Arts&Sciences said:
Okay, once and for all, stare decisis is a custom and nothing more.
You're right. It just happens to be a custom that senators on both sides of the aisle think is important enough to ask about in hearings for court nominees, and is important enough that the vast majority of legal scholars consider anyone who doesn't believe in it to be outside the judicial channel.
Just a custom? The entire court is BUILT on custom. How much do you know about the day to day functionings of the Supreme Court?
Hence rulings in favor of soft money have been based on a misinterpretation of the First Amendment and should be overturned.
Uh....how on earth does your first point imply that?
As for Article IV, Section 1, let me show it to you yet again:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Therefore, Congress has the discretion to decide how the Tenth Amendment can be applied to gay marriage.
I'm going to settle this once and for all:
"Without doubt the constitutional requirement, Art. IV, § 1, that 'full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State,' implies that the public acts of every State shall be given the same effect by the courts of another State that they have by law and usage at home." Chicago & Alton R.R. v. Wiggins Ferry Co (1887).
There it is for you, Artie. In the courts own words, in particularly emphatic terms.
If you want, we can have a little game. There's a court case which would offer your argument a little traction, although in the end it doesn't carry enough weight to prove your argument. If you can find it, I'll explain to you why it doesn't work.
Hint: It was in the 1980's.
Moreover, I wish that you would be honest. If you were a devout Christian, you wouldn't use that language or have that avatar. Just admit that you're secular. If you were a conservative, you would support school prayer and oppose killing unborn babies. Just admit that you're a liberal, hawkish or not.
Listen, I really don't feel the need to prove my conservative credentials to you. I worked for my Republican Congressman, on Bush's campaign, on Mayor Bloomberg's campaign, attend CPAC yearly, am active in College Republicans, have met Thomas and Scalia, and am going to meet Ashcroft next Wednesday. Granted, I'm more liberal than SOME Republicans, but I think it's all based on perspective. To you, perhaps I'm a liberal. To most, I'm a conservative.
Finally, before you attack someone's ideas, you should actually understand them in their entirety. You did know from the beginning that I was referring to Medicare and social security with the term welfare, which does in fact refer to programs other than strict wealth redistribution.
But my point is that Medicare and Social Security are under no circumstances seen welfare by the vast majority of the policy community.
My plan was not only to allow private social security accounts (and raise the eligibility age to 68),
That doesn't effect the national debt. SS is its own fund.
but also to privatize half of Medicare and Medicaid by giving 150% tax deductions to people who donate to selected private charities.
First off, what do you mean by 150% tax deductions. Secondly, even if you privatize half of both of those, you're still not saving enough money because of the runaway growth of Medicare to save anything for the debt.
I would repeal Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy while eliminating unemployment insurance and those other assorted programs that you mentioned.
Repealing the tax cuts might save some money. Nowhere near enough. And you know that unemployment insurance is paid for by....unemployment insurance tax, right? So if you get rid of that, and get rid of the tax, you still have not gotten any money.
I would also withdraw slowly from Iraq and cut defense spending to pre-9/11 levels.
Okay. And ALLLLL of that combined, might cut our deficit in half. That doesn't pay back 8 trillion.
That would pay off the national debt. Drilling in the ANWR and giving tax incentives for alternative energy production, combined with short-term protectionism, would eliminate the trade deficit.
I'm going to need to see a SINGLE number out of anywhere that supports this before I believe it.
Look, go to Cato, Heritage, AEI, etc. They are think tanks that are very very sympathetic to the cuts you're proposing. But I think you'll find that they will have much more moderate effects than you think.
Honestly, I think you'd love them. Cato is libertarian, and Heritage offers you the social conservatism you desire.
