Taxes...and you

[Bogart]

So....you advocate what?  No taxes?  You're correct in many of your points, but at the end of the day, someone has to pay for the road that everyone else is using, right? If I build a road, you can bet I'm going to charge people for using it--if only to pay for upkeep.  But, this isn't exactly the same thing as taxes.  There are some things which there is no financial incentive for the private sector to provide. For these things, when they are essential to our national well-being, we need taxes to pay for them.  The question is which are and are not essential, not whether or not we should have taxes.

[Bogart]

I believe the FEDERAL government IS too big. I believe that many of its functions rightly should be performed at the state and/or local level.  My only point is that taxes at some level must be levied to provide for, not only those things that the Constitution says we can do, but also for things which we have agreed as a society are desireable to do. Relying strictly on consumption taxes is not the answer. Nor is a voluntary system.

[Bogart]

I believe the FEDERAL government IS too big. I believe that many of its functions rightly should be performed at the state and/or local level.  My only point is that taxes at some level must be levied to provide for, not only those things that the Constitution says we can do, but also for things which we have agreed as a society are desireable to do. Relying strictly on consumption taxes is not the answer. Nor is a voluntary system.

If we are to live in this country we should live by the constitution. Just because a majority are in favor of a certain program, shouldnt be reason enough for a program to be implemented.  This country is founded on the basis of individual rights and when a majority votes for a particular program, the dissenting minority shouldnt have to go along with it.  There is no limit to the number of programs that will be agreed to if someone else is paying for it.

Except, that's our system. The majority does decide for everyone.  If we all had the power to decide which laws we are going to abide by and which we are not it would be anarchy. The only constitutional requirement is that those who wind up in a minority on any issue have the right to provide their input.  There is no taxation without representation.  Yes, there is theoretically no limit to the number of programs that could be agreed to if someone else is paying.  But, that's the whole point. Someone else isn't paying, we all are paying--after debating the merits. My argument is based on the belief that we have agreed to spending too much, not that we don't have the right to agree to spend too much.

[Bogart]

Bogart,

Our system is based on the constitution. It only allows you to do certain things. The constitution has been subverted to put all these social programs in place.

Notice how very difficult it is to amend the constitution. Our founding fathers we very aware of human nature and made it so, else plenty of worse ideas would have made their way into the constitution.

Most of the Constitution is devoted to what the Federal government MAY NOT do. The rest deals primarily with how it shall be set up.  It also outlines a few things which are Federal obligations. There is no prohibition in the Constitution on social programs, whether or not I agree with any particular one. There is mention of the Federal government's obligation or purpose to "promote the general welfare."  It is not whether it should, but how.

As far as taxes, the Constitution was amended to allow for income tax.  Otherwise, it is fairly silent on the subject except to say that Congress has the power to levy such taxes as it deems necessary to, again, "promote the general welfare."  Presumeably, these would also be appropriate to spend on military expenditures, etc. as the Federal government has specific obligation to "provide for the common defense."

The Framers were fairly specific as to which activities they chose to prohibit. They even went to the trouble of listing ten more after the fact that they couldn't get into the original document.  To say that the Constitution prohibits any kind of social program is just not so and expands the Constitution beyond what it actually says.

[Bogart]

Most of the Constitution is devoted to what the Federal government MAY NOT do. The rest deals primarily with how it shall be set up.  It also outlines a few things which are Federal obligations. There is no prohibition in the Constitution on social programs, whether or not I agree with any particular one. There is mention of the Federal government's obligation or purpose to "promote the general welfare."  It is not whether it should, but how.

As far as taxes, the Constitution was amended to allow for income tax.  Otherwise, it is fairly silent on the subject except to say that Congress has the power to levy such taxes as it deems necessary to, again, "promote the general welfare."  Presumeably, these would also be appropriate to spend on military expenditures, etc. as the Federal government has specific obligation to "provide for the common defense."

The Framers were fairly specific as to which activities they chose to prohibit. They even went to the trouble of listing ten more after the fact that they couldn't get into the original document.  To say that the Constitution prohibits any kind of social program is just not so and expands the Constitution beyond what it actually says.

Amendment X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This means that the federal government may NOT undertake anything not specifically authorized by the Constitution. Everything else is up to the States or "the people", the latter referring to individuals, both by process of elimination (else why distinguish the "United States" from "the people") and by the Framers' intent (as documented in their debates). A State may therefore operate compulsory social programs unless its own constitution prohibits this.

By "the general welfare", the Framers meant things that benefit everyone more or less equally. Social programs don't qualify because they benefit some at the expense of others. It is the activist judiciary that have expanded the Constitution far beyond what it says, to the point where it has been virtually gelded.

It doesn't say "specifically delegated" and the "activist judiciary" is acting within the scope of their job. If we don't like their decisions, we need to appoint judges that see it more strictly. There are many things that are not specifically mentioned, but are implied in order to make those which are specifically mentioned fully meaningful. This is the "prenumbrae" argument.