What I am saying spool is that society has changed since you declared independence. I know that there have been amendments, things seem to be up in the supreme court a lot though - whereas you don't hear about that from other countries.
We have things up in the supreme court a lot, but not in the "is this unconstitutional" way, but in the "there is no precedent in this case at all" way
Ahh, isn't the general welfare part in the preamble? I didn't think that was actually part of the Constitution. Also no one is arguing it before the SCOTUS today,so I don't think it really is a factor regardless.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
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;
Article 1, Section 8. It is also in the preamble.
Ok. The government, I assume, isn't arguing from this clause because they say the mandate penalty isn't a tax, so they can't say they're levying the tax for the general welfare of the people.
Neat!
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
Ahh, isn't the general welfare part in the preamble? I didn't think that was actually part of the Constitution. Also no one is arguing it before the SCOTUS today,so I don't think it really is a factor regardless.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
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;
Article 1, Section 8. It is also in the preamble.
Ok. The government, I assume, isn't arguing from this clause because they say the mandate penalty isn't a tax, so they can't say they're levying the tax for the general welfare of the people.
The "fuck it, no one cares about that part of the constitution any more" argument is not persuasive at all.
It's not that "no one cares about it," it's that you've adopted a minority (though popular) viewpoint.
I'll be honest, I'm not a fan of the broad interpretations of the interstate commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause, but I'm also not a fan of 18th-century-era federalism either.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
A possible problem with a constitution is that it may become several hundred years old and some things may become outdated.
On the other hand most countries have constitutions of some kind, so I don't know why there's constantly only a problem of passing necessary stuff in the US and not in other countries. Possibly you have not updated it when society has changed.
Seriously, man. Any governing document written before the Internet is basically null and void, right?
Strawmen are straw.
"the constitution is ooooold" has one virtue as an argument: It's definitely the funniest objection you can come up with.
If you don't see how that can be a problem then go ahead and exist in fantasy.
People 300 years ago saw blacks as inferior, women couldn't vote and we could keep this up for a while. That people should be free is a good notion, but other than that a small group of men 300 years ago are not at all qualified to decide how the country CANNOT be run several generations after they've long been dead. Norms change, and so far towards the better. A constitution that is too hard to amend can become an anchor.
What I am saying spool is that society has changed since you declared independence. I know that there have been amendments, things seem to be up in the supreme court a lot though - whereas you don't hear about that from other countries.
In most countries, the government exists atop the constitution in the power structure. In America it does not - it's constrained by the constitution.
A possible problem with a constitution is that it may become several hundred years old and some things may become outdated.
On the other hand most countries have constitutions of some kind, so I don't know why there's constantly only a problem of passing necessary stuff in the US and not in other countries. Possibly you have not updated it when society has changed.
Seriously, man. Any governing document written before the Internet is basically null and void, right?
Strawmen are straw.
"the constitution is ooooold" has one virtue as an argument: It's definitely the funniest objection you can come up with.
i'm not saying 'the constitution is old therefore it's wrong'
but i mean, it was written when people were property
maybe there's a conceivable basis to think it has more room for modification than we've thus far accomplished
there are many republicans who just regard the idea of any amendment as unconstitutional, which is patently ridiculous
That is a dumb mindset, yes. Heck, I might even support a healthcare amendment, depending on how it was structured.
What I am saying spool is that society has changed since you declared independence. I know that there have been amendments, things seem to be up in the supreme court a lot though - whereas you don't hear about that from other countries.
In most countries, the government exists atop the constitution in the power structure. In America it does not - it's constrained by the constitution.
Yeah. Our word for constitution is "base law", because that's what it is. The base. It says who can make laws and how and such.
What I am saying spool is that society has changed since you declared independence. I know that there have been amendments, things seem to be up in the supreme court a lot though - whereas you don't hear about that from other countries.
In most countries, the government exists atop the constitution in the power structure. In America it does not - it's constrained by the constitution.
Yeah. Our word for constitution is "base law", because that's what it is. The base. It says who can make laws and how and such.
It's like the OS for the rest of the law.
Your is just hella wierd.
yeah well your face is hella weird and you spelled weird wrong
Ahh, isn't the general welfare part in the preamble? I didn't think that was actually part of the Constitution. Also no one is arguing it before the SCOTUS today,so I don't think it really is a factor regardless.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
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;
Article 1, Section 8. It is also in the preamble.
Ok. The government, I assume, isn't arguing from this clause because they say the mandate penalty isn't a tax, so they can't say they're levying the tax for the general welfare of the people.
Neat!
why aren't they?
I believe it has something to do with a procedural rule about the supreme court not being able to hear cases about taxes until the tax is in effect, which doesn't happen for a couple more years.
I'd love to see some giant changes made to the US constitution, however, I fear if giant changes were actually made they would be ones that I wouldn't actually want,.
What I am saying spool is that society has changed since you declared independence. I know that there have been amendments, things seem to be up in the supreme court a lot though - whereas you don't hear about that from other countries.
In most countries, the government exists atop the constitution in the power structure. In America it does not - it's constrained by the constitution.
No?
Our constitution, Grundlagen, is the frame of laws that says what the government can't do. How the government should be formed etc. If there's no document saying how the government is formed for instance, good luck having elections at all. Or are we talking about dictatorships now suddenly?
Ahh, isn't the general welfare part in the preamble? I didn't think that was actually part of the Constitution. Also no one is arguing it before the SCOTUS today,so I don't think it really is a factor regardless.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
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;
Article 1, Section 8. It is also in the preamble.
Ok. The government, I assume, isn't arguing from this clause because they say the mandate penalty isn't a tax, so they can't say they're levying the tax for the general welfare of the people.
Neat!
The government will be arguing that today, as I understand it. Alito and possibly other Justices were peeved the government was arguing it wasn't a tax (so they can get a decision now since you can't rule on a tax until its levied) yesterday but will be arguing that it counts under this clause today.
A possible problem with a constitution is that it may become several hundred years old and some things may become outdated.
On the other hand most countries have constitutions of some kind, so I don't know why there's constantly only a problem of passing necessary stuff in the US and not in other countries. Possibly you have not updated it when society has changed.
Seriously, man. Any governing document written before the Internet is basically null and void, right?
Strawmen are straw.
"the constitution is ooooold" has one virtue as an argument: It's definitely the funniest objection you can come up with.
If you don't see how that can be a problem then go ahead and exist in fantasy.
People 300 years ago saw blacks as inferior, women couldn't vote and we could keep this up for a while. That people should be free is a good notion, but other than that a small group of men 300 years ago are not at all qualified to decide how the country CANNOT be run several generations after they've long been dead. Norms change, and so far towards the better. A constitution that is too hard to amend can become an anchor.
Ooh, you forgot to mention that the small group of men were old and white. The trifecta of badness!
The beauty of the Constitution is that it can be changed, and that it broadly proscribes things Rather than broadly allowing them. The resilient document tht holds you back today shields you tomorrow. This is a trade off that has generally been good, and we discard it at our peril.
If the new normal can't get broad support for an amendment, and can't be done within the scope of limited federal power, it's better that it not be done at the federal level.
What I am saying spool is that society has changed since you declared independence. I know that there have been amendments, things seem to be up in the supreme court a lot though - whereas you don't hear about that from other countries.
In most countries, the government exists atop the constitution in the power structure. In America it does not - it's constrained by the constitution.
No?
Our constitution, Grundlagen, is the frame of laws that says what the government can't do. How the government should be formed etc. If there's no document saying how the government is formed for instance, good luck having elections at all. Or are we talking about dictatorships now suddenly?
He's just saying that our constitution, in addition to specifying stuff about elections and the legislative process, list the powers that our federal government does have instead of listing the powers that our federal government does not have.
What I am saying spool is that society has changed since you declared independence. I know that there have been amendments, things seem to be up in the supreme court a lot though - whereas you don't hear about that from other countries.
In most countries, the government exists atop the constitution in the power structure. In America it does not - it's constrained by the constitution.
No?
Our constitution, Grundlagen, is the frame of laws that says what the government can't do. How the government should be formed etc. If there's no document saying how the government is formed for instance, good luck having elections at all. Or are we talking about dictatorships now suddenly?
Yeah it doesn't really say what the government can't do, it says what is can.
What I am saying spool is that society has changed since you declared independence. I know that there have been amendments, things seem to be up in the supreme court a lot though - whereas you don't hear about that from other countries.
In most countries, the government exists atop the constitution in the power structure. In America it does not - it's constrained by the constitution.
Yeah. Our word for constitution is "base law", because that's what it is. The base. It says who can make laws and how and such.
It's like the OS for the rest of the law.
Your is just hella wierd.
yeah well your face is hella weird and you spelled weird wrong
point variable
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
What I am saying spool is that society has changed since you declared independence. I know that there have been amendments, things seem to be up in the supreme court a lot though - whereas you don't hear about that from other countries.
In most countries, the government exists atop the constitution in the power structure. In America it does not - it's constrained by the constitution.
Yeah. Our word for constitution is "base law", because that's what it is. The base. It says who can make laws and how and such.
It's like the OS for the rest of the law.
Your is just hella wierd.
I don't think you are correct here, because I'm pretty sure yours is similar to ours.
The "base law" declares how government is formed, that people are free, have freedom of expression etc. Isn't that pretty much exactly like The Constitution - although less specific?
The government is not "atop" the constitution - that would mean they can change it willy nilly. That is simply not the case. The government is formed in accordance with the constitution.
Ahh, isn't the general welfare part in the preamble? I didn't think that was actually part of the Constitution. Also no one is arguing it before the SCOTUS today,so I don't think it really is a factor regardless.
The Obama administration's interpretation does seem to grant it extremely broad regulatory power, in effect saying "all the things you cannot avoid doing? we can control how you do them".
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;
Article 1, Section 8. It is also in the preamble.
Ok. The government, I assume, isn't arguing from this clause because they say the mandate penalty isn't a tax, so they can't say they're levying the tax for the general welfare of the people.
Neat!
why aren't they?
I believe it has something to do with a procedural rule about the supreme court not being able to hear cases about taxes until the tax is in effect, which doesn't happen for a couple more years.
It's a law from the 1800s that prevents people from challenging a tax before they pay it, because you know Americans would otherwise challenge every tax and tie it up in court for years just to avoid paying up.
Posts
I think it will be entertaining
We have things up in the supreme court a lot, but not in the "is this unconstitutional" way, but in the "there is no precedent in this case at all" way
Ok. The government, I assume, isn't arguing from this clause because they say the mandate penalty isn't a tax, so they can't say they're levying the tax for the general welfare of the people.
Neat!
Feral let us have gay sex
right now
Also this song was worth the insane amount of effort i spent trying to find it
why aren't they?
It's not that "no one cares about it," it's that you've adopted a minority (though popular) viewpoint.
I'll be honest, I'm not a fan of the broad interpretations of the interstate commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause, but I'm also not a fan of 18th-century-era federalism either.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Do I choose this:
Or this:
Freedom without social responsibility and good citizenship? Or just plain ol' freedom?
i did a lot of chewing tobacco too. redman and levi garrett gold.
most of my friends dipped, but i never did. that always made me want to hurl.
I've mostly stopped tobacco use now, except for cigarettes every now and then
If you don't see how that can be a problem then go ahead and exist in fantasy.
People 300 years ago saw blacks as inferior, women couldn't vote and we could keep this up for a while. That people should be free is a good notion, but other than that a small group of men 300 years ago are not at all qualified to decide how the country CANNOT be run several generations after they've long been dead. Norms change, and so far towards the better. A constitution that is too hard to amend can become an anchor.
Freedom is inherently freedom.
/thread
Then again it also says the executive power lies with the King.
In most countries, the government exists atop the constitution in the power structure. In America it does not - it's constrained by the constitution.
Does something need to only yield good consequences in order to be considered inherently good?
Because, by those standards, I'm pretty sure that you could prove that "good" isn't inherently good.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
That is a dumb mindset, yes. Heck, I might even support a healthcare amendment, depending on how it was structured.
Yeah. Our word for constitution is "base law", because that's what it is. The base. It says who can make laws and how and such.
It's like the OS for the rest of the law.
Your is just hella wierd.
Dude I /threaded we are done here maaaaan.
I believe it has something to do with a procedural rule about the supreme court not being able to hear cases about taxes until the tax is in effect, which doesn't happen for a couple more years.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
Freedom as an end in itself, rather than an instrument of utility.
I am just really annoyed by how the core ethical theme in almost every work of popular fiction is individual liberty.
No?
Our constitution, Grundlagen, is the frame of laws that says what the government can't do. How the government should be formed etc. If there's no document saying how the government is formed for instance, good luck having elections at all. Or are we talking about dictatorships now suddenly?
The government will be arguing that today, as I understand it. Alito and possibly other Justices were peeved the government was arguing it wasn't a tax (so they can get a decision now since you can't rule on a tax until its levied) yesterday but will be arguing that it counts under this clause today.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
D-do you not realize Brave New World was a horror story? Individual liberty is keen, especially when everyone has it.
It is so fucking weird to live for a few days with signifigantly impaired brain function then get better.
It's like that Poul Anderson book "Brain Wave" (excellent read btw).
Ooh, you forgot to mention that the small group of men were old and white. The trifecta of badness!
The beauty of the Constitution is that it can be changed, and that it broadly proscribes things Rather than broadly allowing them. The resilient document tht holds you back today shields you tomorrow. This is a trade off that has generally been good, and we discard it at our peril.
If the new normal can't get broad support for an amendment, and can't be done within the scope of limited federal power, it's better that it not be done at the federal level.
this post is like raaaaAAAAIIIiiiiiin on your wedding day.
He's just saying that our constitution, in addition to specifying stuff about elections and the legislative process, list the powers that our federal government does have instead of listing the powers that our federal government does not have.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Yeah it doesn't really say what the government can't do, it says what is can.
point variable
I don't think you are correct here, because I'm pretty sure yours is similar to ours.
The "base law" declares how government is formed, that people are free, have freedom of expression etc. Isn't that pretty much exactly like The Constitution - although less specific?
The government is not "atop" the constitution - that would mean they can change it willy nilly. That is simply not the case. The government is formed in accordance with the constitution.
It's a law from the 1800s that prevents people from challenging a tax before they pay it, because you know Americans would otherwise challenge every tax and tie it up in court for years just to avoid paying up.