as Oklahomans should be able to decide issues for ourselves right here in our state except where the constitution specifically gives powers to the Federal government to interfere.

I think Joel228 is on the money.

I advocate constitutional government according to the 10th amendment. There are numerous government services that should be removed. Dept. of Education, Dept. of Labor, the EPA. There are numerous agencies that need to be downsized drastically such as DOT, Homeland Security, FDA, FCC, and others. While tricky, I support phasing out Social Security, Medicare, and any federal welfare program.


I can't say that I agree with the phasing out of Social Security because it would be completely changing the rules that some have lived by for their entire lives. Should anyone count on SS as their sole means of income after retirement, God no! Should it be there as a supplement to savings, absolutely and that is what it was designed to be. Should there be a point where it should be phased out? Absolutely, if someone has $5million in the bank, there is no need in the world for that person to get SS.

Many activities of the Federal Government should be transferred to the states. Some of the departments you mentioned above should be. Social services should be as should programs pertaining to social issues - such as abortion. These should not be Federal issues but state issues. OK is not California or Mass. If California or Mass want to allow and pay for abortions, let them. If OK doesn't want to, it shouldn't be forced to. This is a big country and big differences in opinions and values.

Issues of regulation that are national issues, should be regulated nationally. Financial services is and should be nationally regulated. Insurance is state regulated but should be nationally regulated since it is a national issue.

You slavers still havent articulated why you are so afraid of the teabaggers. Why are you all ducking the question?

Who are slavers? Is is someone who pays taxes without protesting it?

Your infatuation and hatred toward them betrays your line that they are irrelevant to you. You and the rest of the slavers are afraid of them. You show nothing but contempt for anyone who refuses to bow to the state and chooses personal liberty over bondage to authority. Every comment you make, every thread you start, every response you make just further proves my point.

As a comparison, think of the Westboro Baptist Church gang of imbeciles. Here is a group that gathers regularly to spew vile ignorant hateful garbage... they are truly worthy of your contempt. Yet, nary a word from the slaver gang.

But when a group of people gather whose basic message is "We support personal liberty, lower taxes, smaller government, and responsible government spending".... oh HELL NO. The whole gang of you go falling all over yourselves in a rush to demonize them.

Why the disparity? Why are you so much more offended by the idea of FREEDOM than the putrid intolerant filth that the Westboro's spew? Why are you so much more threatened by it?

Nevermind the fact that pointing out a handful of morons out of hundreds of thousands is not very intelligent way to characters are large and varied group of individuals. Hell, I could cherry pick from the countless idiotic and ignorant statements that you, ronronnie, gmwise, okanacerous, HWTJ, and the rest of your ilk make on a routine basis on this board and put them in a video. Do you know how laughably foolish the lot of you would look?
I mean honestly, do you think that a collective group of people that doesn't know the difference between a right and an entitlement who still can't learn it after being taught repeatedly has any wriggle room to comment on the "ignorance" of anyone else?

lol, Of course, Caboose, I trust you look on quite approvingly of all the obsession there is on here to discredit and ridicule President Obama. Seems like that's what the majority of the thread topics are about. By the way, have you written any of your legislators lately? It might be time better spent than bitching on here.

Who are slavers? Is is someone who pays taxes without protesting it?

I suspect he means people who are taken care of by the government and in so doing, sacrifice their freedom for the privilege. It is quite an insult because it contrasts slaves who went into bondage against their will with those who go willingly and enslave their fellow citizens on the way.

lol, Of course, Caboose, I trust you look on quite approvingly of all the obsession there is on here to discredit and ridicule President Obama. Seems like that's what the majority of the thread topics are about. By the way, have you written any of your legislators lately? It might be time better spent than bitching on here.

Obama needs no help in this matter, he's doing a fine job all by himself.

I suspect he means people who are taken care of by the government and in so doing, sacrifice their freedom for the privilege. It is quite an insult because it contrasts slaves who went into bondage against their will with those who go willingly and enslave their fellow citizens on the way.

Slavers enable agents of the government to enslave the population by creating a society of dependency. Slavers trade their freedom and the freedom of their fellow man for the security of of being "taken care of" by the government. Slavers literally sell their fellow man into bondage to the state.

6 page thread starting as an invitation to a rally, yet not one person on this forum who has posted in this thread actually went. Not sure why that is, but interesting nontheless.

Thought this was worth noting...


On April 15, thousands of activists participated in tax day rallies around the country. Here in Washington, D.C. a large rally was held on the National Mall beneath the shadow of the Washington Monument.

From Politico:

Tea party activists are divided roughly into two camps, according to a new POLITICO/TargetPoint poll: one that's libertarian-minded and largely indifferent to hot-button values issues and another that's culturally conservative and equally concerned about social and fiscal issues.

The poll was conducted over 5 hours during the rally and 457 respondents filled out the questionnaire. The results were generally what many of us would have expected...

The results, however, suggest a distinct fault line that runs through the tea party activist base, characterized by two wings led by the politicians who ranked highest when respondents were asked who "best exemplifies the goals of the tea party movement" - former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a former GOP presidential candidate.

Palin, who topped the list with 15 percent, speaks for the 43 percent of those polled expressing the distinctly conservative view that government does too much, while also saying that it needs to promote traditional values.

Paul's thinking is reflected by an almost identical 42 percent who said government does too much but should not try to promote any particular set of values - the hallmarks of libertarians. He came in second to Palin with 12 percent.

When asked to choose from a list of candidates for president in 2012, Palin and Paul also finished one-two - with Palin at 15 percent and Paul at 14 percent.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=34773

Slavers enable agents of the government to enslave the population by creating a society of dependency. Slavers trade their freedom and the freedom of their fellow man for the security of of being "taken care of" by the government. Slavers literally sell their fellow man into bondage to the state.

Screw the unemployed!!!

Screw the unemployed!!!

Yeah because the ONLY alternative to government dependency is unemployment! Right? What a profound point!

Soonerqueen, are you there???? Are you going to discuss tea bag rally that you were inviting everyone to? Why are you so quiet about this?

6 page thread starting as an invitation to a rally, yet not one person on this forum who has posted in this thread actually went. Not sure why that is, but interesting nontheless.

I went, along with my brother, sister and several members from our Church!!

I went, along with my brother, sister and several members from our Church!!

Why did you go? How was it? Did you get much accomplished?

Slavers enable agents of the government to enslave the population by creating a society of dependency. Slavers trade their freedom and the freedom of their fellow man for the security of of being "taken care of" by the government. Slavers literally sell their fellow man into bondage to the state.

Sounds like all you're doing is defining how the government operates its prison system.

I'll answer your questions, JerzeeGrl...

I advocate constitutional government according to the 10th amendment. There are numerous government services that should be removed. Dept. of Education, Dept. of Labor, the EPA. There are numerous agencies that need to be downsized drastically such as DOT, Homeland Security, FDA, FCC, and others. While tricky, I support phasing out Social Security, Medicare, and any federal welfare program.


Personally, my issue is less with the amount of taxes I pay and more with the purpose of the taxes. I want to support the military, transportation infrastructure, and other critical pieces of the Federal government described in the Constitution. I do not wish to fund any government services that I feel are a violation of the Constitution. Is my opinion or wishes supreme and more important than others? Nope, but I do get to vote and I do get to exercise my right to voice my opinion to my elected officials. Why villify the tea partiers for doing that?


This is particularly tricky, and one I'm not sure Tea Partiers have thought through completely. To return to constitutional government immediately would be disastrous for many people. I believe in voting for people who will not expand already overreaching federal powers, who will be willing to make steps and cuts toward constitutional government as opportunities present themselves. It is impossible to get everything we want. It would be too disruptive. I just want steps in the right direction and to stop running the wrong way.


I object to federal intrusion into personal and state's freedom in many areas... I firmly believe the people of Oklahoma should be able to outright ban abortion if that be the will of Oklahoma's voters. I believe the people of Oklahoma should be able to educate our children without taking money from other states and without the Federal government's interference. I believe the people of Oklahoma should be able to determine what forms of retirement or health care should be mandated if any, and tax or fund those programs on a local level. I also oppose a federal ban on gay marriage (though I support Oklahoma's right to ban it). In other words, I believe we as Oklahomans should be able to decide issues for ourselves right here in our state except where the constitution specifically gives powers to the Federal government to interfere.

What is your particular expertise in constitutional law?

And in light of the general welfare clause (Art. I, sec. 8), how are these agencies unconstitutional?

What is your particular expertise in constitutional law?
I am a moderately well-informed and well-studied citizen. Does one need a law degree in order to vote or voice his opinion on political issues now? I do not demand that you agree with me. And I only demand that my elected officials agree with me if they want my vote. There are PhD's in Constitutional Law that both agree with me on 10th Amendment and there are those who disagree. Again, I do not think my voice is superior to yours, but I have just as much right to speak up as anyone else.


And in light of the general welfare clause (Art. I, sec. 8), how are these agencies unconstitutional?
I think it is an extreme stretch to take the inclusion of the words "general welfare" as a blank check that can be broadly interpreted to mean anything Congress wants. It seems clear that "common defense and general welfare" is both defined and has its scope described in the remaining list that makes up the body of Article 1, Sec. 8. In other words, Section 8 itself enumerates what is meant by "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" and it should be limited to those enumerated items.

I am a moderately well-informed and well-studied citizen. Does one need a law degree in order to vote or voice his opinion on political issues now? I do not demand that you agree with me. And I only demand that my elected officials agree with me if they want my vote. There are PhD's in Constitutional Law that both agree with me on 10th Amendment and there are those who disagree. Again, I do not think my voice is superior to yours, but I have just as much right to speak up as anyone else.

One doesn't need a law degree to have an opinion on these things, but a few books and a high school or undergrad diploma doesn't make one a Constitutional scholar.

To truly understand the subject and how Constitutional Law, which is created in the courts, is created, one need not have a law degree, but it sure helps.

You can have an opinion on the way things ought to be, but that does nothing to controvert the fact that things are not the way you either perceive them to be or wish they were. The case law does not support your position and at the end of the day, the case law wins.


I think it is an extreme stretch to take the inclusion of the words "general welfare" as a blank check that can be broadly interpreted to mean anything Congress wants. It seems clear that "common defense and general welfare" is both defined and has its scope described in the remaining list that makes up the body of Article 1, Sec. 8. In other words, Section 8 itself enumerates what is meant by "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" and it should be limited to those enumerated items.

Well then you don't really understand what the clause is doing. The general welfare clause in Art I, Sect. 8 is speaking to the spending power of the U.S. government in that it can spend money on anything Congress wants to spend money on.

The spending power is primarily how the Dept. of Ed. functions -- it promulgates policies and the states can choose to follow those policies and get cash or not follow those policies and lose money. The states still get a choice though. So there's no 10th Amendment issue and your argument there doesn't really fly.

As far as the EPA, DEA, FCC, etc., go, those are agencies which are created by enabling statutes. Typically, their powers are derived from the federal government's ability to regulate interstate commerce, and of course from their enabling statutes. Congress typically grants these agencies discretion over a fairly broad area, then the agencies are able to make rules (in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act) to carry out Congress' mandate... but that's all well and good because on the one hand, Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce while on the other hand, the Administrative Procedure Act guarantees citizens' due process rights are not infringed upon. There's also judicial review which precludes any other unconstitutional, arbitrary and capricious action by federal agencies.

So yes, you can have an opinion, but no one with a formal legal education ('cept some wingnuts) will take you seriously.

You can have an opinion on the way things ought to be, but that does nothing to controvert the fact that things are not the way you either perceive them to be or wish they were. The case law does not support your position and at the end of the day, the case law wins.
First, I have no problem admitting I'm idealistic. And sadly, I agree with you about case law. Of course, in my opinion, that is part of what is severely wrong with this country. I don't believe case law is law. I believe statutes are law. Courts have no legislative power, and the very term "case law" seems to betray that important balance of power between the branches of our government.


Well then you don't really understand what the clause is doing. The general welfare clause in Art I, Sect. 8 is speaking to the spending power of the U.S. government in that it can spend money on anything Congress wants to spend money on.
There are plenty who disagree with you. There are some sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States who would disagree with you on this point. It is also hard to read the writings of those who signed the Constitution and imagine that they were intending to give Congress a blank check here.

BTW, just to be fair, as I have not been extremely active on this forum and am not aware of your credentials in constitutional law, would you mind sharing?


The spending power is primarily how the Dept. of Ed. functions -- it promulgates policies and the states can choose to follow those policies and get cash or not follow those policies and lose money. The states still get a choice though. So there's no 10th Amendment issue and your argument there doesn't really fly.
Sure the states can refuse to receive money, but if Oklahoma does that, do I get to opt out of a portion of my Federal income tax that supports the Dept. of Education? This is akin to saying, "You will buy this car for $10000. You don't have to take the car if you don't want to, but you're going to pay $10000 anyway." Is this really called a choice? If Article 1, Sec. 8 means what you say it does, why do we even have the 10th Amendment?


So yes, you can have an opinion, but no one with a formal legal education ('cept some wingnuts) will take you seriously.
I'm fine with that. You can refuse to take me seriously and that doesn't bother me a bit. (Of course, you aren't asking me to vote for you either.) However, if someone does want my vote, they need to take these concerns seriously. And if the Tea Party grows large enough, politicians will have to take these concerns seriously. That's the reason to assemble, so that we cannot be marginalized.

First, I have no problem admitting I'm idealistic. And sadly, I agree with you about case law. Of course, in my opinion, that is part of what is severely wrong with this country. I don't believe case law is law. I believe statutes are law. Courts have no legislative power, and the very term "case law" seems to betray that important balance of power between the branches of our government.

The concept of case law is rooted in the concept of stare decisis (look it up if you don't know what that means). It has been part of our common law tradition since the 1200s in Ancient England. The system carried over to the Colonies and then was followed by the United States. There is absolutely nothing extraconstitutional about case law. The Constitution need not adopt the English common law (but 49 states actually do this, Louisiana being the outlier) because at the time of the founding, this was one of those things that didn't even need to be said -- the Common Law was simply the way the legal system worked, everyone knew it and everyone accepted it. And stare decisis went right along with that.

Understand that since Marbury v. Madison (in 1801) established the fact that the Supreme Court had the power to review actions of the executive and actions of Congress to determine whether those branches are following the Constitution that we've had this check on what would otherwise be unlimited executive and congressional discretion. Consider: If Congress passed an unconstitutional law, for example, killing everyone less than six feet tall, who would have the power to stop them?


There are plenty who disagree with you. There are some sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States who would disagree with you on this point. It is also hard to read the writings of those who signed the Constitution and imagine that they were intending to give Congress a blank check here.

No one on the Supreme Court disagrees with the current construction of the general welfare clause. Hell.. Scalia, the furthest justice to the Right actually has publicly endorsed a Hamiltonian [federalist] construction of the General Welfare clause. By "plenty of people" you won't be able to name a single source who is way out of line with what the law is and what everyone thinks it ought to be. To suggest that the Congress doesn't have the power to spend federal money in any way it wants to spend it (assuming no rights are infringed) is completely without basis.


BTW, just to be fair, as I have not been extremely active on this forum and am not aware of your credentials in constitutional law, would you mind sharing?

Been to law school.


Sure the states can refuse to receive money, but if Oklahoma does that, do I get to opt out of a portion of my Federal income tax that supports the Dept. of Education? This is akin to saying, "You will buy this car for $10000. You don't have to take the car if you don't want to, but you're going to pay $10000 anyway." Is this really called a choice? If Article 1, Sec. 8 means what you say it does, why do we even have the 10th Amendment?

Yes it's a choice. The Supreme Court has said that the states have to be given a choice. See New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) for a pretty good discussion. The 10th Amendment doesn't apply because the spending clause is an enumerated power. The 10th Amendment basically means police powers [health, safety, morals, welfare, education] and areas that the federal government has either abandoned to the states or encouraged them to legislate on their own. I don't think your thinking here is coherent -- how could the powers which are reserved to the states limit the way the federal government can spend money?


I'm fine with that. You can refuse to take me seriously and that doesn't bother me a bit. (Of course, you aren't asking me to vote for you either.) However, if someone does want my vote, they need to take these concerns seriously. And if the Tea Party grows large enough, politicians will have to take these concerns seriously. That's the reason to assemble, so that we cannot be marginalized.

Your concerns are not serious. You may think they are serious, but that's only because you don't really know what you're talking about. You have this imagined [and false] idea of what the Constitution stands for and you're wasting valuable time and energy defending that concept. You don't have to go to law school, but a basic, rudimentary understanding of things would be nice.

Your concerns are not serious. You may think they are serious, but that's only because you don't really know what you're talking about. You have this imagined [and false] idea of what the Constitution stands for and you're wasting valuable time and energy defending that concept. You don't have to go to law school, but a basic, rudimentary understanding of things would be nice.

Another lawyer, here - I think your concerns as a citizen are valid and there is some dispute among constitutional scholars (and I am not one) about how it is all going to shake out. The smart money is propbably what Mid is saying but the race aint over until someone crosses the finish line. And you are dead right that, constitutional scholar or not, if they want your vote, they need to take your concerns seriously.

And I'm no wingnut.

Penny.. we have federal agencies and the Department of Education and so on and so forth. EVERYONE with a rudimentary understanding of constitutional law knows that not only are these agencies just fine, but the law insofar as what they can do is deep and nuanced.

What does one have to do to cross your finish line?

Penny.. we have federal agencies and the Department of Education and so on and so forth. EVERYONE with a rudimentary understanding of constitutional law knows that not only are these agencies just fine, but the law insofar as what they can do is deep and nuanced.

What does one have to do to cross your finish line?

They have to have a ruling from the supreme court, for me.

To have people buy health insurance strikes me as well beyond the intent of the commerce clause - it forces them to engage in commerce when they might not want to - for starters. There are no limits to federal power to control the lives of individuals if this is constitutional. And the fact that they might bring it under the right to tax, in some way, is ludicrous. As for the Department of Education - I haven't done the reserach - was that challenged? Surely it has.

But I want to add that I really don't think pulling attorney rank to demean, stifle or embarrass laypeople is called for. Plenty of brilliant people don't have a legal education but they can understand all this. It isn't rocket science. It is one thing to educate someone who lacks a legal education. It is another to say, "You don't understand this because you aren't a lawyer." Or words to that effect. And even if someone is flat out wrong on how the constitution works, that doesn't mean that their opinion on the subject shouldn't be respected. This is a government of the people - not a government of the lawyers.

Midtowner,

I am aware of English common law, what it is, how it works. I just don't like it when case law seems to contradict statutory law and case law wins. However, I know it's the way things work. Forgive my idealism a little bit.

Not understanding the general welfare clause as you do does not disqualify me from this discussion. Either I'm misunderstanding your point of view, or you are still describing a false choice. If Sec 8 says that federal government has unlimited ability to tax and an unlimited ability to spend that money however it wishes, then exactly what limits are there to the federal government? It in effect can get anything it wants from the states, and you seem to defend it with this false choice of the states can choose not to participate (while being forced to pay for it regardless). I personally don't care how many constitutional scholars defend that, that isn't a government of, by, and for the people. That is oppression and bullying. Constitutional or not, I'm not voting for it.


Your concerns are not serious. You may think they are serious, but that's only because you don't really know what you're talking about. You have this imagined [and false] idea of what the Constitution stands for and you're wasting valuable time and energy defending that concept. You don't have to go to law school, but a basic, rudimentary understanding of things would be nice.
My concerns are serious. You are free to marginalize them and ridicule me. Ultimately, my opinion of what is constitutional or unconstitutional doesn't matter a bit, since last I checked, nobody's nominated me for a federal bench. But my opinion of the way this country should be run or shouldn't be counts just as much as a law school graduate. Candidates for office can dismiss me with your ease if they choose, but not without consequences at the ballot box.

They have to have a ruling from the supreme court, for me.

To have people buy health insurance strikes me as well beyond the intent of the commerce clause - it forces them to engage in commerce when they might not want to - for starters. There are no limits to federal power to control the lives of individuals if this is constitutional. And the fact that they might bring it under the right to tax, in some way, is ludicrous. As for the Department of Education - I haven't done the reserach - was that challenged? Surely it has.

You're asking a different question then. I'm saying that agency law is well established. If you're arguing to the contrary, then you're plain wrong.

The healthcare issue is a separate issue, you're right, it has yet to be ruled on.

But I want to add that I really don't think pulling attorney rank to demean, stifle or embarrass laypeople is called for. Plenty of brilliant people don't have a legal education but they can understand all this. It isn't rocket science. It is one thing to educate someone who lacks a legal education. It is another to say, "You don't understand this because you aren't a lawyer." Or words to that effect. And even if someone is flat out wrong on how the constitution works, that doesn't mean that their opinion on the subject shouldn't be respected. This is a government of the people - not a government of the lawyers.

You're putting words in my mouth. I clearly described where Joel had it wrong. The fact that I'm a lawyer has little relevance, except for the fact that I spent a few years of my life working an essentially full time job doing nothing more than studying the law. He just doesn't know what he's talking about.

I apologize for not posting further about the rally.I mostly posted the info about the rally in case someone might want to go. I went and enjoyed myself. There were about 4,000 people there, maybe a few more. We had speakers and a little music, and it was nice being with like minded people. There was another group that met on the 15th, but I didn't go to that one.

You're putting words in my mouth. I clearly described where Joel had it wrong. The fact that I'm a lawyer has little relevance, except for the fact that I spent a few years of my life working an essentially full time job doing nothing more than studying the law. He just doesn't know what he's talking about.

Mid, with all due respect, there are a number of lawyers on the board who are active and who also put the time into getting a legal education. They rarely suggest that laypeople have no business discussing legal matters due to a lack of said education (although they will argue with them on a point of law). I do not believe I put words in your mouth - I was describing my interpretation of how you were speaking to a nonlawyer. One of my pet peeves are lawyers who trot out their degree to embarass other people or "put them in their place." I felt you came across as kinda snooty but if I misread it, I certainly apologize.

I apologize for not posting further about the rally.I mostly posted the info about the rally in case someone might want to go. I went and enjoyed myself. There were about 4,000 people there, maybe a few more. We had speakers and a little music, and it was nice being with like minded people. There was another group that met on the 15th, but I didn't go to that one.

LOL, nice try, but OHP estimated around 2,000 on that Wed. rally. You must have gone to Fox News School of Exaggeration.

Anyway, since you were one of the very few from this forum who actually went, could you give us more details? Who were the speakers? Was there a sign up for a militia? What was accomplished by going? And why do you think there were less who attended this one vs. others?

Mid, with all due respect, there are a number of lawyers on the board who are active and who also put the time into getting a legal education. They rarely suggest that laypeople have no business discussing legal matters due to a lack of said education (although they will argue with them on a point of law). I do not believe I put words in your mouth - I was describing my interpretation of how you were speaking to a nonlawyer. One of my pet peeves are lawyers who trot out their degree to embarass other people or "put them in their place." I felt you came across as kinda snooty but if I misread it, I certainly apologize.

I did inquire as to his expertise because he was representing a lot of things as fact which are demonstrably false. Has nothing to do with me being a lawyer. The ballgame over Art I, Sect. 8 is over. The Commerce Clause, I think, has been cut down as far as it'll be cut down.

I don't insist that folks have a law degree to talk about the law, but I do think it's good for them to actually have some idea as to what they're talking about -- yes, and I realize that's pretty hard because I know what my understanding of the law was before and after law school, and it was pretty much night and day.

Midtowner,

I am aware of English common law, what it is, how it works. I just don't like it when case law seems to contradict statutory law and case law wins. However, I know it's the way things work. Forgive my idealism a little bit.

Only when that case law is citing to an authority which is above the law being declared invalid. How would you like it if courts had unfettered discretion to declare some 9th Amendment protection, e.g., right to take a vacation, not being bound by precedent or any of that? Not good?


Not understanding the general welfare clause as you do does not disqualify me from this discussion. Either I'm misunderstanding your point of view, or you are still describing a false choice. If Sec 8 says that federal government has unlimited ability to tax and an unlimited ability to spend that money however it wishes, then exactly what limits are there to the federal government? It in effect can get anything it wants from the states, and you seem to defend it with this false choice of the states can choose not to participate (while being forced to pay for it regardless). I personally don't care how many constitutional scholars defend that, that isn't a government of, by, and for the people. That is oppression and bullying. Constitutional or not, I'm not voting for it.

There is no candidate out there, probably not even Ron Paul who would support with doing away with federal money for roads, education, etc. I just ain't gonna happen. So I guess you can't vote.

As far as taxes go, they must be fairly apportioned, so states that participate in programs and those that don't still pay the same tax into the system. So the taxing power is nowhere close to being "unlimited."

Does that mean that the federal government has a lot of coercive power? Sure.

I wouldn't consider myself a tea partier, but this video is spot on. Wish people would stop worrying about race. Of course there are plenty of racists but that falls across all people, not just tea partiers.

P1CLPhz0DHM

Good stuff from Bill Maher. Are teabaggers really interested in lowering spending?

He challenged the tea partiers to take on defense spending saying:

Everything that goes into defense costs us about a trillion dollars a year, most of which goes into fighting the Russians in 1978. Fighter planes for all those dog fights we get into with the Taliban, submarines to foil their evil plot to blow up our ships with car bombs, and space lasers to shoot down their exploding underpants...scream about handouts, this is what they should be protesting.

Bill Maher Blasts Tea Baggers For Ignoring Defense Spending (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/24/bill-maher-to-tea-baggers_n_550430.html)

Good stuff from Bill Maher. Are teabaggers really interested in lowering spending?

He challenged the tea partiers to take on defense spending saying:

Everything that goes into defense costs us about a trillion dollars a year, most of which goes into fighting the Russians in 1978. Fighter planes for all those dog fights we get into with the Taliban, submarines to foil their evil plot to blow up our ships with car bombs, and space lasers to shoot down their exploding underpants...scream about handouts, this is what they should be protesting.

Bill Maher Blasts Tea Baggers For Ignoring Defense Spending (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/24/bill-maher-to-tea-baggers_n_550430.html)

Who gives a **** what Bill Maher thinks? He's an entertainer who will do or say anything he can to get ratings. If the left thinks Rush Limbaugh is a hateful, spiteful, self-promoting, *** (which he certainly can be), Bill Maher is the same thing SQUARED. Bill Maher certainly isn't a defense specialist or has any say-so in what this country needs to protect itself from current or future adversaries. Sure, I'd like to see some true non-political, non-touchable auditors and investigators go through the Defense budget and weed out the money spent on formal galas, military base golf courses and $5,000 toilets, but the programs pointed out above show total ignorance of world affairs.

Bill Maher would sacrifice his own mother if she were a Republican and he could go on Leno or Larry King and poke needles in her eyes.

Who gives a **** what Bill Maher thinks? He's an entertainer who will do or say anything he can to get ratings. If the left thinks Rush Limbaugh is a hateful, spiteful, self-promoting, *** (which he certainly can be), Bill Maher is the same thing SQUARED. Bill Maher certainly isn't a defense specialist or has any say-so in what this country needs to protect itself from current or future adversaries. Sure, I'd like to see some true non-political, non-touchable auditors and investigators go through the Defense budget and weed out the money spent on formal galas, military base golf courses and $5,000 toilets, but the programs pointed out above show total ignorance of world affairs.

Bill Maher would sacrifice his own mother if she were a Republican and he could go on Leno or Larry King and poke needles in her eyes.

:omg: calm down. Must have hit too close to home with that one, sorry.

:omg: calm down. Must have hit too close to home with that one, sorry.

You know, its like someone bringing up Pat Robertson as some sort of representative of the right. He's small potatoes.

I just think Bill Maher is one of the most vile, repulsive and hateful people there is out there. Rush has days when he is on par on the other end of the spectrum but Mahar is vile EVERY day. He isn't even rational with his spewing, he just simply hates.

You know, its like someone bringing up Pat Robertson as some sort of representative of the right. He's small potatoes.

I just think Bill Maher is one of the most vile, repulsive and hateful people there is out there. Rush has days when he is on par on the other end of the spectrum but Mahar is vile EVERY day. He isn't even rational with his spewing, he just simply hates.

Nice way of ignoring the point because you hate Maher. I don't think I've read or heard any teabagger say one word about the enormous amount of spending and waste with defense costs. But hey, Maher is an asshole, so it doesn't matter. :LolLolLol

It's kind of like that thread a while back. If you do the math, we need to cut spending by 25% and increases taxes by 25%, or do one or the other at 50%, or some combination in order to pay off the debt within 100 years.

If you make the point that this will never, ever happen without both parties agreeing, because otherwise the numbers just aren't there, then this means the reality is that the only way to accomplish a budget cut is forth both parties to agree to 25% across the board cuts to both side's pet projects... both medical stuff and defense stuff. As with the previous thread, no one on either side, conservative or liberal, had anything positive to say about this thought. I'm sure that this is just an example of the thinking of people at large around the country. So the bottom line is no one really is serious about cutting the budget. We'll just keep lumbering along with minor cuts to one program or another depending on which party is in office until finally we implode. Kind of sad.

Good stuff from Bill Maher. Are teabaggers really interested in lowering spending?

He challenged the tea partiers to take on defense spending saying:

Everything that goes into defense costs us about a trillion dollars a year, most of which goes into fighting the Russians in 1978. Fighter planes for all those dog fights we get into with the Taliban, submarines to foil their evil plot to blow up our ships with car bombs, and space lasers to shoot down their exploding underpants...scream about handouts, this is what they should be protesting.

Bill Maher Blasts Tea Baggers For Ignoring Defense Spending (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/24/bill-maher-to-tea-baggers_n_550430.html)


Don't care what it has to do with tea but it's hard to argue that his points above aren't sadly true

Is there a reason this isn't in the political section since the discussion has turned that way?

This is why you can't take the teabaggers seriously.

It's kind of like that thread a while back. If you do the math, we need to cut spending by 25% and increases taxes by 25%, or do one or the other at 50%, or some combination in order to pay off the debt within 100 years.

If you make the point that this will never, ever happen without both parties agreeing, because otherwise the numbers just aren't there, then this means the reality is that the only way to accomplish a budget cut is forth both parties to agree to 25% across the board cuts to both side's pet projects... both medical stuff and defense stuff. As with the previous thread, no one on either side, conservative or liberal, had anything positive to say about this thought. I'm sure that this is just an example of the thinking of people at large around the country. So the bottom line is no one really is serious about cutting the budget. We'll just keep lumbering along with minor cuts to one program or another depending on which party is in office until finally we implode. Kind of sad.

Does that calculation take inflation into account?

Nice way of ignoring the point because you hate Maher. I don't think I've read or heard any teabagger say one word about the enormous amount of spending and waste with defense costs. But hey, Maher is an asshole, so it doesn't matter. :LolLolLol

Right, why do we still have to have many thousands of troops in Europe? I think I saw it put at 55,000 for Germany alone. I might as well hope I'm wrong with that figure. My guess it's because a low of individuals and businesses would lose a heck of a lot of money, if those troops came home, and that can't be tolerated.

Well, maybe the next time a teabagger stumbles by this thread they can tell us why they are so angry over spending, but never mention the enormous waste of the defense.

Well, maybe the next time a teabagger stumbles by this thread they can tell us why they are so angry over spending, but never mention the enormous waste of the defense.

Ther is waste in defense spending but it is the only thing keeping the wolf from our door. If I had to choose between defense spending and building bridges to no where, guess what - at least I get something from defense spending. It is hard to know, as a civilian, what is waste and what isn't, but we need our defenses. Bush spent a fortune, as you know, rebuilding our military. It had been all but dismantled under Clinton and when we were hit, it took soooooo much money to bring it back up. With all the bitching and moaning about Bush's budget, where would we be if he had just left the military at the level it was under Clinton? Would you rather have had that?

I'd be OK with having military only in our own country and not the hundred some odd countries we have military presence in.

Ther is waste in defense spending but it is the only thing keeping the wolf from our door. If I had to choose between defense spending and building bridges to no where, guess what - at least I get something from defense spending. It is hard to know, as a civilian, what is waste and what isn't, but we need our defenses. Bush spent a fortune, as you know, rebuilding our military. It had been all but dismantled under Clinton and when we were hit, it took soooooo much money to bring it back up. With all the bitching and moaning about Bush's budget, where would we be if he had just left the military at the level it was under Clinton? Would you rather have had that?

LOL, it's nice to know the massive waste of defense is keeping the big, bad wolf off our door. Just think, if those 55,000 weren't in Germany, the big, bad wolf would've come right on through the door.

Ther is waste in defense spending but it is the only thing keeping the wolf from our door. If I had to choose between defense spending and building bridges to no where, guess what - at least I get something from defense spending. It is hard to know, as a civilian, what is waste and what isn't, but we need our defenses. Bush spent a fortune, as you know, rebuilding our military. It had been all but dismantled under Clinton and when we were hit, it took soooooo much money to bring it back up. With all the bitching and moaning about Bush's budget, where would we be if he had just left the military at the level it was under Clinton? Would you rather have had that?

Good thing we brought that military back up to pre-Clinton levels to fight one war based on phony evidence and another against a borderless, amorphous enemy in a hopelessly corrupt state which will revert to the Taliban the second we leave.

Imagine if we had spent that money on our schools instead of breaking things and killing people?

LOL, it's nice to know the massive waste of defense is keeping the big, bad wolf off our door. Just think, if those 55,000 weren't in Germany, the big, bad wolf would've come right on through the door.

That wasn't new spending.

Imagine if we had spent that money on our schools instead of breaking things and killing people?

It wouldn't have made a shred of difference on academic achievement other than the bump that would come when people came to see what all the excitement was about.

It wouldn't have made a shred of difference on academic achievement other than the bump that would come when people came to see what all the excitement was about.

Ah, so less money for education would result in higher test scores?

Ah, so less money for education would result in higher test scores?

I worte:


It wouldn't have made a shred of difference on academic achievement other than the bump that would come when people came to see what all the excitement was about.

What is it about my sentence that would translate to less money spent on education would result in greater test scores?

I worte:



What is it about my sentence that would translate to less money spent on education would rsult in greater test scores?

If you think more money wouldn't translate into better results, then by that line of reasoning, either you think education funding is perfect (which no one thinks that) or you think that less money would be better.

If you think more money wouldn't translate into better results, then by that line of reasoning, either you think education funding is perfect (which no one thinks that) or you think that less money would be better.

Mid, no offense but at times like these, I have to wonder how you ever got through law school. :omg: That is not a logical conclusion. Think it through. I'll do it for you - I don't see a correlation between money and academic achievement at a certain place beyond the basics.