What Government Programs Would YOU Cut?

[YoungConserv]

:lol:

What's so funny your iniability to formulate an awnser ?

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

It's a jobs program.

Then why aren't they hiring?

 

[calamity]

Then why aren't they hiring?

They were until recently. I suspect too that a lot of military contractors involved with high tech are still expanding.

 

[calamity]

What's so funny your iniability to formulate an awnser ?

Your naivete is humorous. The smell of raw idealism is sweet in the morning.

Section 2 of Article Three of the United States Constitution outlines the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States:
Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

 

[YoungConserv]

Your naivete is humorous. The smell of raw idealism is sweet in the morning.

Yes all laws under the constitution not over the constitution itself meaning they had no authority to interpret the constitution in their rulings meaning that ss is unconstitutional and should be left to the states.

 

[calamity]

Yes all laws under the constitution not over the constitution itself meaning they had no authority to interpret the constitution in their rulings meaning that ss is unconstitutional and should be left to the states.

Yeah. Sure. I bet you feel the same about Roe vs. Wade.

Tell me how interpreting the tax laws isn't under the constitution?

 

[YoungConserv]

Yeah. Sure. I bet you feel the same about Roe vs. Wade.

Tell me how interpreting the tax laws isn't under the constitution?

1 ss was justified as a tax but goverment can tax all it likes but it can only spend with in its 18 enumerated powers. 2 the court case you sighted the general welfare clause and interpreted it to be aplicable to social security 2 problems there no authority to interpret general welfare and general welfare is still bound within the enumerated powers not some concept you can use to justify your programs.

 

[calamity]

1 goverment can tax all it likes but it can only spend with in its 18 enumerated powers. 2 the court case you sighted the general welfare clause and interpreted it to be aplicable to social security 2 problems there no authority to interpret general welfare and general welfare is still bound within the enumerated powers not some concept you can use to justify your programs.

Except...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

This was legally interpreted by SCOTUS to mean what you think it doesn't mean. The interpretation fell under their jurisdiction because it is an issue of "law and equity, arising under the constitution".

 

[YoungConserv]

Again article 1 section 8 is confined with in the enumerated powers. Also where in article 3 does scotus get the athority to interpret article 1 section 8?

 

[Henrin]

Except...


This was legally interpreted by SCOTUS to mean what you think it doesn't mean. The interpretation fell under their jurisdiction because it is an issue of "law and equity, arising under the constitution".

What?

The general clause was to ensure that the powers granted applied to the population in general as opposed to certain towns, counties, or states.

 

[calamity]

Again article 1 section 8 is confined with in the enumerated powers. Also where in article 3 does scotus get the athority to interpret article 1 section 8?

Says you. Seems SCOTUS and most of the country disagrees.

Sux when SCOTUS does what you think is wrong. Doesn't it? Reminds me of Gore vs. Bush. But, in that case, the majority of the American people actually disagreed with SCOTUS in that more of them voted for Gore than Bush. :lol:

 

[calamity]

What?

The general clause was to ensure that the powers granted applied to the population in general as opposed to certain towns, counties, or states.

How do you know? Were you there in 1780-whenever?

 

[Henrin]

How do you know? Were you there in 1780-whenever?

Madison.

 

[YoungConserv]

Madison.

That's court case does not over ride the constitution.

 

[Henrin]

That's court case does not over ride the constitution.

You're talking to the wrong person here.

 

[calamity]

Madison.

I'm aware of the case.
Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When delving into the Fed Papers, this key statement makes it clear that anything the legislature takes on, SCOTUS can chime in on it.

[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Since the SS act was passed by congress, SCOTUS had every right to chime in on it. Our young conservative up there seems to not understand that.

 

[calamity]

That's court case does not over ride the constitution.

But it had nothing to do with the legislature. Hence, it was out of SCOTUS's Federalist decreed jurisdiction. Which should irk you more than me since I could care less about the Federalist papers, but gauge what SCOTUS can do by what it has done in the past.

 

[Anti-Party]

You said " But if we ended public schools and then went full private, the price would escalate like everything else"

Which has nothing to do with making public education cheaper...:shock:

 

[Anti-Party]

What is this greed you speak of?

Corporate profits are at an all time high and workers wages are at an all time low. Pay equality is further apart than it has ever been in history. Billionares are firing workers instead of reducing their bloated superficial high standards of living. etc etc etc :doh

 

[calamity]

Corporate profits are at an all time high and workers wages are at an all time low. Pay equality is further apart than it has ever been in history. Billionares are firing workers instead of reducing their bloated superficial high standards of living. etc etc etc :doh

Greed is good; giving a crap about underpaid workers, bad.

That's what the textbooks approved by the Texas schoolboard teaches em these days.

 

[radcen]

Hmmm...

• Drug War
• Homeland Security
• Dept of Education (I'm accepting of government schools, but feel they should be state-level on down)
• Any study examining the effects of long toenails of Australian Aborigines, or anything even remotely similar.
• Stop making the Pentagon take weapon system that even they say they don't want or need.
• Grants for things like traffic signals. No, it's not "free money". Let the locals do it themselves.

It's a start.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

Greed is good; giving a crap about underpaid workers, bad.

That's what the textbooks approved by the Texas schoolboard teaches em these days.

Huh. I haven't read that part. What chapter is it in?

 

[calamity]

Huh. I haven't read that part. What chapter is it in?

It's written between all the lines in US History 101.
Greed Is Good, (0742560716), Matthew Robinson, Textbooks - Barnes & Noble

Contextual anomie/strain theory posits that although everyone in American society experiences stress and frustration in association with the American Dream, there are certain contexts in American society that produce even greater stress, frustration, and pressures toward crime. One such context is the corporate workplace. This book affirms how deviance and criminality have become normal in big business due to pressure to produce massive profits at the expense of all other considerations.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

It's written between all the lines in US History 101.

So it's not written like you said?

 

[YoungConserv]

I'm aware of the case.
Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When delving into the Fed Papers, this key statement makes it clear that anything the legislature takes on, SCOTUS can chime in on it.

Since the SS act was passed by congress, SCOTUS had every right to chime in on it. Our young conservative up there seems to not understand that.

I never said they didn't have that right to review ss I said they had no right to interpret the constitution in this case to declare it constitutional. it should have been a simple reading of the constitution is the federal government empowered to make a retirement program if not its struck down to the states under the tenth.