True enough. I don't usually find myself having to argue a
position that taking away our constitutional right to due process
is a bad thing. As long as the election continues to favor the
democrats, I can probably relax. If martians come down to help
and the republicans start to win, I will brush up and get ready
to have to defend that more vigorously, and more accurately.
AFAIK no part of the Patriot Act suspended the writ of hadeas
corpus protected in the Constitution, which is sometimes called
the "Great Writ", to distinguish it from federal habeas corpus.
Federal habeas corpus is created by federal law and thus
may be modified or set aside by federal law.
The Great Writ may only be suspended in time of invasion
or rebellion, (and then only by the Congress--its in Article I)
and thus cannot be suspended by the Patriot
Act as neither circumstance is present.
I had thought the law, like all federal gun laws, applied to _guns_
sold in interstate commerce.
BTW, the ICC was used recently in the Medical Marijuana Case
before the USSC. Exactly how the ICC pemits regulation fo
an agricultural commodity that never crosses state borders,
and even in some cases, never leaves the possession of the
grower is a mystery to me.
Thomas agrees with you and I on the ridiculousness of that
argument. The other eight (8) justices I daresay, were more
concerned with whether or not medical marijuana was a good
idea, than with with the issues actually before the court.
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:43:19 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
The intent may well have been good, but the fact remains that the act
gives the feds the right to hold anyone they deem dangerous without habeus
corpus. You're depending on the good intentions of a government? Doesn't
sound like you :-).
My comment was more meant as a poke at the comment that legislation to
promote the general welfare was legitimate, regardless of whether the
legislation is an enumerated power or not. The OP's position seems to be
that if it promotes "the general welfare", just about any and all
legislation is just fine.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
I jsut thought I'd point out that the prohibition against
the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is NOT
in the Bill of Rights. It is in Article I of the Constitution.
That should serve as some indication of just how
important that protection was to the Founding Fathers.
"The Habeas Corpus secures every man here,
alien or citizen, against everything which is not
law, whatever shape it may assume."
--Thomas Jefferson to A. H. Rowan, 1798.
"Freedom of the person under the protection of
the habeas corpus I deem [one of the] essential
principles of our government."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801.
Which also has nothing to do with the powers given to congress
through the general welfare clause.
You can use the argument that in a wealthy society with some
poor, the amount of money contributed by those who are doing well
and have all of their primary needs met does little to detract
from their general welfare. The money contributed then goes to
provide primary needs to those who don't have it, thus vastly
increasing their welfare. The net product is the raising of the
overall welfare of the society as a whole. Thus the general
welfare has been increased.
According to you and people like you that do not want to
contribute to the overall welfare of our society. You thus seek
to destroy such programs through an arcane and defunct method of
trying to prove that you know the original intent of the framers.
The supreme court already decided this issue. Take it up with them.
There are many that disagree with your claims of knowledge of the
framers intent. Me, for one. And the supreme court, for two (or
nine, as the case may be). Guess whose opinion is the MOST
Nice try at a condescending remark. I don't have to list every founder
and his intent, they were kind enough to do that for all of us in their
writings. They are contained in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers,
copious writings by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Payne, and others.
It's not a mystery and the rationale for why they set things up the way
they did makes just as much sense now as it did then; we are seeing the
fruits of what happens when their sage advice is ignored.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Those political tracts are entertaining but I'd rather judge their
actions not their words. Federalist #10 warns of the dangers of
faction but it took, what, ten seconds for these men to organize
themselves in political parties. Jefferson seems to have violated your
interpretation of the Constitution when he diverted federal funds to
scientists. The USA Patriot Act is benign compared to the Alien and
Sedition Acts that John Adams signed into law.
I'd have sympathy for your argument if not for the fact that US is a
representative democracy. The ppl tax themselves and their
representatives decide how it shall be spent. Look, I don't agree with
all expenditures. Bush wants to attach abstinence training to every
health care program despite no collaborating evidence to demonstrate
its merits. If he adds it within the rules, there's not much I can do
but try better in the next round.
Nice try, but the U.S. is a representative Republic. It was deliberately
designed that way to prevent a tyranny of the majority from doing what you
have described. It is not the people who are taxing themselves -- the
problem is that the top 50% of income earners are paying 86% of all federal
income taxes. By your description, that means the bottom 50% have the
power to take the wealth of the top 50%. When you factor in the fact that
the top 10% are paying about 66% of all income taxes and throw in a media
and political party to wage class warfare, you can get a solid part of 90%
of the populace voting to increase taxes on a small but highly productive
segment of society. The time is coming when this will all break down and
that upper n% is going to say, "screw it, this isn't worth it, and throw in
the towel" Then, your zero-sum game economy is really going to become a
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
Doom and gloom! Oh my! I am trying real hard to picture Paris
Hilton as part of the "highly productive" segment of society.
And you claim that the left is the one that foments "class
warfare". If you don't stop we are leaving! How funny!
The fact is that we are the government and we do tax ourselves.
You are about to see an example of how a government can change
when the people get tired of how it is acting. The bums are
actually about to be voted out. (With the exception of Bush, who
has to leave because, due to his unpopularity, he cannot find a
way to declare a state of emergency and retain power.)
We elect representatives to (of all things) represent us. They
are supposed to do what we want, while tempering their actions
with their intelligence and understanding of the law and our
system of government. So when they pass revenue bills, it is at
our bequest whether we like it or not. They are representing us.
So when the congress passes legislation that initiates a program
such as TANF, or medicare, they are doing it for our benefit,
because we have reached, as a society, the consensus that that
promotes our general welfare. And I agree.
Mark or Juanita do not. They do not want to help those in need,
because someone may abuse the system and get something for free.
They do not believe in our society banding together and making
a pact for each of us to share the burden of caring for those
that cannot care for themselves. They wish everyone to be on
their own and if you can't survive, you die.
Hard to believe, isn't it?
And this is the really crazy part; They don't believe in doing
that because; 1) it is socialist, 2)it is illegal, or; 3) it
They don't care whether it is really good or bad for the country,
it is (pick one) of those three things and that alone, makes it bad.
Sorry, Mark or Juanita. I have heard all of this before and it
still makes no sense, whatsoever.
Wish you were correct. If so, Teddy Kennedy, Dodd, and a bunch of other
political hacks would have been long gone.
In theory yo are correct. In reality, special interest groups and lobbyists
have more power and more influence than constituents.
Good for you, I disagree. Lobbyists prevail too often.
No, not at all. Helping people is one thing, giving away my hard earned
money to lazy people milking the system is entirely different. Spending in
all phases of government is out of control and they just keep adding taxes
instead of restraint in spending.
The inertia of the people is hard to reverse, but it is finally
being reversed. The last mid term election was the beginning of
the reversal of the pendulum. It will continue. Just because it
is your side of the aisle that is having to pack up, does not
make my statements any less valid.
And those lobbyists and special interest groups are representing
the people of the US for the most part, and they are able to
exert more influence due to the apathy of the general public. I
think that apathy is dissipating to the point where they will
have less influence, and the will of the general public will
become more important to our legislators.
I don't disagree, but I think that is changing.
So, because there are some that abuse the system, we should get
rid of it and let it go back to every man for himself? I agree
that spending MUST be brought under control. My argument is for
a smarter application of our dollars spent by congress so that we
get more bang for the buck, thus needing less of those dollars
and accomplishing more.
I don't have a side of the aisle. Both sides should be sent packing. I'd
like to see less representatives in the house and half the Senators gone
too. Washington is a joke in present form.
On a local level, many towns should consolidate services, school boards,
etc. I don't mind paying fair taxes for fair services, but I do mind waste.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.