|
|
limited government, separation of powers, and powers reserved for the people
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
Inspired by this post in the Republican war hawks thread I have created this thread to list all of the actions committed by our government that contravene the ideals of "limited government, separation of powers, and powers reserved for the people".
Please add your additions to this thread we can compile a nice long list of those actions taken by our government that contravene the ideals of "limited government, separation of powers, and powers reserved for the people" set forth in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
|
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
Government spying on its own citizens outside the confines of the legal structure put in place to allow for such activities.
|
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
Executive branch leaders performing major public policy discussions in private instead of in public.
Legislative branch leaders performing major public policy discussions in private instead of in public.
(Personally, I would be in favor of making it mandatory that ALL legislative discussions be broadcast live on television.)
|
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
Federal government leaders trying to dictate what two consenting adults can or cannot do in the privacy of their own home.
Federal government leaders trying to dictate what constitutes a marriage. Or the mere fact that government leaders want to be involved in a religious institution such as marriage.
(I am in favor of the government granting a certificate of civil union to all adult couples wishing to receive one and then allowing religious organizations to decide to grant marriages to those couples that comport to the religion's ideas of what constitutes a marriageable couple. And under NO circumstances could the government dictate to religious organizations who could and could not be offered marriages.)
|
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status:
Offline
|
|
Czars appointed by the President.
Agencies, such as the EPA, which by fiat make law
The Federal Reserve
Gun Control
Taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Orion27
Czars appointed by the President.
Agencies, such as the EPA, which by fiat make law
The Federal Reserve
Gun Control
Taxes
These are pretty broad categories. What parts of these categories topics do you think the government has contravened the principles of "limited government, separation of powers, and powers reserved for the people"?
(I am not disagreeing with you but rather asking for some more specificity with your concerns. For example, the Supreme Court has said that some restrictions on gun possession are constitutional. And the Constitution itself says the federal government has the ability to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises". So what area of gun control or taxes do you think the government has overstepped its bounds?)
|
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy
And the Constitution itself says the federal government has the ability to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises". So what area of gun control or taxes do you think the government has overstepped its bounds?)
Safe school zones are what come immediately to mind.
IIUC, Congress somehow makes this fly by invoking the commerce clause, i.e., safe school zones exist because it is assumed any individual gun has crossed state lines at some point, and can therefore be regulated.
Just to be clear, I don't take issue with the idea of safe school zones in and of themselves, I just think they should be created by the states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
The federal government imposing mandates on the states like
requiring states to raise their minimum drinking age to 21 in order to receive federal highway funds.
forcing states to adhere to the requirements of the No Child Left Behind program while not providing necessary extra funding to facilitate compliance.
|
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy
requiring states to raise their minimum drinking age to 21 in order to receive federal highway funds.
I assumed this approach was acceptable since it's not forcing it. What power is being abused here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
I assumed this approach was acceptable since it's not forcing it. What power is being abused here?
Umm, the power of the purse. Isn't that obvious?
Granted, states could have refused to accept any federal highway funds in order to keep their drinking age at whatever level they desired but making such a choice would be more detrimental to the needs of their citizens than raising the drinking age to 21. So, they were given a decision to make with only one practical choice as an answer. So, it's not really a choice at all.
|
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy
Umm, the power of the purse. Isn't that obvious?
Granted, states could have refused to accept any federal highway funds in order to keep their drinking age at whatever level they desired but making such a choice would be more detrimental to the needs of their citizens than raising the drinking age to 21. So, they were given a decision to make with only one practical choice as an answer. So, it's not really a choice at all.
I'm seriously asking this: so what? That's not the Federal government's problem. Should all funds dispensed to the states by the Federal government be with no strings attached?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
I'm seriously asking this: so what? That's not the Federal government's problem. Should all funds dispensed to the states by the Federal government be with no strings attached?
If you were doing it all properly, what federal funds would those be? You'd be paying enough tax to cover the salaries of the peeps in federal government, but nothing more. The individual states wouldn't need funding by the fed, because they'd already have the money going to them direct from the taxpayer.
|
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
This is why the States should have more power over their citizens than the fedGov. Welfare and education should only happen at a state level. The states should be able to optimize the education of their citizens to generate the most income for them, and take advantage of the attributes each state has.
The federal government should be there for the defense and general safety and well being. NASA and the armed services should be under federal control, and FEMA as well. If a state, through inept policies become bankrupt, the feds step in and run things for 3 years and appoint leaders for that state. This means the state level politicians can't spend and give away the farm for political reasons without being removed from their posts. it would mean financial responsibilities and a focus on the folks in the states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy
For example, the Supreme Court has said that some restrictions on gun possession are constitutional.
The supreme court are wrong.
" Shall not be infringed".
That's no infringement, no control.
|
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Doofy
If you were doing it all properly, what federal funds would those be? You'd be paying enough tax to cover the salaries of the peeps in federal government, but nothing more. The individual states wouldn't need funding by the fed, because they'd already have the money going to them direct from the taxpayer.
The Post Office complicates things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BadKosh
If a state, through inept policies become bankrupt, the feds step in and run things for 3 years and appoint leaders for that state.
Isn't that exactly like a bank bailout in principle? Surely if a state goes bankrupt it's the problem of that state alone - why should an Ohio taxpayer's money be used to pay the wages of a federal team governing California as a result of the Californian electorate being a bunch of morons and voting for the wrong guy?
Originally Posted by BadKosh
This means the state level politicians can't spend and give away the farm for political reasons without being removed from their posts.
Can't the people who vote in that state get rid of them? Like they did to the previous guy when they elected the Governator?
|
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
The Post Office complicates things.
It does? Here in the EU, the UK post office manages to hand items for delivery to the French, German, Spanish and Italian post offices on a daily basis.
Wait. Is the EU currently running the state/federal balance that the US was supposed to have?
|
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Doofy
It does? Here in the EU, the UK post office manages to hand items for delivery to the French, German, Spanish and Italian post offices on a daily basis.
Wait. Is the EU currently running the state/federal balance that the US was supposed to have?
So, the EU and its member countries manages this by "doing it right" and only taxing you enough to pay your government peeps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
So, the EU and its member countries manages this by "doing it right" and only taxing you enough to pay your government peeps?
If it wasn't for all the wealth redistribution then yes - the EU itself doesn't actually have any financial requirements outside of keeping its government buildings and peeps running. The EU doesn't have an army, since its army is made of individual member states' armies. It doesn't have a federally-funded road system. It doesn't have a federally funded health care system.
For the purposes of this comparison:
US state = EU country.
|
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status:
Offline
|
|
We tried that once. It didn't work out.
|
"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Doofy
If it wasn't for all the wealth redistribution then yes - the EU itself doesn't actually have any financial requirements outside of keeping its government buildings and peeps running. The EU doesn't have an army, since its army is made of individual member states' armies. It doesn't have a federally-funded road system. It doesn't have a federally funded health care system.
For the purposes of this comparison:
US state = EU country.
You might want to take another look at the apple = orange step.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
You might want to take another look at the apple = orange step.
No.
|
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Doofy
Isn't that exactly like a bank bailout in principle? Surely if a state goes bankrupt it's the problem of that state alone - why should an Ohio taxpayer's money be used to pay the wages of a federal team governing California as a result of the Californian electorate being a bunch of morons and voting for the wrong guy?
Yes but removing all the 'responsible' political types and their appointees that caused the problems in the first place and replacing them means the local attitudes that got them into the mess and the probable corruption would be reduced.
Originally Posted by Doofy
Can't the people who vote in that state get rid of them? Like they did to the previous guy when they elected the Governator?
But if, like California, the voters are ruining their state with the liberal agendas and the associated hair-brained ideas and social engineering. Removing them would reduce the wasteful governmental BS they are famous for. The environmental wackos have put such restrictions in place that they actually prevent people from having fire blocks and flood/avalanche deterrents in place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BadKosh
But if, like California, the voters are ruining their state with the liberal agendas and the associated hair-brained ideas and social engineering. Removing them would reduce the wasteful governmental BS they are famous for. The environmental wackos have put such restrictions in place that they actually prevent people from having fire blocks and flood/avalanche deterrents in place.
But if Californians* like wasteful government BS and environmental whackos, what's it got to do with anyone else? Let them stew in their own misery until they vote a proper government into power.
Why the need to police them? Isn't that the same principle as the need to police the world? Let democracy sort it out... ...people vote for crap, they'll get crap, and it's their own stupid fault.
Shouldn't you let California* fail as an example and warning to voters in other states not to vote for liberal whackos?
(*California used only as an example. Substitute any other state for same effect.)
|
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Doofy
Shouldn't you let California* fail as an example and warning to voters in other states not to vote for liberal whackos?
(*California used only as an example. Substitute any other state for same effect.)
I don't think the 'average voter' would get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BadKosh
I don't think the 'average voter' would get it.
That's democracy for ya.
|
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BadKosh
The environmental wackos have put such restrictions in place that they actually prevent people from having fire blocks and flood/avalanche deterrents in place.
There are building codes for fire blocks, if that's what you're referring to. It's to make sure that when the fire blocks catch fire, they're not creating more of a risk to the health and safety of the firefighters.
I'm unaware of any restrictions preventing people from installing flood or avalanche deterrents, unless those restrictions coincide with natural, seasonal changes.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think we should tax churches that engage in commercial ventures; leasing office spaces, book stores, coffee shops, etc. They shouldn't be able to participate in the free market and be tax exempt. Income that exceeds their operational requirement should also be taxed.
This would have zero to little effect on small, independent churches, or even larger churches operating within their means. However, the mega churches that rake in tens of billions of dollars every year would be required to pay their fair share of taxes.
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
I think we should tax churches that engage in commercial ventures; leasing office spaces, book stores, coffee shops, etc. They shouldn't be able to participate in the free market and be tax exempt. Income that exceeds their operational requirement should also be taxed.
This would have zero to little effect on small, independent churches, or even larger churches operating within their means. However, the mega churches that rake in tens of billions of dollars every year would be required to pay their fair share of taxes.
I think you need to go read your own constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting...".
|
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Doofy
I think you need to go read your own constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting...".
How in any way would this law establish a religion? How would taxing revenue garnered from a free market affect their first amendment rights?
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by olePigeon
How in any way would this law establish a religion? How would taxing revenue garnered from a free market affect their first amendment rights?
Respecting = pertaining to.
Establishment = organisation.
It doesn't say anything about congress "establishing" a religion.
Plus, you need to go figure out the difference between revenue and profit. No business gets taxed on revenue - only profit. If the revenue is invested in expanding the organisation, then there's nothing to tax.
|
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status:
Offline
|
|
This argument that olePigeon's idea would violate the 1st Amendment misses the point. It would not single out religious organizations -- quite the opposite, it would treat them as any other private corporation. Whatever tax exemptions a religions organization currently qualifies for are based on the perceived public services it provides (related to that, the charitable nature of contributions to the organization), or the fact that most of these organizations have no net income, not anything endemic to their religious nature.
(
Last edited by SpaceMonkey; Feb 17, 2010 at 11:05 AM.
)
|
"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Doofy
Respecting = pertaining to.
Establishment = organisation.
In that case the law which grants a tax exemption with respect to churches in the first place is unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
In that case the law which grants a tax exemption with respect to churches in the first place is unconstitutional.
I don't see it like that. When tax was introduced, churches were left out (rather than exempted) because the first amendment, when read correctly, essentially doesn't allow congress to recognise the existence of those churches. If you can't legally recognise the existence of something, you can't tax it.
It's all moot, of course, since churches don't make profit and only profit is taxed.
|
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Doofy
I don't see it like that. When tax was introduced, churches were left out (rather than exempted) because the first amendment, when read correctly, essentially doesn't allow congress to recognise the existence of those churches. If you can't legally recognise the existence of something, you can't tax it.
Simply not true. With respect to some of the tax breaks associated with religious organizations, it's an affirmative action based on the organization's qualification within a section of the IRS tax code, based on the idea that the organization provides a public benefit that would not be fulfilled through a corporation's profit motive, and so they deserve a tax break.
It's all moot, of course, since churches don't make profit and only profit is taxed.
Some do. Where olePigeon point is moot, I think, is that religious organizations are already taxed on unrelated business income.
(
Last edited by SpaceMonkey; Feb 17, 2010 at 11:20 AM.
)
|
"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Doofy
That's democracy for ya.
I'm thinking the MSM would spin anything they could. Their propaganda and downright lies have got us into this in the first place. When is the last time any in the MSM have looked out for the regular guy? Spewing nonsense like Maddow, Matthews, and the rest with their mis-characterizations, and opinions stated as facts and looking back on how they were bought and paid for by the 0bama campaign, do you wonder why viewers are leaving in droves. Perhaps some are waking up to the fact that the press/media isn't to be trusted.
I don't think the public could make a correct decision because what they have been told is wrong. Garbage in Garbage out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
The government shouldn't recognize churches or religious organizations, and treat them special.
Religious organizations should be treated like any organizations. Their property and profits should be taxed.
Religious organizations should be treated as a non-profit organization.
|
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BadKosh
I don't think the public could make a correct decision because the majority of them never think for themselves and believe what they are told without question.
Fixed.
|
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status:
Offline
|
|
Another addition to the list of things the government shouldn't be doing.
Subsidizing student loans via the banking industry.
(The US government guarantees federal student loans with private banks and ensures the banks get a certain percentage of profit on any money they get from the federal government. So, our taxes our going to subsidize loans and guarantee banks make a profit on the student loans they issue. If the federal government wants to be in the student loan business it should do so directly by providing loans to students directly and completely bypassing the banking industry. Or, it should get out of the student loan business altogether.)
Subsidizing broadband internet deployment via the telecoms industry.
(Again, the Us government subsidizes the deployment of broadband internet access to rural areas with the telcos getting a guaranteed profit in the subsidy. So, it's not just the government guaranteeing to pay the costs of the deployment but guaranteeing to pay the costs of the deployment and guarantee the telcos a profit on top of it. Why should our tax dollars go to a private business to guarantee the business a profit? Why not just have the government directly do the work of deploying the technology? or just not have the work done and leave folks in the rural parts of the country at a disadvantage when it comes to broadband internet access.)
|
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|