#
On January 23rd, 2009 at 11:42 am, Send_Me said:

While I have no doubt this spending bill will get passed, I have one question. After again reading the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, I have to wonder, how are any of the following lawful: the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Social Security Administration…? I could go on.
Here’s my favorite from this bill:

$1,000,000,000 shall be for expenses necessary for the manufacturing of advanced batteries.

I seem to have missed the part dealing with batteries in the Constitution. About the closest thing is this: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”. Small problem though: who’s job is it, according to the U.S. Constitution, to invent things? Not the government, but rather “We the People”. This is killing me. If only Rep. John Shadegg could get his Enumerated Powers Act passed.

A lot of this stuff was passed during FDR’s administration and it was blatantly unconstitutional. I fear for what 0 is going to do to this country. FDR’s idiotic policies and “relief” efforts kept this country in a depression far longer than necessary.

As a self-employed, I’d like the reform to include a provision that allows me to cut my MANDATORY tax rate down from 15% to 5%. My deductions get me to a zero-tax-owed status annually, but at the end of the day, no matter what my taxable income is, Uncle Sam puts his hand in my pocket and grabs my cash.

I’m pretty sure you are a special interest, and would lobby for yourself too.

I will admit that it may not be easy to determine just who or what is a lobbyist. The easiest way to start would be anyone currently employed as such.

The only reason for excluding current lobbyists is their penchant for gaming the system. We want to make lobbying unconstitutional. Actually, it already is; it’s just that no one bothers to enforce it and congress will never pass a law to do so.

Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

I think lobbying could be interpreted as questioning members of congress in any other place.

Though, as I said, congress will never pass a law prohibiting lobbying. It is in their interest (read as: money, kickbacks, graft) not to do so.

Nice try at the sneak around the end move.

On January 23rd, 2009 at 9:58 pm, TooMuchTime said:
I wouldn’t mind a Constitutional Convention, as long as ….., no lobbyists are allowed

I honestly don’t know what that means. I am a special interest I lobby for myself. (Though my interest in myself means something entirely different I’m sure than most – I stand accountable before GOD Almighty, so my interest is in what is right, not necessarily what “benefits” me in the short run).
I’m pretty sure you are a special interest, and would lobby for yourself too.

On January 23rd, 2009 at 1:04 pm, monad888 said:
… until Rep voters man up and admit THEY created the situation. …
Rep voters voted for a compassionate conservative to lead them…ie a “good” government moderate.

I’m not convinced that’s entirely so. With open primaries, it’s not entirely clear who picks the candidates.
Does anybody know how we’d go about getting closed primaries?

On January 23rd, 2009 at 11:57 am, xler8bmw said:
If the democrat party had any interest in enforcing the Constitution, they would demand every one of these be eliminated immediately, period. Fat chance.

Of course – if the republican party had any interest in the constitution, they would be pushing for same. But they aren’t. As Rush says – they are only interested in preserving and increasing the power of those inside the beltway. Unless and until the people of this country understand power in Washington DC is a bad thing, it’s not going to stop.

Which leads me to not wanting a Constitutional Convention.

I wouldn’t mind a Constitutional Convention, as long as no lawyers are allowed, no lobbyists are allowed, no person that is paid from the public treasury is allowed, and the delegates cannot be chosen by any person that is a lawyer, a lobbyist, or paid from the public treasury.

Also, each state is entitled to three delegates; so to break any tie because all voting is done by states. The U.S territories (DC, Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc.) get three delegates among them; that is, the territories are grouped and treated as one state. Which is perfect – there would be “51 states” at the convention. No ties.

The proceedings will need to be recorded. If for no other reason than to have a record of what was meant when an issue was decided.

Unfortunately, it will end up like the O.J. trial. Every network will have an “expert” telling the viewers just what is happening and how anything that is not liked will be bad or unworkable.

It would be media circus. But it would be worth it just to make socialism unconstitutional.

While I have no doubt this spending bill will get passed, I have one question. After again reading the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, I have to wonder, how are any of the following lawful: the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Social Security Administration…?

My opinion is mostly no. Parts of EPA (and some of the labor laws) can be fit under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (regulating commerce among the several states).

I was thinking of sending every member of Congress and the President and Vice-President a copy of the Constitution. However, lack of money is making me change this thought to sending to only my representatives.
——————-
xler8bmw said: (#11)

If the democrat party had any interest in enforcing the Constitution, they would demand every one of these be eliminated immediately, period. Fat chance.

While the Republicans are not innocent, it’s the Democrats who have done most violence to the Constitution, including the “living document” lie that allows them to change the meaning without bothering to change the words.

Which leads me to not wanting a Constitutional Convention. The convention that wrote our Constitution was originally merely supposed to tighten up the Articles of Confederation. But once the body met, they exceeded their original writ. (Thankfully!!) I fear that any modern convention would do similarly, and we would end up with a Constitution that would look like the one proposed for the state that DC would become if it were granted statehood (the State of New Columbia). Rights for everything and no financial discipline – at least that I recall.

Is she lying or just CLUELESS?

Hmmm. Multiple choice. Let’s see, she’s a 3rd generation politician. So, she’s adept at lying. However, she’s also a brain-dead socialist. So, she’s completely clueless.

So, that makes her a lying socialist scum. Works for me!

Meanwhile, how can we get some closed primaries to avoid another idiot like McCain running in 2012?

b-cat, we may not be able to since the socialists are in charge. What we need to do is to have an open convention and nominate a true conservative; that is, NOT the one chosen by the newspaper of wreckage.

On January 23rd, 2009 at 2:44 pm, SpeakEasy said:
I just wish someone, anyone would trace the steps back from Dodd and Frank and CLINTON and show the true cause of the housing trouble.

It actually can be traced back to one man: Alan Greenspan.