Comment

Comment by Paul Davis on June 4, 2012 at 5:13pm

John, In other words youproclaim an opinion that it is "all bunk" but you decline to offer any sort of argument to support your position... Seems somewhat disrespectful to me, but have a nice day all the same.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 4, 2012 at 7:07am

Interstate commerce was so that some states did not unduly tax goods brought in from other states not to bypass state levied tariffs.  I do not believe it was ever meant to determine the number or type of goods or to regulate the goods themselves.  It was meant to be sure there was a level playing field for all goods one state might wish to sell in other states.  We have an inbalance between countries right now in a manner of speaking as in China keeping their dollar devalued so their goods are cheaper here than they might otherwise be.  There are 17 duties of the federal government listed quite clearly in the constitution.  The problem lies with the fact the federal government has almost from the start tried to be clever and get around the constitution by claiming something fell under the commerce clause or other phrases that had nothing whatever to do with the boon doggle they were trying to pull on the American people.  We now have an over reaching, dictatorial federal government which is exactly what the constitution was supposed to stop from happening since the federal government got away with much when the court was more liberal and felt they could take liberties with the intent and purpose of the constitution.  Then, there were the amendments which in some cases were misrepresented to the people to get at least some of them passed.  The current administration feels it has a right to lie if the end result is what THEY want without regard to the people's rights.

Comment by Paul Davis on June 4, 2012 at 6:45am

The Constitution gave the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce from the beginning in order to bypass state levied tariffs. Air and water pollution crosses state lines and therefore is by its nature, and always has been, a regional commercial issue under federal authority and according to the U.S. Constitution. So is national defense, for that matter.

The relative federal responsibilities have been unclear from the beginning. The founders did not establish a superior federal system like Germany, but we do have a closer interstate alliance than something like the European Union or UN. The founding fathers had plenty on their plate already and didn't adequately resolve the federalism issue... hence the War Between the States. But on the other hand, we have since been through 19th century industrialization, entry into the world stage, a couple of world wars, exponential population growth, increasingly complex personal and international relationships and expansion of technology, leading to stronger federal control over many aspects of our lives including even local education policy and maybe now nationalized health care. It is hard to argue that a governmental system that was established for an 18th century agrarian society prior to steam locomotives is going to be practically adequate for modern life. Hardly anyone will agree with that.

Most people now travel more than 15 miles from home, and don't ride a horse on dirt trails when they do. The Constitutional structure has to flex somewhat to keep up with changes to governance needs, otherwise we would require a periodic revolution and a complete restart.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on June 3, 2012 at 1:19pm

And actually, John is 100% correct on the federal income tax, and NO there should not be one.  The federal government should have to come hat in hand to each of the states who were always supposed to be in charge of everything except those few things the federal government was tasked at doing, and beg for money to run anything and everything.  Then there is the matter of the amendment that allowed them to tax different people different amounts based on their income and we can thank (drum roll), everyone's favorite president FDR.  He also extended the depression with all the social programs for a LONG time (you know kind of like Obama's programs and policies are doing now) after we would have gotten back up and running through his polices and he blessed us with social security and all the crooks in Washington handling that part of our retirement money they take by force (which they have sinse spent cause there was just so much of it, they couldn't help themselves............and now these same wonderful folks are looking at what we personally saved in addition to social security for our retirements and thinking they should dole it out to us as they see fit and get to keep anything that is left when we die.........sorry I got off track).  Anyway, JOHN is right!

Comment by Paul Davis on June 3, 2012 at 10:37am

My forefathers fought to oppose taxation when they had no input into how the taxes were implemented. They were cognizant that taxes were necessay in order to have government and civilization, and favored them when implemented by a representational government. I sicerely doubt that the US could have defeated Nazism and Communism if there were no income tax, but even more bizarre is the insistance that we do not have an income tax, at all. There are enough persons sitting in federal prisons for federal tax evasion to effectively refute that argument entirely.

But more to the point, there is sufficient evidence that persons will act in their own economic interests at the expense of their neighbor's interests if given the opportunity, so that the air would be unbreathable (London, Los Angeles) and the water would catch fire and burn (Cuyahoga River) without public control over public goods. The EPA is an efficient and effective way to serve the interstate public interest in that regard. This is currently being implemented under current political structures and constitutional processes, and with overwhelming public support.

 

 

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on May 31, 2012 at 7:19am

So, John, how do you feel right now about Obama signing something (once again) that help form a world wide EPA?  Another treaty and another manner of giving the running of our country to a group that would have control over our country that has nothing to do with our country.  It is becoming more than a little obvious that the group of countries (dictators, tyrants and the corrupt) have turned the UN into a power grabbing organization that wants to have control over all our national resources and the people who live here and treat us like slaves?   I understand Paul has another agenda to make this about the personal interests of the person who wrote the article and had the video taped, but it isn't.  It is about the UN EPA and the possibility of Obama throwing our country under the bus yet again when so many are unemployed and the whole premise of this is based on a faux global climate change when it has been disproved and admittedly is only a way to strip the United States of their wealth and give it to countrys not friendly to us or any other democratic country.

Comment by Paul Davis on May 31, 2012 at 7:14am

Constitutionality of income tax? Seriously? I don't believe that there is any question on the matter.

One can debate whether it is good public policy, or how it can best implemented (if at all)  but I believe that the courts have already  had plenty of opportunity to review the constitutionality of that issue.

Comment by Paul Davis on May 31, 2012 at 5:50am

Don't look for me to defend this President in all things, but I believe that criticism should be fact based, and part of a fair and balanced argument. The point of the "Caesar" comment is that all citizens are morally beholden to support whatever government has authority over them in all things that are not directly contrary to God's explicit commands, and then must actively work to change that government through lawful means where possible, and to revolt only when willing to accept the consequences if they are to loose. If Mr. Morris has been lawfully assessed taxes, then he is obliged to pay them, whether he agrees with policy of this administration or not. This is all the more reason to be certain that we have the right administration and policies in place to begin with.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on May 30, 2012 at 6:39am

I don't have any idea what Mr. Morris' financial position is, but there is some humor in trying to use the word of God to make him look beholden to this Obama government considering Obama has removed God from everything he can and it is disallowed in pretty much everything done in public.   He is the most Godless person I can think of and certainly this government shouldn't be given another dime to squander (or perhaps pass over to friends and supporters as supposed investments in green energy so they can go bankrupt promptly thereafter taking our tax dollars down promptly with them).

Comment by Paul Davis on May 30, 2012 at 5:37am

Is Mr. Morris caught up with his $3 million tax arrears?

Passage Matthew 22:21:

   ²¹They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Passage Revelation 21:8:

   ⁸But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Deuteronomy 10

   ¹²And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,

   ¹³To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

   ¹⁴Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.