Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’

What is a “fair share?”

“We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes non work.”

~ Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize economist

Was Friedman forecasting today’s reality? In one tax year reported in the Statistical Abstract of the United States, millionaires earned 100 times as much as people earning $30,000, but paid 300 times as much tax. The top 20% of wage earners now pay nearly 70% of all income taxes, leaving 80% of Americans to pay the remaining 30%; 46% pay no income tax at all. Is this a progressive “fair share” income tax or is this a redistributive, punitive income tax? Our politicians are finally nearing their ideal of 49% of the voters paying all taxes and 51% paying none, the perfect re-election guarantee.

Does the federal government work for us?

“Politics is the art of making your selfish desires seem like the national interest.”

~ Thomas Sowell, Hoover Institution, Stanford University

More than 200 years ago, the states united and wrote a contract, the Constitution, creating an employee, the federal government; and that contract outlined specific tasks the federal government would perform for the states’ combined welfare.

However, in the early 1800s, the Supreme Court ruled that it alone presided over the Constitution and it alone would decide what the Constitution said. Is this what the Founding Fathers and the states intended? Did they mean for the Supreme Court to decide its own powers and those of the rest of the federal government?

The Welfare State

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

~ George Bernard Shaw

Shouldn’t those advocating the United States continue its ever-expanding welfare state look more closely at what is happening in Europe under the staggering weight of its “cradle to grave” welfare mentality? Though it sounds charitable and caring, is “cradle to grave” welfare possible? How long can you sustain giving people more than they earn? When you pay people to do less, don’t they do less and continually demand more?

Roe v. Wade – Did we get what we wanted?

Recently, parents successfully sued for “wrongful birth” because their child was born with Down syndrome, claiming if it had been accurately diagnosed early in the pregnancy, they would have chosen abortion.

With Roe v. Wade, did well-meaning people start us down an unintended path to a child being worthy of birth only if the parents find him or her desirable? Are we heading toward designer babies, babies who come with guarantees of perfection? Was this the intent of those supporting Roe v. Wade?

Gun control – the wrong discussion

“Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.”

~ Thomas Jefferson, 1781

A Connecticut man murdered 20 children and 6 adults, gun control proponents again advocating that disarming law-abiding citizens will solve the problem. And though I believe their logic is folly, we still need a reasoned debate on the issue.

But, lest we forget, gun ownership is still a constitutional right; it is not a constitutional privilege; it is not a governmental privilege; it is not a presidential privilege. The Constitution does not allow the federal government to “evolve” the Constitution to address perceived changing times and needs. It must have the permission of “We the People” in the form of an amendment for change to occur.

“Other people’s money”

“Socialist governments do traditionally make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”

Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister, 1979 – 1990

She added, “. . . They’re now trying to control everything, . . . reducing the choice available to ordinary people.” Does this sound like our government since the 1940s when President Roosevelt’s Supreme Court gave Congress the unconstitutional power to spend unlimited amounts of “other people’s money” for the “general Welfare?”

Are they asking the right questions?

The constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.”

Thomas Jefferson

Why is a Supreme Court nominee so important? According to their only constitutional requirement, justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior,” allowing them to serve for life and affect generations to come. And knowing a nominee to the Supreme Court usually survives the “advise and consent” of the Senate, selecting a nominee to the court is one of the most important things a president does.

Fundamental rights of Americans

The government, determined it knows what is best for us, continues expanding its role beyond its constitutional authority. It has little need for the Constitution because over 60 years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the founding fathers erred and actually meant for the general welfare clause of the Constitution to be a specific enumerated power of Congress, in essence granting Congress unlimited power.

Do you think the founding fathers really intended for the government to do anything it deems needed for the general welfare of the country and to tax us whatever needed to pay for it?

To be President of the United States

There are only two constitutional requirements to be president of the United States of America.  You must be a natural born citizen of the United States and at least 35 years of age.  That is all that is needed for the most important job in the world.  Although considered enough in 1787, is that enough today; or should we set more criterion for the office?

 

Today’s presidential races have entered the rock star media age of politics, an obvious difference between pre- and post-television presidential campaigns.  Candidates now have image consultants and are “packaged” for public appearances just like actors and actresses, even including $400 haircuts.

Robert Gibbs is a verb

The most entertaining moments of this presidency are watching Robert Gibbs explain the ramblings of Vice President Biden.  With a straight face, a feigned sincerity and accompanied by the laughter of the press corps Gibbs says, “I understand what he said and I’m telling you what he meant to say.”  He invented a new verb — “gibbsing,” a verb that well describes earlier rulings of the United States Supreme Court.

In 1803 with a 4-0 ruling in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court used the question before them to expand their powers beyond what the Constitution enumerated.

“…equal protection of the laws”

New Haven, Connecticut, discarded a fire department promotion exam when white firefighters outscored minority firefighters. The city did so because it feared lawsuits, not because the exam was unfair.  The United States Supreme Court ruled against the city, with Chief Justice John Roberts suggesting that had the scores been reversed the city would not have discarded the exam.  

Frank Ricci, one of the white firefighters denied promotion, scored sixth highest of the 118 who took the exam.  According to the New York Times, he quit a second job, made flashcards, took practice exams, worked with a study group, took mock interviews and spent $1,000 to have textbooks read onto audio tapes because he was dyslexic.  

“Give me the youth…”

What do a group of like-minded people do when they cannot convince society to agree with them?  How do they persuade society to not only acknowledge their values, but in the end to agree with those values?  

Look at the process of legalizing abortion.  Proponents first appealed to society, exaggerating the number of women dying from illegal abortions and claiming these deaths mandated legalizing abortion.  When that failed to get the needed support, they turned to the courts and got the desired outcome of legalizing abortion.   

“to provide for the…general welfare of the United States”

Our Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War to free us from a government that controlled our lives.  They created the United States of America with a Constitution granting specific, limited powers to the government, guaranteeing that “We the people” controlled the government.  So how does Congress regularly circumvent the Constitution, expanding their power without “We the people” consenting?  Remember, our Constitution begins with “We the people,” not “We the Congress.”

Congress deceptively takes power from “We the People,” knowingly interpreting the Constitution differently than the Founding Fathers intended.  And how do they justify this?  Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the limited powers of Congress, beginning with an overview of their role which contains the phrase “to provide for the…general welfare of the United States.” 

Roosevelt or Reagan?

Our country’s leaders believe President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal ended the Great Depression and saved the economy.  Are they right?  Did his New Deal end the depression or even shorten it?  Take a moment and consider the Roosevelt logic Congress is using with our current situation.  They believe they can fix the economy if they interfere with market forces and spend unprecedented sums of money.  But, if all that is needed to end a recession is government meddling and spending, how could we ever get into a recession in the first place? 

How do we fix the economy?  Two former Presidents.  Two choices.   

What are blue laws?

The Founding Fathers built our nation with a religious foundation.  I believe they wanted religion in government; but did they want government in religion?   

Let us look at the ‘blue’ laws, created by well-meaning people to enforce moral standards, including keeping Sunday as a day of worship and rest.  Most blue laws were passed before the Revolutionary War, before our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.  The term ‘blue’ probably originated sometime later, in the 1700s, when people living rigid moral codes were called blue. 

Socialism or democracy – we choose

Who should pay taxes and how much of their income should they pay in taxes?  What is fair?  Should everyone pay the same percentage of their income in taxes, or should the percentage increase as their income increases?  If everyone paid the same percentage of their income in taxes, the more you earned the more taxes you would pay.  That seems more than fair.  Our government thinks not.  Our government believes those who earn more should pay not only more in total taxes but also pay a higher percentage of their income as well.