Unconstitutional Acts of Congress

[Bob Jentges]

A member of the Forum has been harrassing me to produce some unconstitutional acts of congress. Maybe this will pacify him.

[Bob Jentges]

If interested one can find a pdf entitled "Acts of Congress Held Unonstitutional" at:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf202/046.pdf

It includes a listing and brief summary of 157 such "Acts" up through 1997. The list only includes "Acts" that have been challanged, accepted by and decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In my research I only used the first "hit" on the search engine I used. I expect there may be more decided since 1997, but if my member friend is interested he might be capable of finding them himself.

I am not from the government, but I am compassionate enough to try to help those that can not help themselves, so here is a link to the second "hit" on the search enging I used:

http://www.pregnantpause.org/court/uncon.htm

[Bob Jentges]

For reasons that may be obvious to some, I have some time usually set aside for the Forum available so I will use it to expand a little on my initial post in this new thread.

I believe the Constitution creates a presumption against any power not plainly enumerated and delegated to the federal government. But beginning about the time of the New Deal and continuing I think that presumption has been turned upside down. Now many people seem to assume the federal government can do anything it is not plainly forbidden to do. Does the Federal Government have the right to invade ones privacy unless prohibited from doing so by the Constitution?

The enumerated powers can be found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. I do not find any mention of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal aid to education, and on and on and on with respect to numerous entitlement programs. I do not mean to suggest those programs were not well intended. But being well intended does not in itself mean they would pass constitutional muster if tested. Why have they not been tested?
I do not know, but I could speculate.

Does the "...provide for the...general Welfare of the United States;..." clause in Article I Section 8. encompass a right to establish entitlement programs for groups of citizens of the United States i.e. senior citizens, etc., etc., etc?
Or, does that clause refer to the United States as a country? The way I see it unless the reference is to the United States as a country, almost anything goes as far as the Federal Government making laws . I doubt that was the founders intent; I think they favored limited government! I think the 10th Ammendment leaves the entitlement program questions to the respective States.

[Dan Conner]

If interested one can find a pdf entitled "Acts of Congress Held Unonstitutional" at:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf202/046.pdf

It includes a listing and brief summary of 157 such "Acts" up through 1997. The list only includes "Acts" that have been challanged, accepted by and decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In my research I only used the first "hit" on the search engine I used. I expect there may be more decided since 1997, but if my member friend is interested he might be capable of finding them himself.

I am not from the government, but I am compassionate enough to try to help those that can not help themselves, so here is a link to the second "hit" on the search enging I used:

http://www.pregnantpause.org/court/uncon.htmThis didn't come close to pacify me. Now you give me URL's instead of explaining what "social engineering" laws you think are unconstitutional. What a copout! You say there is 157 laws, but you can't name a dozen of them? Instead, you rely on a website to think for you. Then, I find out the website never states what you say it does. I asked you what YOU feel is unconstitutional. I guess you have no answer. Instead, you relay on the Government Printing Office to think for you, when it doesn't? It never said there were any unconstitutional laws. You are misrepresenting the URL and the GPO. That's not appropriate for a person of a legal background.

First I don't think you ever read anything on the site you referred people too because the link was bad, like most of the links you furnish on your posts, and the site was that of the Government Printing Office, hardly a source to take political sides. I guess that's just more of your "smoke and mirrors." Now, you'll probably deny you said any of this---Flip flop again.

I guess I will presume to understand your incompletely stated and poorly thought out position. If one of the laws you refer to as "social engineering" is Medicare, then you have just made another hypcritical statement, beyond the many others you have already made. You have stated in more than one post that you have filed numerous claims with Medicare for payment, but you thought it was an insufficient to cover the costs of treatment (even though your private insurance paid less). You acknowledge that you use a system you think is "illegal/unconstitutional" but complain that it does not go far enough, in "social engineering" aspects to satisfy you. What a gigantic conflict and hypocritical statement!!

I will try to make my point about you making another hypocritical statement clear enough that even you can understand. One, if Medicare is one of those "social engineering" programs you disapprove of, then what are you doing paying for it or accepting payment from it? You can decline coverage and payment and make payment personally. Taking the ridiculous position that Medicare is unconstitutional, but accepting it and its payments is hypocritical. Come on, show us the courage of your convictions and decline Medicare and its payments. If you don't, then you are simply being hypocritical. Don't incite others to do the very things you are afraid of doing.

Two, if you don't feel Meidcare is "social engineering" then what do you feel is "social engineering?" Your ideas conflict with the Congress, the American public, state and local governments, and constitutional law experts. You are narrowing your political philosophy down to such a point as to be representative of a group of people that could fit in a small neighborhood. Meanwhile, you use all those "grotesquely" "social engineered" and, as you would say, "unconstitutional" entities to benefit yourself. You drive on our "social engineered" roads, you use our "socially engineered" police and fire departments, you accept your "socially engineered" Social Security payments, to just name a few. Yet you want to deny these things to others. That's not only hypocritical, but cold and cruel. If you feel these things are illegal and unconstitutional, then don't accept them. No one has forced you to take them. Don't ask others to do what you are afraid of doing. Meanwhile, don't expect people to accept you as anything other than a petty complaining person when you accept what you feel is illegal. What you are doing seems analygous to a prostitute complaining about the rotting effects of promiscuous sex. Come on---shut up or put up!!!

Your second URL does nothing to establish anything about the constitutionality of anything other than explaining, in his opinion, basic premises of government. Bob, maybe you don't know what constitutional means? You seem to be unable to specifically enumerate unconstitutional laws. You act indignant without an affront.

[Dan Conner]

For reasons that may be obvious to some, I have some time usually set aside for the Forum available so I will use it to expand a little on my initial post in this new thread.

I believe the Constitution creates a presumption against any power not plainly enumerated and delegated to the federal government. But beginning about the time of the New Deal and continuing I think that presumption has been turned upside down. Now many people seem to assume the federal government can do anything it is not plainly forbidden to do. Does the Federal Government have the right to invade ones privacy unless prohibited from doing so by the Constitution?

The enumerated powers can be found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. I do not find any mention of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal aid to education, and on and on and on with respect to numerous entitlement programs. I do not mean to suggest those programs were not well intended. But being well intended does not in itself mean they would pass constitutional muster if tested. Why have they not been tested?
I do not know, but I could speculate.

Does the "...provide for the...general Welfare of the United States;..." clause in Article I Section 8. encompass a right to establish entitlement programs for groups of citizens of the United States i.e. senior citizens, etc., etc., etc?
Or, does that clause refer to the United States as a country? The way I see it unless the reference is to the United States as a country, almost anything goes as far as the Federal Government making laws . I doubt that was the founders intent; I think they favored limited government! I think the 10th Ammendment leaves the entitlement program questions to the respective States.OH, now I read this post. Bob don't persist in being hypocritical. Reject your Medicare benefits and Social Security payments. There is a provision to turn back benefits, including those you have already used. Meanwhile, it is very hypocritical to accept and use those benefit you feel are illegal. Basically, you want to use them, but deny it for others. It's like I said above, your complaint is analygous to a prostitute complaining about illegal promiscuous sex.

If you believe in your foolish ideas above, then show people your convictions and put your ideas into action. While I wouldn't agree with oyu , at least you would have my respect. Until then, you are just another complainer giving little thought to the Golden Rule or logical thought. Your ideology was easily compromised without even having to negotiate the price.

[Dan Conner]

Unable to respond Bob?

[Bob Jentges]

For reasons that may be obvious to some, I have some time usually set aside for the Forum available so I will use it to expand a little on my initial post in this new thread.

I believe the Constitution creates a presumption against any power not plainly enumerated and delegated to the federal government. But beginning about the time of the New Deal and continuing I think that presumption has been turned upside down. Now many people seem to assume the federal government can do anything it is not plainly forbidden to do. Does the Federal Government have the right to invade ones privacy unless prohibited from doing so by the Constitution?

The enumerated powers can be found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. I do not find any mention of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal aid to education, and on and on and on with respect to numerous entitlement programs. I do not mean to suggest those programs were not well intended. But being well intended does not in itself mean they would pass constitutional muster if tested. Why have they not been tested?
I do not know, but I could speculate.

Does the "...provide for the...general Welfare of the United States;..." clause in Article I Section 8. encompass a right to establish entitlement programs for groups of citizens of the United States i.e. senior citizens, etc., etc., etc?
Or, does that clause refer to the United States as a country? The way I see it unless the reference is to the United States as a country, almost anything goes as far as the Federal Government making laws . I doubt that was the founders intent; I think they favored limited government! I think the 10th Ammendment leaves the entitlement program questions to the respective States.

Since my post quoted above and mine that immediatly preceeded it, and considering it looks like an all-day rain/snow, I have done some additional reading on the issue.

I found articles that affirm my thinking that the "...Welfare of the United States..." language in the Preamble, which has no basis in law, and in the Constitution is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens. There were also articles suggesting the Federal Government can not use the Constitutional phrase "...promote the general Welfare..." in order to expand it's own power, or to create more power for itself. These of course are opinions expressed scholars and lawyers (I am neither), etc., which I think track with opinions I espressed previously.

There is also a James Madison quote that I think worthy of consideration: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done with money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinate one...".

"You Might be a Constitutionalist if...". Just another opinion article, but everyone is still entitled to an opinion---I think!

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=291

[Dan Conner]

Since my post quoted above and mine that immediatly preceeded it, and considering it looks like an all-day rain/snow, I have done some additional reading on the issue.

I found articles that affirm my thinking that the "...Welfare of the United States..." language in the Preamble, which has no basis in law, and in the Constitution is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens. There were also articles suggesting the Federal Government can not use the Constitutional phrase "...promote the general Welfare..." in order to expand it's own power, or to create more power for itself. These of course are opinions expressed scholars and lawyers (I am neither), etc., which I think track with opinions I espressed previously.

There is also a James Madison quote that I think worthy of consideration: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done with money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinate one...".

"You Might be a Constitutionalist if...". Just another opinion article, but everyone is still entitled to an opinion---I thin
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=291

Bob, I know you like to let URL's make your point for you. Well, I have several as well countering what you say. Promoting the general welfare is not only stated in the Preamble as a way of setting the tenor for the entire document, it is reaserted in the 1st article. Ben Franklin stated the purpose of Government is to improve the lives of its citizens. Here's the first reference:

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/welfare.htm

Another reference further clarifies it:

http://www.libertynet.org/edcivic/genwelf.html

Such writers as James Madison, Jefferson and others expound the need for Government to see to the welfare of its people first and foremost. The importance of the general welfare provision was restated in the Federalist papers that were a template for our Constitution in many areas, including general welfare.

Here's a reference that saysw "promote the general welfare" is a culmination of everything that came before it. It was the single most important statement in the Constitution:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pre.html

Here's anther reference:

http://www.libertynet.org/edcivic/genwelf2.html

Another reference:

http://www.responsiblegov.net/Responsibilities%20of%20Government.htm

A snippet of the last reference said, "From both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution it is clear that the federal government has an obligation to do what it can to promote the general welfare of citizens, and to assure that future generations will inherit a nation that provides justice, liberty, and the protection of the general welfare. It is clear that Congress can levy taxes and regulate interstate commerce in order to fulfill these obligations."

By the way, these reference weren't extracted from a left or right wing fundamentalist group. I selected the first references listed in a Yahoo search. The evidence is overwhelming that promoting the general welfare is not only a function of Government, it is an obligation. The 1st Article also establishes the right to taxation to support that endeavor.

I think you need someone who is able to read a reference not fettered with all the fear, bias, selfishness, and hate you must possess. Not only that, but you have painted youreslf way out on the reactionary right wing conjuring up interpretations of the Constitution that were never intended. You use Social Security and Medicare as unconstitutional? Come on! Even a child knows better. Social Security has existed for over 70 years now, surviving all actual and potential challenges about its Constitutionality. Medicare has survived for over 40 years.

Bob, I think you need to go back to school. You are out among the lunatic fringe about the Constitution, along with such notables and the "birthers." Your interpretation of the Constitution and the powers invested with Government is appallingly deficient and leads me to question you legal prowess.

I find it ridiculous to continue arguing with you, since you are acting so narrow-minded. You have perverted the truth. I not only disagree with you, but I feel sorry for you.

I will continue to correct other gross misstatements and untruths when I see them

[Bob Jentges]

I do not know if you read the link in my post #7, but I read from all five of the links, in your post #8.

The first paragraph in the first link begins: "The committment to promote the general welfare of all persons, AS OPPOSED TO PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF A NARROW SECTION OR CLASS OF THE POPULATION ENCOMPASES WHAT IS MOST UNIQUE ABOUT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA---THAT IS THE ONLY MODERN NATION-STATE REPUBLIC FOUNDED ON THIS PRINCIPLE". (My emphasis) Since that is essentially the position I took in my post(s), I read no farther in that link.

Your second link includes materials from The Federalist Papers. You might recall I cited The Federalist Papers previously in other threads, and you seemed to shrug them off. Regardless, here is my opinion on what you sent:
1) Federalist 26 uses the phrases: "...welfare and prosperity of the
COUNTRY. " (My emphasis) and "...general welfare of the UNITED
STATES". (My emphasis) Again, those are essentially the same
positions I took in my posts.
2) Federalist #41 also references "...the general welfare of the UNITED
STATES". To repeat myself, that is essentially the same position I took
in my posts.

Your third link discusses the Preamble, which certainly has significance, but as I suggested previously has no basis in law as the actual Constitution does. It is the introduction to the Constitution.

Your fourth and fifth links are not specific as to whether they refer to groups of citizens or to the country i.e. United States of America.

Social Security was held Constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1937 (Helvering v. Davis), under rather strange circumstances. It was addressed again in 1960 (Flemming v. Nestor) which starkly revealed the mendocity with which it had been hoisted on the people earlier. Social Security almost certainly will never be determined unconstitutional because of precedent. But with the huge unfunded liabilities it faces, significant reform will be necessary soon.

You might Google "Is Medicare Constitutional?" The links are interesting reading.

Before you attack, insult, and call me names over Social Security and/or Medicare let me remind you that I have said previously that both have done good things for many people. But that does not make me and others who doubt their Constitutionality evil people, just like it does not make people who disagree with us infalable saviors of the elderly, disabled, and/or ill.

When I read that you "...find it ridiculous to continue arguing with [me]" I was temporarily overjoyed! Then a couple sentences later you say: "I will continue to correct other gross misstatements and untruths when I see them".

Either way, if you accuratly identify them, is satisfactory with me if you can do it with civility

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

You may find this helpful: The General Welfare Clause (http://www.reasontofreedom.com/general_welfare_clause.html)

[Dan Conner]

You may find this helpful: The General Welfare Clause (http://www.reasontofreedom.com/general_welfare_clause.html)It's like I said in my post. I queried sites starting at the top in Yahoo. I didn't pick a far right or far left website like this one. Try non-partisan sites.

[Dan Conner]

I do not know if you read the link in my post #7, but I read from all five of the links, in your post #8.

The first paragraph in the first link begins: "The committment to promote the general welfare of all persons, AS OPPOSED TO PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF A NARROW SECTION OR CLASS OF THE POPULATION ENCOMPASES WHAT IS MOST UNIQUE ABOUT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA---THAT IS THE ONLY MODERN NATION-STATE REPUBLIC FOUNDED ON THIS PRINCIPLE". (My emphasis) Since that is essentially the position I took in my post(s), I read no farther in that link.

Your second link includes materials from The Federalist Papers. You might recall I cited The Federalist Papers previously in other threads, and you seemed to shrug them off. Regardless, here is my opinion on what you sent:
1) Federalist 26 uses the phrases: "...welfare and prosperity of the
COUNTRY. " (My emphasis) and "...general welfare of the UNITED
STATES". (My emphasis) Again, those are essentially the same
positions I took in my posts.
2) Federalist #41 also references "...the general welfare of the UNITED
STATES". To repeat myself, that is essentially the same position I took
in my posts.

Your third link discusses the Preamble, which certainly has significance, but as I suggested previously has no basis in law as the actual Constitution does. It is the introduction to the Constitution.

Your fourth and fifth links are not specific as to whether they refer to groups of citizens or to the country i.e. United States of America.

Social Security was held Constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1937 (Helvering v. Davis), under rather strange circumstances. It was addressed again in 1960 (Flemming v. Nestor) which starkly revealed the mendocity with which it had been hoisted on the people earlier. Social Security almost certainly will never be determined unconstitutional because of precedent. But with the huge unfunded liabilities it faces, significant reform will be necessary soon.

You might Google "Is Medicare Constitutional?" The links are interesting reading.

Before you attack, insult, and call me names over Social Security and/or Medicare let me remind you that I have said previously that both have done good things for many people. But that does not make me and others who doubt their Constitutionality evil people, just like it does not make people who disagree with us infalable saviors of the elderly, disabled, and/or ill.

When I read that you "...find it ridiculous to continue arguing with [me]" I was temporarily overjoyed! Then a couple sentences later you say: "I will continue to correct other gross misstatements and untruths when I see them".

Either way, if you accuratly identify them, is satisfactory with me if you can do it with civilityBob, first there is a biblical saying about not worrying about the splinter in someone else's eye until you pull the log out of your own eye. You got the civility you gave.

I'm afraid that the first paragraph of the first link, which says, "The commitment to promote the general welfare of all persons..." is what this country is about. That means healthcare for ALL. Not the special few who can afford it. It is the obligation of the Government to promote the genneral welfare of EVERYONE!!

You don't stand for any of that. You don't want all to have healthcare, if it means an increase in your taxes. In fact, you don't want anyone to have many of your current benefits (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) if it costs you anything. I think you better read the first paragraph over again. It means our country must promote the general welfare for all our people, not just the special few.

I'm glad you now agree that Social Security is Constitutional. You have changed your mind there. Before you said you thought it was unconstitutional. Now you admit to two decisions asserting its Constitutionality. You apparently still believe Medicare is unconstitutional. Like I said, why are you accepting it then? If you feel it is illegal, then I would think you should decline it. It seems genuinely disengenuous and complicit to call a program illegal, but then stick your nose in that trough. That's like a war monger you works overtime to evade military service a (chickenhawk). I think that's hypocritical, don't you? I wonder how the people who promote war would feel, if they knew they would be sent to the front lines? Another thing, find an attorney to bring it to the Supreme Court challenging the Constitutionality. That is, if you can find an attorney to take such a foolish case. Regardless, show me some conviction. Do something other than whine and complain about it. Take it to the Supreme Court, but don't continue to accept it, if you feel it's wrong.

You can site all you want from Federalist Papers, Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or whatever. You just have to be able to understand what you read. You claim to have read these things, yet you draw the wrong conclusion. I think you need to enroll (you can audit them, you know) at the University of Minnesota in a Constitutional Law class. I think you might find the right answer to your Constitutional interpretations. You're off in the right-wing weeds now.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

It's like I said in my post. I queried sites starting at the top in Yahoo. I didn't pick a far right or far left website like this one. Try non-partisan sites.

So you expect that truth will always be found exactly in the middle, wherever that is? The fact that a given source approaches a subject from a given viewpoint does not make it "partisan". What makes you think that just because a site appears at the top of a search it is unbiased?

[Dan Conner]

So you expect that truth will always be found exactly in the middle, wherever that is? The fact that a given source approaches a subject from a given viewpoint does not make it "partisan". What makes you think that just because a site appears at the top of a search it is unbiased?Well, I will tell you that you site was ridiculously skewed to the right. I guess you must study probability because you're right odds will show that any sight can be biased or untruthful, but I will tell you that a known rightfully skewed site will definitely be biased and untruthful. You might believe the truth is far far to the right, but I don't agree and neither does the plurality of Americans.

So, I suggest that you broaden your view and mind and be more receptive to other "truths" becuase the truth you use convinces only a small part of the American public. Using other views will help you become more open-minded. Since you like quotes, I will use another unbiased and neutral sources...Socrates. Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." I think a little self-examination might do you some good.

In addition, we could trade biased websites all day. However, I'm trying to enlighten you, not program you.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, first there is a biblical saying about not worrying about the splinter in someone else's eye until you pull the log out of your own eye. You got the civility you gave.

I'm afraid that the first paragraph of the first link, which says, "The commitment to promote the general welfare of all persons..." is what this country is about. That means healthcare for ALL. Not the special few who can afford it. It is the obligation of the Government to promote the genneral welfare of EVERYONE!!

You don't stand for any of that. You don't want all to have healthcare, if it means an increase in your taxes. In fact, you don't want anyone to have many of your current benefits (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) if it costs you anything. I think you better read the first paragraph over again. It means our country must promote the general welfare for all our people, not just the special few.

I'm glad you now agree that Social Security is Constitutional. You have changed your mind there. Before you said you thought it was unconstitutional. Now you admit to two decisions asserting its Constitutionality. You apparently still believe Medicare is unconstitutional. Like I said, why are you accepting it then? If you feel it is illegal, then I would think you should decline it. It seems genuinely disengenuous and complicit to call a program illegal, but then stick your nose in that trough. That's like a war monger you works overtime to evade military service a (chickenhawk). I think that's hypocritical, don't you? I wonder how the people who promote war would feel, if they knew they would be sent to the front lines? Another thing, find an attorney to bring it to the Supreme Court challenging the Constitutionality. That is, if you can find an attorney to take such a foolish case. Regardless, show me some conviction. Do something other than whine and complain about it. Take it to the Supreme Court, but don't continue to accept it, if you feel it's wrong.

You can site all you want from Federalist Papers, Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or whatever. You just have to be able to understand what you read. You claim to have read these things, yet you draw the wrong conclusion. I think you need to enroll (you can audit them, you know) at the University of Minnesota in a Constitutional Law class. I think you might find the right answer to your Constitutional interpretations. You're off in the right-wing weeds now.

Any independent person that reads this Forum regularly that thinks your lack of civility is a "splinter" compared to mine being a "log" sees things much different than I do. That is certainly a possibility so I will simply leave it at that.

Regarding the first paragraph of the first link in your post, which I quoted in my Reply and you addressed again in your above quoted post I will say this. "All Persons" to me means all persons, "...as opposed to protecting the interests of a narrow section or class of the population...". That could be interpruted to mean the Federal Government should not be in the practice of picking winners and losers with respect to citizens. That in turn leads back to the language: "...general Welfare of the United States."

Although this may sound harsh I do not think that language i.e. general welfare of the United States, should not be interpruted to favor senior citizens over any other citizen. I think a sound arguement can be made that is how Social Security works---deductions from working citizens income is used to pay benifits to retired citizens. Benificial to senior citizens but not benificial to working citizens, therefore not benificial to "all persons" i.e. the general welfare of the country A/K/A the "United States".

Please stop trying to tell me what I "want" and "don't want". First of all you do not know, and second what I want or don't want is not the issue under discussion. Having said that, with respect to your "health care for all" remark, I favor that also. But when dealing with a constitutional issue I try to approach the issue from logic as opposed to emotion. Health care is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the Federal Government, therefore it should be left to the respective states.

To be quite frank with you Dan, I tire of your telling me I do not comprehend what I read. It is you who send stuff to me that agrees with what I alledge, thinking it is an arguement against my position!

[Dan Conner]

Any independent person that reads this Forum regularly that thinks your lack of civility is a "splinter" compared to mine being a "log" sees things much different than I do. That is certainly a possibility so I will simply leave it at that.

Regarding the first paragraph of the first link in your post, which I quoted in my Reply and you addressed again in your above quoted post I will say this. "All Persons" to me means all persons, "...as opposed to protecting the interests of a narrow section or class of the population...". That could be interpruted to mean the Federal Government should not be in the practice of picking winners and losers with respect to citizens. That in turn leads back to the language: "...general Welfare of the United States."

Although this may sound harsh I do not think that language i.e. general welfare of the United States, should not be interpruted to favor senior citizens over any other citizen. I think a sound arguement can be made that is how Social Security works---deductions from working citizens income is used to pay benifits to retired citizens. Benificial to senior citizens but not benificial to working citizens, therefore not benificial to "all persons" i.e. the general welfare of the country A/K/A the "United States".

Please stop trying to tell me what I "want" and "don't want". First of all you do not know, and second what I want or don't want is not the issue under discussion. Having said that, with respect to your "health care for all" remark, I favor that also. But when dealing with a constitutional issue I try to approach the issue from logic as opposed to emotion. Health care is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the Federal Government, therefore it should be left to the respective states.

To be quite frank with you Dan, I tire of your telling me I do not comprehend what I read. It is you who send stuff to me that agrees with what I alledge, thinking it is an arguement against my position!Well, Bob, I tire of your off-the-wall template of life you propose for everyone else. If YOU feel Social Security and Medicare are wrong, then drop them. Don't be a hypocrit and partake in the very programs you feel are wrong. Then aren't you complicit in your perceived wrong? If you care about others, as you said you do, then decline the benefits so that others can better enjoy theirs. Your views are like one who looks to war as the first alternative, but who does all they can to evade military service. Show conviction and drop your Social Security and Medicare. If you don't know how, I will help you. Until then, I think it best that you stop talking about what others need to do. I suggest you walk the talk instead of talk the talk. Talk about ceasing other programs that you don't partake in. It won't look so hypocritical.

You were the same person who complained about Medicare not paying enough of your hospital bills, but now you say the whole program is illegal anyway. I think you need to make up your mind Bob. Right now it all sounds like "sour grapes," where if you can't get more payment out of Medicare, then you want to deny it for everyone. Hardly egalitarian. I think you need to have the courage of your convictions or be less concerned about your self-interest. By the way, have you ever served in the military?

Plainly, you don't understand the Constitution because you are at odds with all the scholars. Also, I differ with you. There have been countless programs enacted over the history of our nation, all of them Constitutional. I think you need to get over it and join modern times. We are in a country where sharing is a virtue, I guess you're one that choses to hoard what you have. That's not a problem with our country or our Constitution. To find the problem, I think you need to look in a mirror.

Once you made a statement that you care for others, but I'm at wits end to see a way you demonstrate that. Talk is cheap.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, I will not quote your post #16 because it adds nothing of substance to the discussion of what might or might not be constitutional. But I will select a few of the personal things you wrote and comment on them.

First, stop the continuing offers to "help" me withdraw from Social Security and/or Medicare. I have no intention of doing that. When it directly effects my family I try to strike the appropriate balance between principle and stupidity, so long as what I do falls within existing law.

Second, I never did begin "...talking about what OTHERS NEED to do..." (My emphasis). One can not stop something they never started. Besides, if you have not discerned from my writings in this Forum that it is not my intent to try to control what others do you have not been paying attention.

Third, you say I am at odds "...with ALL the scholars". (My emphasis). That is not only incorrect, it demonstrates an ignorance of various scholars differing opinions on the issue.

Fourth, you suggest I do not "demonstrate" I care for others. That is a foolish thing to say because you do not know me, except from what I write in this Forum.

I sense an air of desperation on your part. Unless you can come up with something more substantive than you have so far this discussion between you and me is over from my perspective.

[Dan Conner]

Dan, I will not quote your post #16 because it adds nothing of substance to the discussion of what might or might not be constitutional. But I will select a few of the personal things you wrote and comment on them.

First, stop the continuing offers to "help" me withdraw from Social Security and/or Medicare. I have no intention of doing that. When it directly effects my family I try to strike the appropriate balance between principle and stupidity, so long as what I do falls within existing law.

Second, I never did begin "...talking about what OTHERS NEED to do..." (My emphasis). One can not stop something they never started. Besides, if you have not discerned from my writings in this Forum that it is not my intent to try to control what others do you have not been paying attention.

Third, you say I am at odds "...with ALL the scholars". (My emphasis). That is not only incorrect, it demonstrates an ignorance of various scholars differing opinions on the issue.

Fourth, you suggest I do not "demonstrate" I care for others. That is a foolish thing to say because you do not know me, except from what I write in this Forum.

I sense an air of desperation on your part. Unless you can come up with something more substantive than you have so far this discussion between you and me is over from my perspective.Well, just as I thought. You willingly accept Social Security benefits. Then, I think it is appropriate that you stop talking about it being illegal, lest you be duplicitous in your "alleged" illegality.

As far as not withdrawing from Social Security and Medicare, then I think you need to quiet yourself about whether it is legal or not. It seems very hypocritical to complain aboout the illegality of something when you so willingly partake in it. In addition, almost 70%% of the people over age 65 rely on it for most of their retirment support. I would say it very much affects their lives too. It is the only income for about a third of the people over 65. So, while you want to dump Social Security and Medicare, you drastically affect the lives of millions of others.

In 1935, about 1/2 of all the people age 65 and over lived in poverty and were financially dependent on family or welfare. Today, less than 10% are in that shape. If things remain as they are it is expected that poverty for people over 65 will be reduced to less than 5%. Social Security has been credited as having the largest affect on reducing poverty among the aged. Wanting to repeal or stop Social Security would immediately restore enormous poverty to the elderly. That does not demonstrate caring for major population in our country. You feel it is unconstitutional because a few zealot far right wing crazies want to interpret the Constitution in a way that only a few in our society does? I'm afraid that's too far out for me. Then, to say you need it for your family, while you want to stop it for everyone else? I just ask that you take some time and think man. General welfare, 1/2 of the elderly population, poverty, yor family needs it, the Constitution, the Preamble, Article 1. It is totally Constitutional, along with Medicare.

It is the ultra-conservatives who want to debate laws passed decades ago, even though they have passed the test of time and Constitutional challenges. It is when they don't want to drop it and get on with life that makes the far right relentlessly irrational. Even our current Congress does not challenge the Constitutionality of these programs.

I think you need to get over it and debate ideas and issues of importance. Right now you are simply tilting windmills. Instead, think about ways to improve our economy and military ravaged by the Bush Adminsitration. You want to debate ideas of little import and against the mainstream in our nation. Frankly, we are looking to progress as a nation, not regress to some despotic and underachieving time in our country. The Constitution has long been called a living document that adapts to current times. It certainly isn't a document meant as a throwback to some "mountain man" age.

You talk about our country needing to eliminate a program that has saved untold millions from poverty, but you say you care? You want to eliminate a healthcare program that has saved untold millions from untimely death because of a lack of medical care, but you say you care? Then, you extrapolate from some far-right view representing only a small fringe of our society that these programs should be eliminated, but you say you care? You say that we have forced people into a dependence on our Government and it is better to let these people die in independence, and you say you care? Well Bob, I wasn't born yesterday, and I don't buy your line of %^$#. Your tough approach of helping people hasn't and won't cut it. Before Social Security and Medicare these people died for lack of subsistence and healthcare. Churches, charity, donations, and all the programs ever devised never came close to adequately helping these people, and they don't today. In fact, churches have been asking for money from the Federal Government to better help people. Bob, you say you care, but you have a weird way of showing it. I wouldn't mind hearing from you about what you consider "caring" for people. What you have written in this forum has self-identified you in many ways. I didn't interpret caring to be among them.

I find your second point confusing and incoherent. Can't stop what you haven't started? Never began...? Controlling others? I think you have to be clearer here.

Maybe I overstated it when I said "all" the schoilars. I'll correct that by saying "almost all the scholars."

You chose to be bluint early on in this last discussion. I can not help but to describe what I feel is the truth about the political position you have talked about in the Forum. I'm sorry if the truth hurts, but that is what I feel.

[Matt Christianson]

Clearly Bob is not a proponent of ending Medicare or Social Security. And Dan is clearly misrepresenting what Bob has stated. Simply because it can be debated that creating a dependant class through our many entitlement programs goes against the original intent of the constitution or that the general welfare clause has been perverted to create the aforementioned class, it does not mean that they are illegal. I guess Dan ought to report Bob at once to the FBI for committing such a heinous crime. I believe Bob was merely using the argument as a scholarly exercise, perhaps to contend that current legislation, namely the healthcare bill, is unconstitutional. While a person may opt out of Medicare or Social Security (I believe that that is the main rationale why these programs have been successfully argued as constitutional) they cannot opt out of the healthcare 'reform' with out being penalized, or, basically, taxed. This is the reason many argue the constitutionality of the bill because the Constitution explicitly prohibits this practice. The writers of the bill simply call the targeted penal tax a fine bringing it, as they see it, into the vernacular of constitutionality. Congress cannot force any person to buy a good or a service.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Well, just as I thought. You willingly accept Social Security benefits. Then, I think it is appropriate that you stop talking about it being illegal, lest you be duplicitous in your "alleged" illegality.

I think that a graduated income tax is illegal as well, but it would be stupid for me to stop paying them because I would get thrown in jail. Bob has presumably been paying Social Security taxes his whole life, so, under the current system (regardless of whether or not he approves of said system) he is entitled to receive benefits from it.

In addition, almost 70%% of the people over age 65 rely on it for most of their retirment support. I would say it very much affects their lives too. It is the only income for about a third of the people over 65. So, while you want to dump Social Security and Medicare, you drastically affect the lives of millions of others.

However, not being required to pay into these extremely low-return retirement programs would also drastically affect the lives of millions--for the better--who would then have more of their own money to invest as they saw fit. I'm not suggesting that we throw people out in the street and cut these programs immediately; they will take a long time to phase out so that people can be weened of their dependency.

SS and Medicare are Ponzi schemes, Dan, and they are not going to last forever. Bob is fortunate to be getting out much of what he put in; as a 30-something, I will not be so lucky. I will be surprised if I see any benefits at all before age 72.

It is the ultra-conservatives who want to debate laws passed decades ago, even though they have passed the test of time and Constitutional challenges. It is when they don't want to drop it and get on with life that makes the far right relentlessly irrational. Even our current Congress does not challenge the Constitutionality of these programs.

There is a systemic bias in our federal government to naturally gravitate toward a larger and more powerful (and therefore less Constitutional) state. People in power generally don't want their power limited; the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution are eroded over time. SCOTUS justices are put in place by people in the other two branches who don't want their power limited, so you will seldom see a justice who is actually going to reduce the powers that Congress or the president take for themselves. At best, they'll hold the line.

I think you need to get over it and debate ideas and issues of importance. Right now you are simply tilting windmills. Instead, think about ways to improve our economy and military ravaged by the Bush Adminsitration. You want to debate ideas of little import and against the mainstream in our nation. Frankly, we are looking to progress as a nation, not regress to some despotic and underachieving time in our country. The Constitution has long been called a living document that adapts to current times. It certainly isn't a document meant as a throwback to some "mountain man" age.

It is a "living" document insofar as it provides procedures for its own amendment. However, to simply ignore its mandates when they are inconvenient for one's agenda is, in my mind, wholly unacceptable. When, for example, was the last time Congress actually declared war?

The whole concept of a living document is ridiculous, because if it is so malleable then you might as well not have it at all. The Constitution is a contract between the people and the government established by the people -- when that government acts outside the bounds laid by the Constitution, it is in violation of its contract.

Before Social Security and Medicare these people died for lack of subsistence and healthcare. Churches, charity, donations, and all the programs ever devised never came close to adequately helping these people, and they don't today. In fact, churches have been asking for money from the Federal Government to better help people.

Correlation does not equal causation. I believe that the poverty level in the United States and around the world has been lessened through technological advances in every industry that allow us to do more with less, not through wealth redistribution schemes that merely pass wealth from the "rich" to the poor.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Well, I will tell you that you site was ridiculously skewed to the right. I guess you must study probability because you're right odds will show that any sight can be biased or untruthful, but I will tell you that a known rightfully skewed site will definitely be biased and untruthful. You might believe the truth is far far to the right, but I don't agree and neither does the plurality of Americans.

First, I reject the notion of the simple left-right paradigm of government as it's commonly used today. I tend to agree more with the Nolan chart: Try taking the World's Smallest Political Quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html) to see where you fall.

So, I suggest that you broaden your view and mind and be more receptive to other "truths" becuase the truth you use convinces only a small part of the American public. Using other views will help you become more open-minded. Since you like quotes, I will use another unbiased and neutral sources...Socrates. Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." I think a little self-examination might do you some good.

I wish to live in a free, voluntary, non-aggressive society. I understand that you want to live in an authoritarian society, and I respect that right. Your appeals to the majority do not sway me, largely because the vast majority of Americas have no concept of a what a voluntary society even is, not to mention that they are generally apathetic towards politics. In our current society of extensive wealth redistribution, a great number of people are going to continue to support the redistribution because they are getting handouts. People do not like to bite the hand that feeds them.

In addition, we could trade biased websites all day. However, I'm trying to enlighten you, not program you.

Enlighten away, but don't count on me converting to collectivism any time soon.

[Dan Conner]

I think that a graduated income tax is illegal as well, but it would be stupid for me to stop paying them because I would get thrown in jail. Bob has presumably been paying Social Security taxes his whole life, so, under the current system (regardless of whether or not he approves of said system) he is entitled to receive benefits from it.



However, not being required to pay into these extremely low-return retirement programs would also drastically affect the lives of millions--for the better--who would then have more of their own money to invest as they saw fit. I'm not suggesting that we throw people out in the street and cut these programs immediately; they will take a long time to phase out so that people can be weened of their dependency.

SS and Medicare are Ponzi schemes, Dan, and they are not going to last forever. Bob is fortunate to be getting out much of what he put in; as a 30-something, I will not be so lucky. I will be surprised if I see any benefits at all before age 72.



There is a systemic bias in our federal government to naturally gravitate toward a larger and more powerful (and therefore less Constitutional) state. People in power generally don't want their power limited; the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution are eroded over time. SCOTUS justices are put in place by people in the other two branches who don't want their power limited, so you will seldom see a justice who is actually going to reduce the powers that Congress or the president take for themselves. At best, they'll hold the line.I guess you consider youreslf more enlightened in this topic than the Government and Supreme Court Justices? WOW! You must have a lengthy list of credentials.



It is a "living" document insofar as it provides procedures for its own amendment. However, to simply ignore its mandates when they are inconvenient for one's agenda is, in my mind, wholly unacceptable. When, for example, was the last time Congress actually declared war?This is gibberish. You name the mandates and cite the references in the Constitution. Then, you tell me relevant Supreme Court interpretations supporting you view. The Constitution is the law of the land and Supreme Court interpret it. Guess what? All the above laws are Constituional. Fortunately for everyone in our country, you aren't interpreting the document. The premises for the document that existed back then still exist today.

The whole concept of a living document is ridiculous, because if it is so malleable then you might as well not have it at all. Hey, great! You discovered the living document concept. It is the malleable nature of it that makes it a living document.The Constitution is a contract between the people and the government established by the people -- when that government acts outside the bounds laid by the Constitution, it is in violation of its contract.You are sure right here. And it is and has been the will of the people to make the necessary social changes in our country. The majority of peopel favored Social Security, Medicare, and now a government option to health insurance. It is you who is out of the mainstream and in a very small minority, which seems to be getting smaller all the time. Our government is trying to live up to its contract (Constitutional) obligations, and thank goodness for that. So much of your arguement seems to be so extreme, that your tiny minority interpretation of the Constitution is all that counts and the opinions of the overwhelming majority of people and Government doesn't count. You seem like an anarchist.



Correlation does not equal causation. I believe that the poverty level in the United States and around the world has been lessened through technological advances in every industry that allow us to do more with less, not through wealth redistribution schemes that merely pass wealth from the "rich" to the poor. You just identified the conundrum. You feel you, or Bob, are entitled to the benefits...then what's the stupidity of it being illegal? You are entitled to illegal benefits? Not very logical. If you feel you are entitled to something, along with 50 million others, then I would suggest it must be legal. So it's a little stupid to waste people's time suggesting it's illegal. P.S. No one is entitled to illegal benefits. Your suggeswtion that graduated taxes are illegal is another foolish belief. Taxes have existed a lot longer than Social Security. It has survived all challenges to its Constitutionality. Only people on the far right fringes believe it is not legal. Frankly, you are wasting time considering it. Article 1 delineates the power of the Government to tax.

If Government were to operate using you interpretation there would be no roads, city water or sewer, fire of police departments, snow removal, or any other service offered by governmetn that requires a tax. Pretty foolish.

The solvency of Social Security is not dependent on anything but the will of the people. If people want it it will be there. If they don't it will fade away. Even if Social Security's trust fund runs dry, FICA taxes will still allow 3/4 of current benefits to be paid. Hardly going broke. If nothing is done, that is what will happen. Talking doom and gloom about Social Security is just more of the fear mongering. I sometimes think there would be no conservatives if there was not some imaginary boogey man they can't conjure up to be afraid of.

As far as dependency is concerned. Social Security has long taught that people need to provide their own additional money for retirement. Social Security is the foundation for their retirement plans. Unfortunately, the poor and lower earning people don't have the extra disposable income to invest for retirement. That's why benefits a skewed in favor of lower earning people.

Don't begin to talk about dependence. WE ARE ALL DEPENDENT ON EACH OTHER!! Hey, that's the purpose of a nation. It's a cooperative affair. You drive on our roads. Benefit from electricity enabled by the REA, schools paid for by government, etc., etc., etc. Before you get too self-righteous about your independence, you are getting welfare along with everyone else.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

You just identified the conundrum. You feel you, or Bob, are entitled to the benefits...then what's the stupidity of it being illegal? You are entitled to illegal benefits? Not very logical. If you feel you are entitled to something, along with 50 million others, then I would suggest it must be legal. So it's a little stupid to waste people's time suggesting it's illegal. P.S. No one is entitled to illegal benefits.

Dan. I don't like Social Security, Medicare, etc. and I wish they would go away. However, they haven't gone away yet, so I have little choice but to live under them.

Your suggeswtion that graduated taxes are illegal is another foolish belief. Taxes have existed a lot longer than Social Security. It has survived all challenges to its Constitutionality. Only people on the far right fringes believe it is not legal. Frankly, you are wasting time considering it. Article 1 delineates the power of the Government to tax.

Apportioned taxes, sure, but not unapportioned taxes like the Federal income tax.

If Government were to operate using you interpretation there would be no roads, city water or sewer, fire of police departments, snow removal, or any other service offered by governmetn that requires a tax. Pretty foolish.

These are local government services, and I am fine with them so long as they are paid for and administered locally. It's easy to move from one city to another if you don't like how these programs are run or how much the cost. It is not easy to move away from state-administered programs, and it is nearly impossible to move away from nationally-administered programs because then I would no longer have the protections afforded me by the U.S. Constitution.

The solvency of Social Security is not dependent on anything but the will of the people. If people want it it will be there. If they don't it will fade away.

LOL. In other words, if the people are willing to pay more taxes for fewer benefits, then SS will persist. SS is Ponzi through and through; it has only lasted thus far because it is continually expanded. Madoff got shut down eventually while SS

Even if Social Security's trust fund runs dry, FICA taxes will still allow 3/4 of current benefits to be paid.

I'm pretty sure that the "trust fund" was replaced by IOUs quite some time ago.

Hardly going broke. If nothing is done, that is what will happen. Talking doom and gloom about Social Security is just more of the fear mongering. I sometimes think there would be no conservatives if there was not some imaginary boogey man they can't conjure up to be afraid of.

I'm not quite sure what it is with you and boogey men that you feel compelled to keep mentioning them.

Don't begin to talk about dependence. WE ARE ALL DEPENDENT ON EACH OTHER!! Hey, that's the purpose of a nation. It's a cooperative affair. You drive on our roads. Benefit from electricity enabled by the REA, schools paid for by government, etc., etc., etc. Before you get too self-righteous about your independence, you are getting welfare along with everyone else.

Do I like living on other people's dime? No. Do I have a choice? No. I am working to reform the system toward one based on voluntaryism, but in the meantime I am forced to live within the current system. I do not actively seek out government money and government-paid services, but I have little choice to use them in many cases, regardless of my philosophical or moral objection to them. There aren't very many privately owned roads anymore, so if I want to get from point A to point B I must use taxpayer-paid roads.

[Dan Conner]

Dan. I don't like Social Security, Medicare, etc. and I wish they would go away. However, they haven't gone away yet, so I have little choice but to live under them. I hear what you say, but it is illogical. Social Security, Medicare, etc. can go away for you. I've discussed that with Bob. Just don't take it! You don't have to "live under it." However, if what you say is that you want to deprive others of it, then you are wrong. It is not going away. I think you need to face that fact, you know...get over it. It's time you start to worry about things that you can control, and Social Security and Medicare ain't among them. There is another old saying, "Don't worry about those things you can't control. Only worry about those things you can control."

You know this country is governed under a principal of majority rules. Until you represent the majority you need to get used to going along, or gather a majority and change it. When conservatives were in a majority, liberals peacefully went along, but don't confuse that with agreement. A more liberal Government is now leading and it's time conservatives learn to get along. When your turn comes, then do what you must, but until then...P.S. You'll note that even conservatives didn't make drastic changes with Social Security. Some say that would be political suicide. There is a lesson to be learned there.

Apportioned taxes, sure, but not unapportioned taxes like the Federal income tax. The Government has the right of taxation, period. The Constitution never stipulated the kind of taxes.

These are local government services, and I am fine with them so long as they are paid for and administered locally. It's easy to move from one city to another if you don't like how these programs are run or how much the cost. It is not easy to move away from state-administered programs, and it is nearly impossible to move away from nationally-administered programs because then I would no longer have the protections afforded me by the U.S. Constitution.Local government services? So what? They are services you receive that I and every other person in the community pay for, and they are paid for through taxation. It can be property tax, sales tax, income tax, or all of the above. And guess what, not all people paying those taxes agree with what is funded, but that doesn't mean you have the option of paying them or not. Your issue of local taxes is a case without a distinction. Guess what, it's easy to move from one country to another, as well. Maybe that is something that malcontents should do. I think that might help them gain an appreciation for this country. Also, it might help enlighten them about some of the great things other countries have that might benefit us here. I don't feel ignorance of what exists in other countries is bliss. Moving away from state administered programs is easy, as well. Just do it. I have lived in many many states, and I am proud to say Minnesota is the best of all the states I have lived in. And it is the best for the opposite reason to which you ascribe. Minnesotans are known nationally for their compassion, sharing, and "Minnesota nice." I wouldn't like to see that change. If you want MInnesota to be like Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, Louisianna, etc., you can easily resolve that by moving there. However, if you don't want to move, you have to learn to "get along." Just think about how illogical your statement is when you say, "and it is nearly impossible to move away from nationally-administered programs because then I would no longer have the protections afforded me by the U.S. Constitution." You admit you are protected by the Constitution, but you don't like what it brings? I view children who want EVERYTHING their way as petulent...you know the child that throws temper tantrums because mom or dad didn't buy him that toy they see on the shelf? Well, guess what, we all have to learn that we don't get everything we want. Not even conservatives. Relentless whining and crying about it doesn't get what they want, it just shows we are too spoiled. You get your way way too much if you can't learn to get along. I think our nation is hurting, not because of the "Spoiled" poor, but instead because of the spoiled rich. I say welcome to change. It's about time.



LOL. In other words, if the people are willing to pay more taxes for fewer benefits, then SS will persist. SS is Ponzi through and through; it has only lasted thus far because it is continually expanded. Madoff got shut down eventually while SS You call it whatever you want. Social Security has saved millions from poverty and will continue to do that. It is ignorance to assume paying more to get less is what will happen. The final decision about what changes to make to Social Security haven't even been debated yet. I will tell you that if you value proportional taxation, that taxing the rich , beyond $100,000/year is the fairest way. Then, financing the program is solved. Why should the rich stop paying taxes just because they earn over $100,000/year, when all people below that pay FICA taxes on everything? That's one fix, and it's a fair fix. The rest of your diatribe about "Ponzi" is just name-calling and without basis in law. Ponzi scheme is money taken with the promise it is invested for the benefit of the investor. However, Ponzi scheme is when money is taken to only benefit the broker. That's what makes it illegal. The Social Security "investors" have done very well benefiting the investor.


I'm pretty sure that the "trust fund" was replaced by IOUs quite some time ago. I'm so surprised...What do you think banks do with your money/savings? Do you think they put it on a shelf with your name on it? What do you think any investment does? They invest your money and turn higher yields than they pay you. Well, the Social Security trust fund is handled the same. It is invested in things like roads, military tanks, airplanes, armies, water, sewer, you name it. That money has helped you!!! You have already been the recipient of Social Security. Those trust fund dollars have been spent to help you. So, those IOU's you talk about (US Treasury Notes) are the money the trust fiund has loaned the Government to benefit you!


I'm not quite sure what it is with you and boogey men that you feel compelled to keep mentioning them. It seems you and others fear everything our Government does as a threat to you. There seems to be a paranoia that Government is out to get you. Well, it's not. Is Government always perfect? Of course not, but it is the only thing standing between you and despotism. I don't think you would appreciate Government by corporations. The interest will quickly change from serving people to serving money. Our Government is already becoming too corrupt with the influence of corporate money.


Do I like living on other people's dime? No. Do I have a choice? No. Well, you're sure right here. You are living on the people's dime all the time. You drive on our roads don't you? You use the electricity established by the REA don't you? I think you need to start realizing that we are all dependent on each other. It isn't appropriate to separate one or two service of Government out and say that means you are living on the "people's dime." You are living on the "people's dime" all the time, Social Security or not. If you went to a public school, you lived on the people's dime. If you visited a park, you lived on the public's dime. That's something to be proud of. We are all dependent on each other. We fought off our enemies together and we prosper or fail together. The very term "nation" connotes living together with common interests and goals. The Pilgrims would have starved to death and all died of diseasee without the help of Indians. It was people working together. If you want to make a go of it for yourself and not mocch of the reast of society, go ahead, but don't impose your values on others. Find your solitude somewhere and live it, but until then, get along. I think a big problem is that people take government too much for granted. I think you need to become more familiar with the services offered by Government before you rail against it. Then, you ask, "Do I have a choice?" Of course you do. You stay better informed and vote or you can move anywhere else in the world that better adheres to your ideals.I am working to reform the system toward one based on voluntaryism, but in the meantime I am forced to live within the current system. Well, great! I'm glad to see that at least you are working to change those things you feel need to be changed. However, I think you are needlessly wastings energy complaining about what is, when that energy could be channeled into what could be. Complaining and whining never changes anything. Our country has a mechanism for affecting change...use it. I do not actively seek out government money and government-paid services, but I have little choice to use them in many cases, regardless of my philosophical or moral objection to them. There aren't very many privately owned roads anymore, so if I want to get from point A to point B I must use taxpayer-paid roads. While I think this statement makes little sense, I don't agree you can't do anything about it. You can move to some desolate part of our country or the mountains. There, you could live by yourself, support yourself, and not pay taxes. And guess what, you'll get what you pay for. There are people doing that now. They are doing what you say you can't. Maybe you should talk to them and find out what has allowed them to do what you can't.

Hopefully, the above have healped you.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

I hear what you say, but it is illogical. Social Security, Medicare, etc. can go away for you. I've discussed that with Bob. Just don't take it! You don't have to "live under it." However, if what you say is that you want to deprive others of it, then you are wrong. It is not going away. I think you need to face that fact, you know...get over it. It's time you start to worry about things that you can control, and Social Security and Medicare ain't among them. There is another old saying, "Don't worry about those things you can't control. Only worry about those things you can control."

To not take the benefits would be to submit to continual robbery. As long as the system persists that forces me to pay for something I don’t really want, I must take it anyway to keep others from taking from me. To illustrate, if there are 10 people sitting around a table and they are all required to put varying amounts of money into a bowl and then get varying amounts of money out of the bowl, refusing to take my officially designated “share” is a) unsustainable because I will eventually go broke and b) will only make this unethical system last longer (and creating more dependents) because it will take longer for the money to run out.

There are some people (and I do not count myself among them) who are morally opposed to these wealth redistribution schemes but who purposely take as much money from Federal government programs as they legally can get away with in an attempt to “bleed the beast” and make it collapse sooner so that we can return to a fair and voluntary society.

You know this country is governed under a principal of majority rules. Until you represent the majority you need to get used to going along, or gather a majority and change it.

Dan, you are advocating the tyranny of the majority (also known as democracy) which I reject as immoral. The U.S. was established as a Constitutional Republic with the intention of protecting the minority from the majority. Yes, it does have some elements of a democracy, and yes, we have lamentably been moving from away from a republic and toward a democracy as the years go by. I suggest you watch this video about the various common types of government: http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment

When conservatives were in a majority, liberals peacefully went along, but don't confuse that with agreement. A more liberal Government is now leading and it's time conservatives learn to get along. When your turn comes, then do what you must, but until then...P.S. You'll note that even conservatives didn't make drastic changes with Social Security. Some say that would be political suicide. There is a lesson to be learned there.

The “conservatives” in power at the federal level in the past decades have hardly been conservatives. They often talk like conservatives in order to pacify the relatively gullible Republican base, but then their actions are, at best, holding the line on the expansion of government and taxes. What kind of a strategy is only letting your opponents win a little ground each time? Come on. Neither of the Bushes were conservative. Even Reagan, sainted among most conservatives, still expanded government and debt considerably all while talking a good game.

The Government has the right of taxation, period. The Constitution never stipulated the kind of taxes.

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

The 16th Amendment arguably legitimized the income tax, although there is even some disagreement that it was every properly ratified. Regardless, it does say "without apportionment" so that is a stipulation that we're not following right now.

Local government services? So what? They are services you receive that I and every other person in the community pay for, and they are paid for through taxation. It can be property tax, sales tax, income tax, or all of the above. And guess what, not all people paying those taxes agree with what is funded, but that doesn't mean you have the option of paying them or not. Your issue of local taxes is a case without a distinction. Guess what, it's easy to move from one country to another, as well. Maybe that is something that malcontents should do. I think that might help them gain an appreciation for this country. Also, it might help enlighten them about some of the great things other countries have that might benefit us here. I don't feel ignorance of what exists in other countries is bliss. Moving away from state administered programs is easy, as well. Just do it.

You didn’t listen to what I said. The farther one must go to escape a government program one doesn’t like, the more difficult and expensive it is to move. The more expensive it is, the more I must put up with before that “last straw” when I finally decide I must move. I don’t like Mankato’s local sales tax, but it currently isn’t cost-effective for me to move to a city that doesn’t charge it. I don’t like Minnesota’s property taxes, but it currently isn’t cost-effective for me to move to a different state that has lower taxes because my cost of moving (both fiscal and non-fiscal costs, such as moving my children away from their grandparents) outweigh the cost of taxation. I don’t like SS, Medicare, etc., but the cost of moving to a different country is prohibitively expensive and I’d have to give up many other protections afforded to me by the U.S. Constitution that I wouldn’t have elsewhere.

Because of this, I want all government to be as local as possible. This allows people to “vote with their feet” and easily and cheaply choose the size of government with which they are most satisfied. If Mankato decided to offer more services and charge higher taxes than North Mankato, I could look at them both and freely decide which city I wanted to live in. However, when my choices are the U.S. or say, Singapore, I have to put up with an extraordinary amount of things I don’t like before I finally make the expensive and difficult decision to move my established home and family.

I am perfectly fine with all kinds of social programs – if they are local. Then I can decide whether or not I want to live there. If you want to live in a community where taxpayer-paid free beer and pretzels are available to all, that’s fine with me. I’ll live in the next town over.

Just think about how illogical your statement is when you say, "and it is nearly impossible to move away from nationally-administered programs because then I would no longer have the protections afforded me by the U.S. Constitution." You admit you are protected by the Constitution, but you don't like what it brings? I view children who want EVERYTHING their way as petulent...you know the child that throws temper tantrums because mom or dad didn't buy him that toy they see on the shelf? Well, guess what, we all have to learn that we don't get everything we want. Not even conservatives. Relentless whining and crying about it doesn't get what they want, it just shows we are too spoiled. You get your way way too much if you can't learn to get along. I think our nation is hurting, not because of the "Spoiled" poor, but instead because of the spoiled rich. I say welcome to change. It's about time.

Dan, I want the protections offered by the Constitution. I don’t want the additional crap layered on in the last century or so that, in my view, has little to do with the Constitution. I am trying to restore Constitutionally-limited government in this country because I believe that doing so is the best opportunity for freedom and prosperity on the planet. We have a solid foundation of liberty in place here already; I think restoring it here will be easier than trying to build it from scratch elsewhere, especially since the U.S. is basically the last stronghold against global government that so many people are pushing for. For a person such as myself who loves local government, supranational entities and partnerships such as the UN, EU, and the SPP are the last thing I want to see.

Gotta go; I’ll respond to the rest some other time.

[Dan Conner]

QUOTE=Jonathan Kovaciny;1738]To not take the benefits would be to submit to continual robbery. I think you make yourself out to be too much of a Joan of Arc here. It's a little thickAs long as the system persists that forces me to pay for something I don’t really want, I must take it anyway to keep others from taking from me. You don't have to do anything. You don't have to take those benefits, particularly when you feel it is a crime to do it. You make a very self-serving statement here. Frankly, I think you might be complicit in a crime. Where are your principles? You feel the benefits are illegal, but you accept them to protect yourself from robbery? Come on! Things are getting deep. Do the real principled thing and refuse benefits. Afterall, you want to take them from everyone else.To illustrate, if there are 10 people sitting around a table and they are all required to put varying amounts of money into a bowl and then get varying amounts of money out of the bowl, refusing to take my officially designated “share” is a) unsustainable because I will eventually go broke This isn't even logical. You're going broke? Then how come you can afford to be putting money in the pot? It would seem to me you are not putting money in the pot, if you are broke. Also, you get to the essence of this. YOU FEEL, you want to get your share because you have paid in. That I can understand, but to insinuate you are sacrificing for some nobel cause? I don't buy it. You are looking to claim your share out of selfishness, not some sacred duty. I don't know of anyone bankrupted by contributing FICA tax. You have to make money to contribute you know. The nobel thing to do is to refuse it. Then, I know you would have the courage of your convictions. Instead, you want to keep your benefits, but deny them for everyone else. Hardly a charitable gesture. and b) will only make this unethical system last longer (and creating more dependents) because it will take longer for the money to run out. I didn't realize how much you really cared. You want to help run the money out of Social Security quicker? And dependence? Who are you to judging dependent? You drive on our roads, drink the water from our wells, use our sewer systems, utilize our law enforcement and fire fighters, use the electricity in our rural areas established through the REA, attended our schools, ate our subsidized foods, and drove on our roads cleared of snow by our taxes and you want to eliminate dependence for everyone else? I'm afraid you are more dependent than you know. At least we know we all benefit from each other. We are a nation of people working together. If we don't, then we really aren't a nation.

There are some people (and I do not count myself among them) who are morally opposed to these wealth redistribution schemes but who purposely take as much money from Federal government programs as they legally can get away with in an attempt to “bleed the beast” and make it collapse sooner so that we can return to a fair and voluntary societyThat is warped. "Bleed the Beast" so it collapses and we can return to a fair voluntary system? That's not only warped but kind of sick. I realize there are probably people like this. Apparently you admire them. Are you really foolish enough to believe the people that would ruin our country by hoarding and hogging its wealth would want a fair and honest society? If you believe that, I have some swamp land for you. These vermin don't have any higher purpose than bnkrupting our nation and you are twisted to believe that. These are scoundrels that will always be scoundrels. However, I deduce that you are a little of that belief. You want to become hyper-dependent so things will be fair and honest and the tooth fairy will bless you? Get out of here. That is totally illogical and false .

Dan, you are advocating the tyranny of the majority (also known as democracy) which I reject as immoral. No, I advocate for the rights of the majority. You advocate for the tyranny of the minority. You just talked about "bleeding the beast" above and you acuse the majority of tyranny? Get out of here!! Our system of government was set up to consider the minority when cloturere in the Senate was established. Also, the Senate has 2 representatives from each state, meaning to water down the affects of the majority, but after those considerations the majority rules. It's like healthcare. The majority of people and doctors favor a public option. If they can muster the votes over cloture in the Senate and the House supports, we shall have healthcare with a public option. I would say tough to the militant minority. I would say get along and spend you energy to affect change, not whine and belly-ache about it.The U.S. was established as a Constitutional Republic with the intention of protecting the minority from the majority. You confuse protecting the minority from the majority with protecting the majority from the minority extreme right-wing zealots. You are protected everbit as much as people in the left wing were protected during the Bush adminsitration. If you think you are entitled to more protection, then enumerate them. What are they? Don't make vague and geneeralized statements like that without proof. If you say if states so in the Constitution, you furnish it here.Yes, it does have some elements of a democracy, and yes, we have lamentably been moving from away from a republic and toward a democracy as the years go by.That's right. We are a representative democracy (and Bob was all wrong there too). The representative democracy is demonstrated through our Congress. I suggest you watch this video about the various common types of government: http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment Frankly, I don't have time to view you video right now. I would hope it has a more accurate perception of the Constitution than you have iterated here.

(continued in next post)

[Dan Conner]

The “conservatives” in power at the federal level in the past decades have hardly been conservatives. I'm sorry, but you don't have dominion over definitions of conservatives. It is widely accepted that the Bush adminsitration was conservative. In fact, very conservative. Many refer to it as neo-conservative.They often talk like conservatives in order to pacify the relatively gullible Republican base, but then their actions are, at best, holding the line on the expansion of government and taxes. What kind of a strategy is only letting your opponents win a little ground each time? Come on. Neither of the Bushes were conservative. Even Reagan, sainted among most conservatives, still expanded government and debt considerably all while talking a good game. I guess you better start your own political party instead of whining about the ones we have. You're wasting yours and my time belly-aching about the existing parties. I suggest you stop wasting energy complaining and start your new ultra right-wing party. Then, we'll see how dominant it is in our country's politics. I'm afraid your kind of conservative will not be able to win any significant election. I sure wouldn't vote for a party that wants to "bleed the beast." That doesn't sound like a very patriotic party to me.

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” OK

The 16th Amendment arguably legitimized the income tax, although there is even some disagreement that it was every properly ratified. Regardless, it does say "without apportionment" so that is a stipulation that we're not following right now.Well, you just complain some more to the Supreme Court. That has been tried numerous times in the past. THEY ALL LOST!! And since you "say" you are a believer in the Constitution, you should realize that the Supreme Court is empowered to interpret it, not you or me. And they have made that interpretation many times. However, I still hear you complaining.

You didn’t listen to what I said. The farther one must go to escape a government program one doesn’t like, the more difficult and expensive it is to move. Hey, you were just talking about dependence. According to your philosophy, it is your job to save enough to make that journey. Are you looking for a leave-the-country sale? There might be property available in Guyana. You don't expect to be dependent on me to help you leave our country do you? You have already implied you have limited patriotism. I would be a fool to give money to one that doesn't even love our country. There are many flights to foreign countries that are cheap.

Have you served in the military? It doesn't seem so. I couldn't imagine one who was willing to die for our country would so willingly contemplate leaving it.The more expensive it is, the more I must put up with before that “last straw” when I finally decide I must move. What do you feel that amount is, maybe I get raise the funds? I don’t like Mankato’s local sales tax, but it currently isn’t cost-effective for me to move to a city that doesn’t charge it. I don’t like Minnesota’s property taxes, but it currently isn’t cost-effective for me to move to a different state that has lower taxes because my cost of moving (both fiscal and non-fiscal costs, such as moving my children away from their grandparents) outweigh the cost of taxation. I don’t like SS, Medicare, etc., but the cost of moving to a different country is prohibitively expensive and I’d have to give up many other protections afforded to me by the U.S. Constitution that I wouldn’t have elsewhere.Boy I sure feel sorry for you. You can't do pretty muich anything because it might cost you? Let's see you don't like the city, state, or federal government. You seem more like a malcontent. I suggest you show some conviction once and stop complaining by giving up Social Security, Medicare, move from the city, state or country and find that land of bliss. But, I'll tellya what...I believe you'll soon be complaining about that too. You seem like a petulent child who, when he sees any toy on the store shelf starts to scream, raise a fit, and have a regular temper tantrum, until they get what they want. In my assessment that child is very very spoiled. Is there any parallel here?

Because of this, I want all government to be as local as possible. Well, I'm sure glad this is what you want. However, I think you are going to have to wait a long time...long enough that there are enough people that feel as you do to affect your change. If we get that far out, then you might be lucky because I'll want to move. Right now I would suggest you get over it and stop the whining.This allows people to “vote with their feet” and easily and cheaply choose the size of government with which they are most satisfied. This doesn't even make sense. What relationship does "voting with your feet" have to do with size of government? People can and should be "voting with their feet" now. And in case you forget, they did, and it wasn't for the extreme right wing example of government you espouse. Frankly, I find too much illogical about it.If Mankato decided to offer more services and charge higher taxes than North Mankato, I could look at them both and freely decide which city I wanted to live in. However, when my choices are the U.S. or say, SingaporeYou better make sure Singapore wants you, before you move there., I have to put up with an extraordinary amount of things I don’t like before I finally make the expensive and difficult decision to move my established home and family.Well, stop being dependent on me, as you would say, and save and find a way to get to Singapore. That might be the first illustration of your committment. Don't talk about it. Do it!! I think we'll all do OK over here.

I am perfectly fine with all kinds of social programs – if they are local. Then I can decide whether or not I want to live there. If you want to live in a community where taxpayer-paid free beer and pretzels are available to all, that’s fine with me. I’ll live in the next town over.Hey, here you mention it again. Our country does have those "free Social Security" benefits, as you think. All you have to do is find the next country over. I'm afraid I find your arguement of the logistics of a move to a neighboring city, state or country amusing and nonsensical.

Dan, I want the protections offered by the Constitution. I don’t want the additional crap layered on in the last century or so that, in my view, has little to do with the Constitution. I am trying to restore Constitutionally-limited government in this country because I believe that doing so is the best opportunity for freedom and prosperity on the planet. We have a solid foundation of liberty in place here already; I think restoring it here will be easier than trying to build it from scratch elsewhere, especially since the U.S. is basically the last stronghold against global government that so many people are pushing for. For a person such as myself who loves local government, supranational entities and partnerships such as the UN, EU, and the SPP are the last thing I want to see. Hey, I have a good idae. You might not have to leave the country. I think you can find a mountain in Wyoming, Colorado,, or Montana, wheree you can live by yourself, not pay any taxes, and not have to pay for anything you don't want. The Unabomber did. Oh, there's also maybe a vacancy on Ruby Ridge? I'm sorry, but this country isn't for spoiled people who only want their own selfish things. There are 300 million of us here and we all have to learn to compromise, including you. Frankly, I tire of hearing what you want. I think you need to lower your selfishness and listen to what others want. Their wants might be a lot closer to needs.

Gotta go; I’ll respond to the rest some other time.[/QUOTE]

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Dan, your are not listening to anything I say, you won't read to anything I link to, and you won't respond to any argument I make other than to repeat what you said--and I answered--in previous posts. Your constant fallacious arguments (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html) are tiring. Until you can come up with a coherent and cordial response, I am done.

[Matt Christianson]

[QUOTE=Dan Conner;1740]The “conservatives” in power at the federal level in the past decades have hardly been conservatives. I'm sorry, but you don't have dominion over definitions of conservatives. It is widely accepted that the Bush adminsitration was conservative. In fact, very conservative. Many refer to it as neo-conservative.They often talk like conservatives in order to pacify the relatively gullible Republican base, but then their actions are, at best, holding the line on the expansion of government and taxes. What kind of a strategy is only letting your opponents win a little ground each time? Come on. Neither of the Bushes were conservative. Even Reagan, sainted among most conservatives, still expanded government and debt considerably all while talking a good game. I guess you better start your own political party instead of whining about the ones we have. You're wasting yours and my time belly-aching about the existing parties. I suggest you stop wasting energy complaining and start your new ultra right-wing party. Then, we'll see how dominant it is in our country's politics. I'm afraid your kind of conservative will not be able to win any significant election. I sure wouldn't vote for a party that wants to "bleed the beast." That doesn't sound like a very patriotic party to me.

Dan, one point in your lengthy diatribe I feel the need to argue is that GW was no conservative. He worked closly with T. Kennedy on education greatly expanding the fed's role in said subject, supported amnesty for illegal aliens, signed campaign finance 'reform', and grossly expanded entitlements. HHe was responsible for signing stimulis bill I and bailed out large firms at the start of the economic collapse. He was anything but a conservative from his 'compassionate conservative' campaign message, to his openness to the bailout the of auto industry. I love how liberals blame the financial mess partially by blaming Bush's spendthrift ways but then propose the solution to the problem by advocating more runaway government spending. Talk about pouring gasoline on the fire in hopes of extinguishing it.

[Bob Jentges]

Dan, your are not listening to anything I say, you won't read to anything I link to, and you won't respond to any argument I make other than to repeat what you said--and I answered--in previous posts. Your constant fallacious arguments (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html) are tiring. Until you can come up with a coherent and cordial response, I am done.

I agree with your approach, Jonathon! I took essentially the same position with Dan just a few day's ago.

But since Dan could not avoid referencing me in his latest diatribe post to you with respect to being "wrong" about our country being a "Republic" I think I will add just a couple comments as a matter of personal privelige.

First, the Pledge of Allegiance states: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands...".

Second, the founders repeatedly said they created a Republic. Article 4. Section 4 Paragraph 1 of the Constitution says: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." That might be best demonstrated by Benjamin Franklin's response to a lady as he was leaving the building after four months of hard work completing and signing the Constitution. The lady asked Franklin what kind of government the convention had created? Franklin replied: "A Republic, ma'am if you can keep it."

The way I see it the critical question is: CAN WE KEEP IT?

A not critical question at all is who will be Dan's next whipping boy?
I am placing my money on that it will be Matt Christianson!

[Dan Conner]

[QUOTE=Dan Conner;1740]The “conservatives” in power at the federal level in the past decades have hardly been conservatives. I'm sorry, but you don't have dominion over definitions of conservatives. It is widely accepted that the Bush adminsitration was conservative. In fact, very conservative. Many refer to it as neo-conservative.They often talk like conservatives in order to pacify the relatively gullible Republican base, but then their actions are, at best, holding the line on the expansion of government and taxes. What kind of a strategy is only letting your opponents win a little ground each time? Come on. Neither of the Bushes were conservative. Even Reagan, sainted among most conservatives, still expanded government and debt considerably all while talking a good game. I guess you better start your own political party instead of whining about the ones we have. You're wasting yours and my time belly-aching about the existing parties. I suggest you stop wasting energy complaining and start your new ultra right-wing party. Then, we'll see how dominant it is in our country's politics. I'm afraid your kind of conservative will not be able to win any significant election. I sure wouldn't vote for a party that wants to "bleed the beast." That doesn't sound like a very patriotic party to me.

Dan, one point in your lengthy diatribe I feel the need to argue is that GW was no conservative. He worked closly with T. Kennedy on education greatly expanding the fed's role in said subject, supported amnesty for illegal aliens, signed campaign finance 'reform', and grossly expanded entitlements. HHe was responsible for signing stimulis bill I and bailed out large firms at the start of the economic collapse. He was anything but a conservative from his 'compassionate conservative' campaign message, to his openness to the bailout the of auto industry. I love how liberals blame the financial mess partially by blaming Bush's spendthrift ways but then propose the solution to the problem by advocating more runaway government spending. Talk about pouring gasoline on the fire in hopes of extinguishing it. I'm sorry Matt, but I disagree. Bush definitely was a conservative. Up until the end of his term, he had wide-spread support of almost all conservatives. Now, you might be able to point to elements of what he did and say they weren't conservative, but I can do the same with a liberal. Not everything a liberal has done was liberal. We're looking at the big generalized picture here. If we were to use your definition, no one is conservative or liberal. T. Kennedy was considered liberal, but he voted for some conservative issues. Of course they will be few, that's why they are considered liberal or conservative. Many have judged Obama to be conservative because of his bi-partisan approach, because he bailed out banks, instead of the guy on the street, because he has continued the war, etc. However, he is still generally liberal. The same with Bush, who was generally conservative. You might want to argue how much, but that arguement is like arguing how much some one is pregnant. By the way, many conservative would differ about criteria you use to determine conservative. Bush was hardly a "compassionate conservative." He executed more people in Texas that all the rest of the states put together. Some still speculate about whether he executed the right person, in some cases.

[Matt Christianson]

Well I am a conservative and do not equate myself morally, fiscally, philosophically or intellectually with GW. Therefore, in my eyes, he was not a conservative. He probably was the right person in charge at the time of 9/11 when considering the other option (lets not get too involved with that...we all know what that can of worms is like...Iraq, torture etc) so I can give him mixed support there.

[Dan Conner]

Well I am a conservative and do not equate myself morally, fiscally, philosophically or intellectually with GW. Therefore, in my eyes, he was not a conservative. He probably was the right person in charge at the time of 9/11 when considering the other option (lets not get too involved with that...we all know what that can of worms is like...Iraq, torture etc) so I can give him mixed support there.I now have no problem with what you say. You don't consider him a conservative...that's fine. I do consider him a conservative. Yeah, I don't think it's a good idea to get into the 911 thing.

[Bob Jentges]

I agree with your approach, Jonathon! I took essentially the same position with Dan just a few day's ago.

But since Dan could not avoid referencing me in his latest diatribe post to you with respect to being "wrong" about our country being a "Republic" I think I will add just a couple comments as a matter of personal privelige.

First, the Pledge of Allegiance states: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands...".

Second, the founders repeatedly said they created a Republic. Article 4. Section 4 Paragraph 1 of the Constitution says: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." That might be best demonstrated by Benjamin Franklin's response to a lady as he was leaving the building after four months of hard work completing and signing the Constitution. The lady asked Franklin what kind of government the convention had created? Franklin replied: "A Republic, ma'am if you can keep it."

The way I see it the critical question is: CAN WE KEEP IT?

A not critical question at all is who will be Dan's next whipping boy?
I am placing my money on that it will be Matt Christianson!

I realize Dan has been busy responding to various posts today, but in the event he might have overlooked the above I will quote it again. I do not want him to miss the oppertunity to tell me the Constitution and Pledge do not say what they say, and/or that I missquoted Benjamin Franklin. I can not believe he will miss the chance to have the last word.

As an aside, if you read this Matt, I do not consider George W. Bush a fiscal conservative either. I consider him a "Big Government" Republican.

[Dan Conner]

I realize Dan has been busy responding to various posts today, but in the event he might have overlooked the above I will quote it again. I do not want him to miss the oppertunity to tell me the Constitution and Pledge do not say what they say, and/or that I missquoted Benjamin Franklin. I can not believe he will miss the chance to have the last word.

As an aside, if you read this Matt, I do not consider George W. Bush a fiscal conservative either. I consider him a "Big Government" Republican.Bob, I suggest you look up what representative democracy means. I'm surprised at your ignorance of this term. It means democracy through elected representatives. Pretty complicated, huh? That's the system we operate under. Your term representative republic is a a description of our country. I think you are making progress...yes, you're coming along. One of these days, you might learn something. I'm glad you agree with Matt. He seems to have a reasonable approach. At least you are taking some instructive leadership lessons well. Now, if only you could formulate acceptable ideas for yourself, without relying on fraternal support and encouragement. Who knows, one of these days you might become independent.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, I suggest you look up what representative democracy means. I'm surprised at your ignorance of this term. It means democracy through elected representatives. Pretty complicated, huh? That's the system we operate under. Your term representative republic is a a description of our country. I think you are making progress...yes, you're coming along. One of these days, you might learn something. I'm glad you agree with Matt. He seems to have a reasonable approach. At least you are taking some instructive leadership lessons well. Now, if only you could formulate acceptable ideas for yourself, without relying on fraternal support and encouragement. Who knows, one of these days you might become independent.

Like I expected, and as stated in my post #34, it looks like it will be necessary for me to quote Article 4 Section 4 paragraph one of the U. S. Constitution again: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a REPUBLICAN form of GOVERNMENT." (My Emphasis) Although I do not think it should be necessary, here is my analysis of these few plain English words.

"Republican", as used above pertains to the nature of a republic.

"Republic", as used in this discussion, refers to our country wherein the general public elects representatives who pass laws (that must fall within the Constitution) to govern the country. Our Republic is a country of laws, not of people, where power is seperated between the branches making it difficult to pass laws and make changes.

"Government" means government i.e. a system of rule by which people are governed.

Words have meanings. I prefer to base my position on the words of the Constitution emphasized previously herin i.e. "Republican" and "Government", and what they mean in context with the words that surround them. The way I see it a reasoned, logical reading of Article 4 Section 4 paragraph one clearly establish that the "United States" is a representative republic form of government. It is not, as you suggested in a previous post, "majority rule".

The word "democracy" does NOT appear anywhere in the United States Constitution because the United States is NOT a "democracy" per se---we are a representative republic/constitutional republic!

My "ideas" are my ideas! Simply because some other Forum members might have similar ideas or opinions to mine does not mean we are acting in concert to pick-on poor members of the Forum with different ideas/opinions. If you were referring to Jonathon or Matt, or whoever, I believe I was a member expressing my "ideas" and opinions before most Forum members.

I understand your trying to stay on the good side of Matt, because if you drive everyone that disagrees with you away from exchanging opinions with you because of personal insults, etc., the Forum could develope into a bully looking for a debate, but no one shows up to debate.

[Dan Conner]

Like I expected, and as stated in my post #34, it looks like it will be necessary for me to quote Article 4 Section 4 paragraph one of the U. S. Constitution again: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a REPUBLICAN form of GOVERNMENT." (My Emphasis) Although I do not think it should be necessary, here is my analysis of these few plain English words.

"Republican", as used above pertains to the nature of a republic.

"Republic", as used in this discussion, refers to our country wherein the general public elects representatives who pass laws (that must fall within the Constitution) to govern the country. Our Republic is a country of laws, not of people, where power is seperated between the branches making it difficult to pass laws and make changes.

"Government" means government i.e. a system of rule by which people are governed.

Words have meanings. I prefer to base my position on the words of the Constitution emphasized previously herin i.e. "Republican" and "Government", and what they mean in context with the words that surround them. The way I see it a reasoned, logical reading of Article 4 Section 4 paragraph one clearly establish that the "United States" is a representative republic form of government. It is not, as you suggested in a previous post, "majority rule".

The word "democracy" does NOT appear anywhere in the United States Constitution because the United States is NOT a "democracy" per se---we are a representative republic/constitutional republic!

My "ideas" are my ideas! Simply because some other Forum members might have similar ideas or opinions to mine does not mean we are acting in concert to pick-on poor members of the Forum with different ideas/opinions. If you were referring to Jonathon or Matt, or whoever, I believe I was a member expressing my "ideas" and opinions before most Forum members.

I understand your trying to stay on the good side of Matt, because if you drive everyone that disagrees with you away from exchanging opinions with you because of personal insults, etc., the Forum could develope into a bully looking for a debate, but no one shows up to debate.Bob, I think you forget about another very important reference...the dictionary. Try looking that up too. It seems you think you have the only answer...as usual. Not only that, but representative democracy is commonly used in schools and political science descriptions, but I realize you are the only one with the right answer. Certainly, I know you like to demonstrate Constitutional prowess, but I suggest that while bathing yourself in your self-righteousness, that you retain the ability to learn.

You might choose to define Republic as above, but you don't dictate the discussion. The dictionary also describes Republic as, "A political order whose head of state is other than a monarch, and in modern times is usually a President. Now, you can use your definition and I will use mine.

You certainly are a confused person. Is your vocabulary limited to that of the Constitution? If a word isn't used in the Constitution it isn't a word with a meaning? I think you need to broaden your knowledge base here, Bob. I think you have so immersed yourself in the Constitution, you are now unable to see the forest throught the trees. You seem to be quibbling over map symbols while forgetting to find your way.

I thought it an amazing lesson I learned many many years ago, as a child, that words have more than one meaning and that something can be defined in varying ways using different words. MJKaybe that's just being open-minded. Certainly, dictating a word as having only one meaning, or that a situation has only one description, is not open-minded. However, I suggest that you refer to a dictionary. My second college edition of "The American Heritage Dictionary" lists one of the definitions of rep[resewntative as, "Of, pertaining to, or characteristic of government by representation."

Here's is a link discussing representative democracy:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/btof/chap4iv.htm

I thought this was interestingly used in the definition of representative democracy:
Apart from the factors analysed above, four prerequisites for the operation of the representative democratic order may be mentioned:

1. A minimum level of education, enabling the bulk of the population to vote with some (perhaps hazy) idea of what it is all about;

2. A broad consensus, with no group having a significant following (whether political, racial, linguistic or religious) which is alienated from the system and working from outside to overthrow it;

3. Basic standards of life, living and welfare;

4.A degree of upward social and economic mobility providing avenues for persons of talent from the lower classes to move up the ladder, and the continued acceptance, by all classes, of this system.

5. The legal underpinning of democracy is the Constitution, and this is analysed in section 17.

Maybe you don't feel we either have or should have one of the four elements above. They seem pretty common sense to me.

Now you may wish to make another fight over nothing, and go ahead. You're right, words have meaning. I just suggest that you open your eyes and mind and realize that words have other meanings than what you say. You seem to be afflictred with self-righteousness here. That's OK, when you're right, but you ain't. You have chosen to frame this debate , apparently restricting the context and actual words used in the Constitution. I never did that. I think you were rather presumptuous to think that I did. Regardless, I think you need to ask the person using a word, or words, what they mean before you blunder in and try to define words in such a restrictive and narrow-minded manner. I think your need to impress is misspent on me because I am not improessed. In fact, I am disappointed at the limited range of your knowledge. You know, there is a whole new horizon of knowledge out there beyond the Constitution.

I think you could better spend your time arguing issues, instead of fighting losing battles over semantics.

[Bob Jentges]

Hopeless as it might be, I will make just a few points in reference to your meaningless ramblings.

First, in no way did I insinuate that a "Republic" does not have a head of state other than a monarch. Apparrently you missed it, but in my previous post(s) I was trying to make the points that the Constitution clearly states that the United States of America is a Rebublic with a "Rebublican form of Government"; that is what it says in plain English. I know that Barack Obama's title is President of the United States i.e. the Republic.

Second, I understand what a representative democracy is. But since the Constitution indicates the United States of America is a Republic [not a Democracy] the definition of representative democracy should not be at issue.

Third, although you seem to disagree, the way I see it, when interpruting the meaning of the Constitution the discussion is best limited to the actual words of the Constitution, in proper context, and avoid drifting off into irrelevant issues.

[Dan Conner]

Hopeless as it might be, I will make just a few points in reference to your meaningless ramblings.

First, in no way did I insinuate that a "Republic" does not have a head of state other than a monarch. Apparrently you missed it, but in my previous post(s) I was trying to make the points that the Constitution clearly states that the United States of America is a Rebublic with a "Rebublican form of Government"; that is what it says in plain English. I know that Barack Obama's title is President of the United States i.e. the Republic.

Second, I understand what a representative democracy is. But since the Constitution indicates the United States of America is a Republic [not a Democracy] the definition of representative democracy should not be at issue.

Third, although you seem to disagree, the way I see it, when interpruting the meaning of the Constitution the discussion is best limited to the actual words of the Constitution, in proper context, and avoid drifting off into irrelevant issues.Bob, there you go again using your deep embedded paranoia and saying I accused you of saying a Republic doesn't have a Head of state. I think you better comprehend what you read, especially before you "shoot from the hip" in such a paranoid way. First, I was quoting from the dictionary, so blame The American Heritage Dictionary. And I was explaining to you as simply as I could, realizing your tendency to misinterpret, what the dictionary says about republic, but I should have guessed that your paranoia would take over and cause you to miss the message.

Bob, in case you miss the entire thread of our conversation, I made a statement that we live in a representative democracy (true, by the way), and you "horned in", "kabitzed", or whatever you might define, to assert I was wrong and we are a Republic. Then, you tell me the context I must use when I write. Bob, you're way out of line and quibbling over everything but substance. Maybe your ideas have no substance? My use of representative democracy was correct and your kabitzing was wrong. I don't have to speak in your contextual world. To tell you the truth, I don't know where that is. The more I think about it, its further out than Pluto.

I suggest you try limiting the use of your narrow mindedness and try thinking more open-minded. You might discover a whole new, and better, world out there. No matter what, I do suggest you drop the paranoia and fear. It isn't very becoming. You make very silly arguements about subjects with no relevance or import. You set ridiculous rules for your very confused arguement. You spend too much time reacting instead of thinking. Lastly, I don't think you should determine the direction of any conversation. That's not your purview. It is up to you to answer in the context of what the writer intended, not the responsbility of the writer to try to write to 300,000,000 interpretations, especially those "out of world ones." And "Rebublican? Are you creating a new word with a Jentges definition??"

[Bob Jentges]

I was correct; it was hopeless!

As I had learned before and others have learned since and I have learned again, it is impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion/debate with you. I find you unable to comprehend the written word, void of reason/logic, and lacking in the ability to exercise critical thinking. Lot's of emotion and repetition but that is the extent of it.

If I were to continue with you I could correctly be called foolish for wasting my time.

[Dan Conner]

I was correct; it was hopeless!

As I had learned before and others have learned since and I have learned again, it is impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion/debate with you. I find you unable to comprehend the written word, void of reason/logic, and lacking in the ability to exercise critical thinking. Lot's of emotion and repetition but that is the extent of it.

If I were to continue with you I could correctly be called foolish for wasting my time.Bob, you might be wasting your time, but I think you retain the foolish part all by yourself. The quote out of my response to you is: "The dictionary describes Republic as, "A political order whose head of state is other than a monarch, and in modern times is usually a President." Do you see anything there that says. I accused you of anything, but I guess I tried, in vain, to inform you. As I also said on that post, I anticipated that it would be a waste of time trying to debate with you. You are too filled with hate, fear and paranoia to interpret anything very accurately.

Also, I don't see much that is intelligent about your debate. You misconstrue, misinterpret, and continually make paranoid accusations using a totally silly quibbling semantic style. I think you carry a lot of baggage. Meanwhile, you can presumptively set the context for everyones debate with you, but it still does not make you right. You have succeeded so far from debating substance, and instead take issue with a dictionary. Great.

[Bob Jentges]

I was correct; it was hopeless!

As I had learned before and others have learned since and I have learned again, it is impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion/debate with you. I find you unable to comprehend the written word, void of reason/logic, and lacking in the ability to exercise critical thinking. Lot's of emotion and repetition but that is the extent of it.

If I were to continue with you I could correctly be called foolish for wasting my time.

I quote my above post so that what I write now should not be construed as a response to any previous post or an invitation to re-establish communication with the person referenced in my above quoted post. My position, as stated in that post has not changed. However, I will not be bullied away from writing in the Forum by anyone.

Paul Bade's "Your View" letter (Health care bill violates Constitution) was published in The Free Press on October 20. For full disclosure I had a "Your View" published in The Free Press on September 15 (Public option may be unconstitutional) expressing an opinion similar to Mr. Bade's, and have written extensivly in this Forum on the topic.

Fred Slocum's "Your View" letter (Nothing unconstitutional about health-care bills) disagreeing with Mr. Bade, was published in The Free Press on October 28. Both the Bade and Slocum letters can still be found in the Online Edition of The Free Press by clicking-on "Your View" and scrolling down to them.

Should anyone decide to go back and re-read these letters the first thing that might strike you is the style/tone of the writing i.e. informative vs. abrasive.

If you did read the letters I would recommend you also read the "Your Comment" posts to Mr. Slocum's letter by other readers. Forget about my October 29 comment because if you regularly read the Forum you have seen those issues addressed previously. But I urge any and all reasonable readers of the Forum to read the October 30 comments by Paul Bade, Steve P., and Scott Moore. Mr. Bade's comment is a rebuttal to Mr. Slocum's letter.

[Dan Conner]

I quote my above post so that what I write now should not be construed as a response to any previous post or an invitation to re-establish communication with the person referenced in my above quoted post. My position, as stated in that post has not changed. However, I will not be bullied away from writing in the Forum by anyone.

Paul Bade's "Your View" letter (Health care bill violates Constitution) was published in The Free Press on October 20. For full disclosure I had a "Your View" published in The Free Press on September 15 (Public option may be unconstitutional) expressing an opinion similar to Mr. Bade's, and have written extensivly in this Forum on the topic.

Fred Slocum's "Your View" letter (Nothing unconstitutional about health-care bills) disagreeing with Mr. Bade, was published in The Free Press on October 28. Both the Bade and Slocum letters can still be found in the Online Edition of The Free Press by clicking-on "Your View" and scrolling down to them.

Should anyone decide to go back and re-read these letters the first thing that might strike you is the style/tone of the writing i.e. informative vs. abrasive.

If you did read the letters I would recommend you also read the "Your Comment" posts to Mr. Slocum's letter by other readers. Forget about my October 29 comment because if you regularly read the Forum you have seen those issues addressed previously. But I urge any and all reasonable readers of the Forum to read the October 30 comments by Paul Bade, Steve P., and Scott Moore. Mr. Bade's comment is a rebuttal to Mr. Slocum's letter.Well, I don't have to guess any longer. the above writer is carrying a lot of baggage. After one rant responding to another rant, he said he won't be "bullied?" I think he needs to look into a mirror to see who is the real bully here. A whole post was made on a rather incoherent rant aout not being bullied. Not related to any thread in the Forum.

Now, the writer must judge himself an authority because he has written a letter to the editor? I'm sorry, but that establishes nothing of any import. Anyone can have a letter to the editornad have it posted in the paper, but you presented a nice dating of two letters, for whatever good that was. I'm truly impressed. I don't quite understand what you were trying to prove, except that you could remember two dates. Well, I'll give you a "gold star" there. WOW! Now I'm doubly impressed. You remembered a third letter to the editor with date. A remarkable achievement and a considerable improvement.

I'm sure your post will be abundantly clear for everyone to readily understand. Even if they don't know what for. I trust it is as meaningful as your letter to the editor saying centralized governments don't last and using the Roman Empire as an example. It's to bad that you picked the most successful empire in the history of the world. It lasted 2000 years and occupied most of the known world at the time. You disproved your case then, and you undoubledly will continue to do so...that is, if it can be understood. However, keep trying. Some day...

[Bob Jentges]

It seemed to me the discussion in the States Rights thread i.e. who is more racist Democrats or Republicans was inappropriate, getting disgusting and certainly off-thread. I tried to move the discussion away from racism and back on thread by posting a link to an article discussing enumerated powers, states rights, the Constitutional Ammendment process, etc.

My effort failed as one member completly avoided even mentioning the link or article in his reply, but rather chose to comment further on racism. Since I think the link/article is also germaine to this "Unconstitutional Acts of Congress" thread I will post it here.

http://campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=319

It is not a long article, and if one takes the time to read it I think they will find it informative/educational on substance. Give it a look.

[Bob Jentges]

This thread has been inactive for a while. I found an article this morning that discusses some Supreme Court cases which writer Geo. C. Leef beleives demonstrate "Attacks on Freedom".

As I follow politics/government, including the court, it becomes clear to me that those interested in freedom and liberty (like the founders were) favor limited government, while those interested in POWER over others favor large government. The federal bureaucracy began with three cabinets established by Geo. Washington in 1781. Since that time, not only have the the number of departments in the cabinet more than trippled, but now there are a myriad agencies, bureaus, government corporations, authorities, and administrations that take care of government business. To big to fail---I doubt it!

The article is moderatly long, so if one does not have a lot of time to read summaries of all 12 cases right now I would recommend reading some, and comming back later.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view+530

In addition, for those interested in viewing a short 5 part primer on the U.S. Constitution put together by Judge Andrew Napalitano of FNC go to the website foxnation.com

[Bob Jentges]

The Free Speech thread includes discussion of the recent Supreme Court case of Citizens United et al, including the Tillman Act, but I see a link to this thread.

While running errands this morning I heard parts of a speech by Justice Clarance Thomas. A few interesting points were brought up.

First, the WaPo & NYT are against the decision, but interestingly enough they previously had received statuatory exemptions regarding corporate campaign contributions, so essentially the decision had no effect on them.

Second, the ACLU came out in favor of Citizens. I think most would recognize them as a liberal organization supporting free speech.

Third, the Tillman Act was introduced by South Carolina Democrat Senator Benjamine Tillman. It's purpose was to regulate corporate campaign contributions, A/K/A free speech as decided in Citizens recently. His reason was said to be because at the time Republican corporations were favorable to blacks, and therefore needed to be regulated. Rhetorically, I wonder if Democrat's would support similar legislation if introduced for the same reason today. Considering Citizens it seems to me the Tillman Act might very well fall within the title of this thread i.e. Unconstitutional Acts of Congress.

There were other interesting points brought out in Justice Thomas speech, but I do not recall all of them.

[Bob Jentges]

Obviously we will not know if what many States and other entities are alledging/will alledge in their lawsuits relating the recent HCR law but here is an interesting article from Bloomberg.com addressing the situations. The title is: "States Sue Over Overhaul That Will Bust States Budgets". But unconstitutional or not, it does not seem many States think the HCR law will be something they can afford.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajwSWE6H1KHM

[Bob Jentges]

There have been a number of opinion articles on the vairous states suing the federal government over the recently passed HCR law. Most have been from conservative writers so I did not post them because certain people do not seem to read articles from conservative authors.

But this morning I came across a 3/31/10 Opinion piece in USA Today by Jonathon Turley. Mr. Turley is a lawyer who often appears on TV to discuss legal issues. He is a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat.

The title of Turley's article is: "Is mandate constitutional?" I think it is an excellent, balanced article. He seems to favor federal government taking up national health care. However, he suggests that if the question of the individual mandate to purchase insurance gets to the Supreme Court and is upheld by the Court: "States rights will wither before our eyes".

Turley does not want to see that happen because it would essentially end the system of Federalism, which the founders designed for the country when writing the Constitution.

From the reading I have done on the topic, including Turley's, the overwhelming concensus is the mandate is unconstitutional and some other provisions may be too. However, there does not seem to be that same overwhelming concensus that the Supreme Court will hold it, or any provisions unconstitutional. The, in my opinion "mushey, reasons given is that the Court is hesitant to overturn legislation. If this is true, I think it is a traveasty! That is the reason we find ourselves in the mess we are in today. If legislation is blatently unconstitutional it should be overturned. What happened to the seperation of powers?

Obviously I do not know how this will end-up and I do not expect it will work it's way to the Supreme Court for 2-3 years, maybe about the same time most of the provisions of the bill will become effective.

Personally, I hope the Court takes us off this "slippery slope" before the federal government moves we the people from a "nanny state" to a "bully state"!

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/03/column-is-mandate-constitutional.html

[Bob Jentges]

Interesting article by Larry Kudlow titled: "America's Constitutional Revolt".

OK so he is a conservative; maybe even a Republican.;)

The founders did not trust a big federal government, and that is why they wrote the Constitution to limit federal powers. But unfortunatly we the people sat back and allowed the government to circumvent the Constitution in a number of ways, starting us down the slippery slope, and look where it got us!

http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryKudlow/2010/04/15/americas_constitutional_revolt?page=1

[Bob Jentges]

Great opinion article by Tom Sowell Phd about what is supposed to be the charge of the Supreme Court.

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/05/19/another_judicial_power_grab?page=full&comments=true

[Bob Jentges]

Another great article by Thomas Sowell PhD discussing the importance of following the Constitution, ammending it if appropriate, rather than changing it through precedent cases decided by activist judges. We are a country of laws, not a country of people.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/17/dismantling_america_106722.html