Joe Miner Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Of the pesky US Constitution says: Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. How long have presidents been using their power to not enforce the laws? Seems contradictory to what they're supposed to be doing. So what is the justification for not faithfully executing the Laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Of the pesky US Constitution says: How long have presidents been using their power to not enforce the laws? Seems contradictory to what they're supposed to be doing. So what is the justification for not faithfully executing the Laws? The expansion of presidential authority has been going on for a long time. See, eg, the Vietnam "conflict." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) The expansion of presidential authority has been going on for a long time. See, eg, the Vietnam "conflict." Yeah, figured it had been. Just curious if someone could present a roadmap, with some intelligent insight on the why's and how's along the way. Because it seems like we've strayed quite far from the intended path when whoever the president is can just decide to not faithfully execute the laws just because they don't want to. IMO, it's slightly different (not saying better) when executive authority is expanded in areas where there are currently no (or vague) rules in place. And it's another to expand it by just ignoring the rules. Edited June 21, 2012 by Joe Miner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Of the pesky US Constitution says: How long have presidents been using their power to not enforce the laws? I'm guessing, since Washington (one could argue that the Whiskey Rebellion was the first step in the expansion of executive powers). Seems contradictory to what they're supposed to be doing. So what is the justification for not faithfully executing the Laws? In this administration? The justification is "the policies of the Bush administration". Particularly, in this case, signing statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) Yeah, figured it had been. Just curious if someone could present a roadmap, with some intelligent insight on the why's and how's along the way. Because it seems like we've strayed quite far from the intended path when whoever the president is can just decide to not faithfully execute the laws just because they don't want to. IMO, it's slightly different (not saying better) when executive authority is expanded in areas where there are currently no (or vague) rules in place. And it's another to expand it by just ignoring the rules. Almost any President of note extended the power of the executive. The two most notable were Nixon and Clinton. (within modern times of course) Edited June 21, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) It's the back and forth you expect from the checks and balances literally written into our Constitution... Historically, every branch, executive, legislative; includes Senate and House, judicial) has tried to extent their authority beyond the bound set for them. And historically, the other branches have "fought" (for lack of a better term) their way back to that balance. It's only recently, like in the past 100 years, that the balance has shifted so much towards the executive. What made that possible is the question you should ask... Simply put, The People, got dumber... But 2 things in particular helped that to happen... and their amendments to the Constitution we, the dumasses, approved of... The 16th and the 17th... The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. Did you know, the original version had a line in there that stated, and these enumerations shall never exceed 1 1/2 percent of income"?? I'm not gonna post links to all this... Google is your friend... Ha!!!! In one fell swoop, Washington was given total control over the purse, rewriting any limits on government taxation with the lines... from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. So now, Washington figure it's OK if it's not "fair"... And they make it so... Do you smoke?? If not, is it OK that someone that does pays such a ridiculous tax for their desire? Do you drink?? Do you think it's fair that you pay an exorbitant tax for that drink? That I don't have to pay too?? I'm childless... If you have kids, you get a tax credit I ultimately pay for... Get my drift??? I could go on for pages.... But this alone, has divided our country more than any here will probably admit. The ability of Washington to divide us into groups... Divide and conquer... The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. The Senate was originally designed to represent the states, elected by the legislatures of those states... The representatives, were set to represent the people of the district. States powers have been reduced to nothing, between these 2 amendments... the Feds tax, and fund, and if a state disagrees with them, they fail to fund... Imagine if the Senators still represented the states... Would they willingly take money away from the legislators that elected them? I'd bet we would have few, if any, career Senators if not for this amendment. The below is what we refer to as the 10th Amendment... 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. And I hope anyway, you can see how the 16th and 17th destroyed the basis of this important amendment... We gave them the power of the purse, and also took away the representation meant to protect this amendment... there are other causes and effects involved, but this should give you a decent idea to start... And Oh!!! American People, ARE dumber as the arguments against my post will soon prove... Have to edit already... If anyone here has actually READ the Constitution??? The "Amendments" are actually "Articles", and the 10th, is actually Article the 12th.. Ya see, Article the First, was never ratified, and Article the Second, wasn't actually ratified, and part of the Constitution, until 1992.... Though it was proposed many moons ago... Google.... Edited June 22, 2012 by Cinga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 They could tax smoking and drinking before the 16th amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 They could tax smoking and drinking before the 16th amendment. In fact, one of the justifications for the tax that sparked the Whiskey Rebellion was that it was a "sin" tax that would only impact a small demographic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 no, they couldn't... They tried, but it was struck down. Why do you think they passed an amendment to bar alcohol?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 no, they couldn't... They tried, but it was struck down. Why do you think they passed an amendment to bar alcohol?? They couldn't tax alcohol before the 16th Amendment, so they passed the 18th? What? And that whole Whiskey Rebellion thing...yeah, I was totally making that up. Never happened. You idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) See opium...inderect tax cmerxe clause etc Edited June 22, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 go away now... If you only knew half as much as you think, you imbecile!!! TM pending for Tom!!! Do you read history. or do you just spout off?? Do you know history?? Have you ever read court history??? Or do you just make it up??? Some Imbeciles TM think of nothing but the story books... Have you read any of those cases?? Have you bothered to edjercate yerselph?? go away... come back when you grow up... imbecile... TM I don't play nice imbecile... come back when ya got a pair.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) go away now... If you only knew half as much as you think, you imbecile!!! TM pending for Tom!!! Do you read history. or do you just spout off?? Do you know history?? Have you ever read court history??? Or do you just make it up??? Some Imbeciles TM think of nothing but the story books... Have you read any of those cases?? Have you bothered to edjercate yerselph?? go away... come back when you grow up... imbecile... TM I don't play nice imbecile... come back when ya got a pair.. Hey the honest truth is tracing the origins of taxing power through time is pretty convoluted I'm interested to hear what you have to say (this discussion is interesting) but it appears to me through the taxing and spending clause and bolstering from other clauses you are wrong...I'm no expert on the historical evolution but some quick research that I've done so far has confirmed my initial impulse Edited June 22, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 go away now... If you only knew half as much as you think, you imbecile!!! TM pending for Tom!!! Do you read history. or do you just spout off?? Do you know history?? Have you ever read court history??? Or do you just make it up??? Some Imbeciles TM think of nothing but the story books... Have you read any of those cases?? Have you bothered to edjercate yerselph?? go away... come back when you grow up... imbecile... TM I don't play nice imbecile... come back when ya got a pair.. Did you just have a stroke? You make a completely ridiculous, inaccurate, and non-factual set of statements that are easily shown to be non-factual, inaccurate, and ridiculous, and I'm the imbecile? Was the Whiskey Rebellion prompted or not prompted by a federal tax on liquor? When was that? And when was the 16th passed? If the 18th was passed because they couldn't tax alcohol. But they could tax alcohol after the 16th. How in the world do those two statements EVER make sense together? (And they are your statements, dumbass.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 wtf did I mention the Whiskey rebellion??? you are truly daft huh??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 hmmm...not certain about this btw (be sure to clarify that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 read the Constitution... Taxing is VERY limited and required enumeration, making it "equal".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 read the Constitution... Taxing is VERY limited and required enumeration, making it "equal".... making it "uniform" not "equal"...as in a cig tax applies in all states if it applies but not that it is not allowed b/c some people don't smoke... Just point me to where you think that uniform excise taxes per the taxing and spending clause was somehow more limited in the realm of clear indirect taxes (such as cigs) before the 16th amendment I would like to look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 wtf did I mention the Whiskey rebellion??? you are truly daft huh??? I mentioned the Whiskey Rebellion. Prompted by a tax against whiskey in the 1790s. Well before the 16th Amendment...before which you claim taxing alcohol was not permitted. You specifically claim it was tried and struck down. Except that it was tried, and enforced by force of arms, at a period in time when you claim it wasn't. In other words: I'm demonstrating that you have no clue what you're talking about, by bringing into the discussion an example (the Whiskey Rebellion) that specifically contradicts your claim (that inequal taxation wasn't possible - "tried and struck down" - before the 16th Amendment was passed). That makes you wrong. THEN...you make the statement that, because the government couldn't tax alcohol, they banned it. Except that the Prohibition Amendment post-dates the 16th Amendment. In other words, what you claim as the cause of Prohibition - inability to tax alcohol - no longer existed when the result you claim - Prohibition - actually occurred. That pushes you well beyond the realm of merely "wrong", and into the region of "too stupid to find your ass with both hands and a map of your ass." And that's not even an argument of whether or not taxation is "wrong" or "immoral", or about any legislative, executive, or Constitutional issues surrounding such. That's just to demonstrate that you are so far from being able to understand it that you would need a brain transplant before we could have any sort of discussion with you about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 LOL...I think you are confusing your classification of taxes in your thought process Ciga...direct and indirect tax distinction is important in this debate. A quick google of the whiskey rebellion (which I had no idea what it was honestly before now) shows Tom is basically right. And the responses by you regarding the banning don't make much sense. The first thing I jumped to was opium but when I looked it up it was after the 16th...so I wasn't instantly confirmed but ... IDK really what you are talking about Cinga...your initial post was off the mark just admit and move on .... or produce something that shows the taxing and spending clause basically doesn't exist in the original text of the constitution or I and Hamilton himself don't understand it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts