Government of/for/by the People

[iamkofi]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? I exist in NJ.
Is it not a violation of the Con-stitution that the people (main st) overwhelmingly did not want the friends and/or colleagues of Henry Paulson, George Bush and his rogue cartel to further bankrupt the taxpayers under the guise of the so called $700 billion dollar bailout, yet those in the senate and house who've been lockstep in abetting Bush & Co in their war crimes, indeed crimes against humanity these past eight years, made it law anyway?

In reference to South Africa I recall a term, apartheid, wherein the masses were ruled by the few. Where the few called congressman or senator or George Bush, Dick Chaney or Donald Rumsfeld et.al. rule the masses, in this present scenario to their ruination, is that not apartheid? Doesn't is render the Con-sitution a writ of conspiracy when nne of the above face charges?

Lastly, do I appear to be an ingrate jealous because I'm not a beneficiary of this theft but rather one who'll experience ever harder economic struggle while those rich folks continue in their riches? Thems that's got shall get thems that's not shall lose.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[Zigner]

Nope, it's not.

[tranquility]

Actually it is intensly Constitutional to have the people listed in Article I make a law (according to the rules of the constitution) and send it to the person listed in Article II, who signs it. That's called making a law. Someday, there will be article II judges determining some regulatory aspects and, I'm sure, Article III judges to determine more legal and constitutional aspects.

Thumbs up to the constitutionality of everything about this so far.

Senate and House in the pocket of Bush? I must be fooled by the mainstream media tricking me into thinking they hate each other.

[xylene]

Originally Posted by iamkofi

the guise of the so called $700 billion dollar bailout,

About the best you can do is call up a bank and verbally abuse a customers service representative.

That' my plan.

Plus whenever I drive by a country club I honk. Especially if I see a tee shot. Nothing is more important that golf to these scumasses and nothing gets them right by the pork than a screwed up shot.

Or maybe it was some schlub who saved for weeks for one game on that course.

Either way someone was punished. Someone was made unhappy and the negative sum game that is existence was set back THAT much more.

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

Originally Posted by iamkofi

Lastly, do I appear to be an ingrate jealous because I'm not a beneficiary of this theft but rather one who'll experience ever harder economic struggle while those rich folks continue in their riches? Thems that's got shall get thems that's not shall lose.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

No, you come off as a pissant who blames everyone but yourself for your pissant-ness, even though every choice you make in life leads you down that path.

[Tritium]

Originally Posted by iamkofi

Is it not a violation of the Con-stitution that the people (main st) overwhelmingly did not want the friends and/or colleagues of Henry Paulson, George Bush and his rogue cartel to further bankrupt the taxpayers under the guise of the so called $700 billion dollar bailout, yet those in the senate and house who've been lockstep in abetting Bush & Co in their war crimes, indeed crimes against humanity these past eight years, made it law anyway?

Interesting question, and I believe that over the years, Congress has been allowed to overstep its bounds and very few people realize how Unconstitutional most of what the Federal Government does.

Tax as an example, the Constition provides a power of direct taxation, which is really a carry over from Article VIII of the articles of confederation. The only new taxing power granted was the indirect tax. (Tax on sales, duties, excises, etc.) However, somewhere along the line, Congress found it necessary to tax a persons income. ANd being that the 16th Amendment was to act upon the existing power of direct taxation, such could have only been applied to the state. (Thus the reason they apportioned the tax by population. Such a provision would seem unnecessary if you had a power to tax the people directly.)

Citizens not only get screwed in the deal, but corporations see higher profits, and less taxes. (Conflict of Interest?) and often own a great deal of stock in the industries they reduce taxes for.

It was a complete failure of duty and in protecting the Constition, and far outreaching the purpose of Government.They only seem to agree if it's not their money on the line. An issue I have with the 16th & the rest 'passed' by congress is that A. 16th AMendment was a Senate Joint Resolution, but was relating to money , whish must originate from the House. (Some states actually show it as a House Joint Resoultion of the same number.) It was never signed by the President as required for all legislative acts where the concurrence of both houses. two-thirds is enough to veto a bill, but the president still needs to exercise his acceptance or objections as with any other bill, and assuming 2/3rds still agree over the objection, then so shall it meet the rquirements as laid out in the Constition.

According to Paulson's record on opensecrets.org, he was receiving an annual salary of $16 Million frwhile he was CEO at Goldman Sachs.

[Tritium]

One more thing... The Constitution guarantees a republican form of Government. In a republican form of government all power come from the peeople,

From what I uncovered, it appears as if Paulson was paying the speculative game. Most of which was for oil. I believe they also were directly involved whth derivitives. I know they intentionally invested the Fed retirement plans so that there would be fewer short seelling related instability.

They are all crooks.

[TimStudiesLaw]

Originally Posted by Tritium

Interesting question, and I believe that over the years, Congress has been allowed to overstep its bounds and very few people realize how Unconstitutional most of what the Federal Government does.

Tax as an example, the Constition provides a power of direct taxation, which is really a carry over from Article VIII of the articles of confederation. The only new taxing power granted was the indirect tax. (Tax on sales, duties, excises, etc.) However, somewhere along the line, Congress found it necessary to tax a persons income. ANd being that the 16th Amendment was to act upon the existing power of direct taxation, such could have only been applied to the state. (Thus the reason they apportioned the tax by population. Such a provision would seem unnecessary if you had a power to tax the people directly.)

Citizens not only get screwed in the deal, but corporations see higher profits, and less taxes. (Conflict of Interest?) and often own a great deal of stock in the industries they reduce taxes for.

It was a complete failure of duty and in protecting the Constition, and far outreaching the purpose of Government.They only seem to agree if it's not their money on the line. An issue I have with the 16th & the rest 'passed' by congress is that A. 16th AMendment was a Senate Joint Resolution, but was relating to money , whish must originate from the House. (Some states actually show it as a House Joint Resoultion of the same number.) It was never signed by the President as required for all legislative acts where the concurrence of both houses. two-thirds is enough to veto a bill, but the president still needs to exercise his acceptance or objections as with any other bill, and assuming 2/3rds still agree over the objection, then so shall it meet the rquirements as laid out in the Constition.

According to Paulson's record on opensecrets.org, he was receiving an annual salary of $16 Million frwhile he was CEO at Goldman Sachs.

• Joint Resolution
A formal expression of congressional opinion that must be approved by both houses of Congress and by the president. Joint resolutions proposing a constitutional amendment need not be signed by the president.

[Tritium]

• Joint Resolution
A formal expression of congressional opinion that must be approved by both houses of Congress and by the president. Joint resolutions proposing a constitutional amendment need not be signed by the president.

Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

I am not sure where in the constitution your statement is derived, but I've put the clause in question, and will see if anyone disagrees.

[TimStudiesLaw]

Originally Posted by Tritium

I am not sure where in the constitution your statement is derived, but I've put the clause in question, and will see if anyone disagrees.

I guess I actually just believed the college textbook I'm studying for Contemporary American Government this quarter. Wilson, James Q. American Government. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008. Page 220.

[justalayman]

Tax as an example, the Constition provides a power of direct taxation, which is really a carry over from Article VIII of the articles of confederation. The only new taxing power granted was the indirect tax. (Tax on sales, duties, excises, etc.) However, somewhere along the line, Congress found it necessary to tax a persons income.

Amendment XVI
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.

ANd being that the 16th Amendment was to act upon the existing power of direct taxation, such could have only been applied to the state. (Thus the reason they apportioned the tax by population. Such a provision would seem unnecessary if you had a power to tax the people directly.)

So what is your problem with that? It says they can tax us on our income.

Citizens not only get screwed in the deal, but corporations see higher profits, and less taxes. (Conflict of Interest?) and often own a great deal of stock in the industries they reduce taxes for.

So, when is the last time your wrote your congressman suggesting they alter the tax code?

It was a complete failure of duty and in protecting the Constition, and far outreaching the purpose of Government.They only seem to agree if it's not their money on the line. An issue I have with the 16th & the rest 'passed' by congress is that A. 16th AMendment was a Senate Joint Resolution, but was relating to money , whish must originate from the House.

You are applying the fact that general laws concerning money must inititate in the house. An amendment does not fall under the same limitations.

It was never signed by the President as required for all legislative acts where the concurrence of both houses. two-thirds is enough to veto a bill, but the president still needs to exercise his acceptance or objections as with any other bill, and assuming 2/3rds still agree over the objection, then so shall it meet the rquirements as laid out in the Constition.

the fact is that an amendment must be approved by 2/3 of each house to continue on its' journey to approval. That 2/3 is all that is required to pass a bill (which actually doesn't apply to this anyway). Then the states themselves ratify the proposed amendment.

Oh, heck with it.

Constitutional amendments are controlled by a totally seperate section of the constitution. You, and many others, seem to mix up the writing of laws with amendments to the constitution. They are different things and the actions required to bring each of them forward are different. Learn it and live with it.

[Tritium]

Originally Posted by justalayman

Amendment XVI
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.

So what is your problem with that? It says they can tax us on our income.

First, was there any clause saying Congress could enforce by legislation?

Originally Posted by justalayman

So, when is the last time your wrote your congressman suggesting they alter the tax code?

You are applying the fact that general laws concerning money must inititate in the house. An amendment does not fall under the same limitations.

Wrong. The Constitution consists of Articles I-III for establishing each branch, and the procedures for each branch. Article I of the Constitution establishes Congress. It tells congress how they function, what powers they they have, of those, any restrictions, and at that point, the congress, in order to estabish any additional articles, they must first assume, and abide by the rules of the Legislature as laid out for them. If they bypass Article I, then no power is enforceable.

And as Madison said, "To say that Congress, a limited governement, or the State Legislatures, beholden to the same sovereignty, shall have a power not granted in the Constitution. Claiming it does exist is contrary to the Principles of Republican Government."

the fact is that an amendment must be approved by 2/3 of each house to continue on its' journey to approval. That 2/3 is all that is required to pass a bill (which actually doesn't apply to this anyway). Then the states themselves ratify the proposed amendment.

Oh, heck with it.

Constitutional amendments are controlled by a totally seperate section of the constitution. You, and many others, seem to mix up the writing of laws with amendments to the constitution. They are different things and the actions required to bring each of them forward are different. Learn it and live with it.

[/quote]

No, while I don't disagree, many who practice in this field specifically often don't consider historical references, examples, etc. (i.e. Amendments 1-13 were each signed by the President. Beginning with the 14th Amendment after a major Civil War.)

I know that there are several misinterpretations made regularly, but if you try tp alter the Principles of the Constitution, you cannot.. it is not a granted power anywhere in this Constitution.

But Congress cannot exercise Article V. without first abiding by Article I. Article V. sets the rules necessary for amending the Consititution by applying rules that require higher standards from the conventional use of the legislative powers granted in Article I.

Article V. does not grant a power to legislate, but only puts forth the process that can be used by the interested parties. The People cannot propose Constitutional Amendments without using the state legislature as an agency, making it the United States of America, not the United People of America.

[Tritium]

Originally Posted by justalayman

Amendment XVI
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.


So what is your problem with that? It says they can tax us on our income.


So, when is the last time your wrote your congressman suggesting they alter the tax code?



You are applying the fact that general laws concerning money must inititate in the house. An amendment does not fall under the same limitations.



the fact is that an amendment must be approved by 2/3 of each house to continue on its' journey to approval. That 2/3 is all that is required to pass a bill (which actually doesn't apply to this anyway). Then the states themselves ratify the proposed amendment.

Oh, heck with it.

Constitutional amendments are controlled by a totally seperate section of the constitution. You, and many others, seem to mix up the writing of laws with amendments to the constitution. They are different things and the actions required to bring each of them forward are different. Learn it and live with it.

Originally Posted by TimStudiesLaw

I guess I actually just believed the college textbook I'm studying for Contemporary American Government this quarter. Wilson, James Q. American Government. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008. Page 220.

Do you believe that a person should have a law degree in order to understand the Constitution? And if the only ones who have the 'knowledge' of what it means, what motivation do they ahve to seek alteration, if they are one of the few that benefit from the change.

If a person wishes Justice to be done, they mustn't restrict themselves to what is told in the textbook. Read debates in the earlier days of Congress, or during the convention that created the new Constituion.

[justalayman]

Tritium;2082081]Do you believe that a person should have a law degree in order to understand the Constitution?

a law degree? No, but a lot of common sense and insight. This, along with a burning desire to research the intent behind the writings. Without each of those, all it is is a bunch of writings. The spirit of the law is very important and without that input, the intent is not understood.

If a person wishes Justice to be done, they mustn't restrict themselves to what is told in the textbook. Read debates in the earlier days of Congress, or during the convention that created the new Constituion.

that is where the spirit of the writings come into play. That is what the SCOTUS uses, along with other sources of imformation, to make constitutional decisions.

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

Originally Posted by iamkofi

Lastly, do I appear to be an ingrate jealous because I'm not a beneficiary of this theft but rather one who'll experience ever harder economic struggle while those rich folks continue in their riches? Thems that's got shall get thems that's not shall lose.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

No, you just come off as a tinfoil hat-wearing ninny.