From “Brickbats,” Reason (May 2006):
Italy has imposed a 25 percent tax on hard-core porn. The law, similar to one already passed in France, applies to all films and magazines as well as merchandise sold in sex shops.
At the risk of offending those social conservative readers I haven’t already chased away with a lot of potty-mouthed posts about Shannon Elizabeth’s nipples, let me argue here that these kinds of measures, insofar as they seem to be based on arbitrary criteria applied to legal merchandise / activities, have “slippery slope” written all over them.
It is easy to pick on porn, particularly because many people won’t admit to using/viewing it (despite its growth as an industry). But one can easily envision these kinds of draconian “sin” taxes—already evident in the taxing of cigarettes in places like New York—spreading to junk food (Twinkie and soda taxes are already in place in some US municipalities), alcohol, etc. Which amounts to a de facto moral judgment, expressed through economic penalties, leveled by nannystate politicians on certain legal products of which they don’t approve.
Next up, I suspect, will be video games.
All of which should make every American angry. Because if politicians can presume to judge what legal items are more “sinful” than others, then we are allowing our freedoms to be determined by the whims of grandstanding moralists and those who consider themselves our cultural betters.
Which will cut both ways: Jim Sennsenbrenner, you’ll remember, wanted to fine “indecency” on TV—a horrific idea insofar as it can be argued that such an idea violates free speech. But how long before he rethinks his aproach and suggests taxing advertisers who advertise on shows rated TV-Mature?
Bottom line: if a product is legal, it should be taxed at the same rate as other legal products. So-called “sin taxes” and “luxury taxes” are inherently unfair. Of course, I’m also a supporter of a flat tax, so keep this in mind; and if there’s a legal expert lurking about, I wish s/he would explain how sliding tax scales based on wealth are even constitutional in the first place.
Well, let’s all be brutally honest here, if you’re PAYING that 25% porn tax, you’re not using the internet properly.
As to the topic of video games being next… well, gamers 10-30 years old are almost completely filled with loathing at the various “morality police” figures out there. Enough that should they be next, you’d have something close to a salient voting group right there.
Granted, your salient group won’t be worth a dime if the majority of them don’t vote.
Most Americans are quite happy to use government force to oppress those activities they disapprove of. They are particularly pleased to do so when the majority opinion is on their side. I call this the democratic fallacy: the idea that individual freedom and majoritarian bullying are synonyms.
It’s a different question, of course, when their own ox is gored or rice bowl broken. Reciprocity is a forgotten art in Big Government USA.
Well said, JG. I agree.
Re: your legal question, there are three tiers of scrutiny for equal protection claims. The highest tier is “strict scrutiny”; this is applied to legislation that discriminates on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, etc. Courts analyze such legislation to see if it’s “narrowly tailored” to advance a “compelling state interest.” The next tier is “intermediate scrutiny”; it applies to gender (and legitimacy, I believe). The standard here, as I recall, is that the law must advance an “important state interest.” Third and lowest tier is “rational-basis review”; this applies to all other forms of discrimination, including wealth. The legislature merely needs to show that the law in question is rationally related to a state interest.
Essentially, everything is unconstitutional that triggers strict scrutiny and everything is constitutional that triggers rational basis review. The only cases that involve close questions are intermediate scrutiny.
Constitutional theorists have debated for decades why certain groups deserve one level of scrutiny and others deserve another. In the case of race, for example, you’re dealing with a trait that’s unchangeable, that’s inspired vicious prejudice historically, and that’s common to minorities who aren’t populous enough to protect themselves from majority rule at the polls. In the case of wealth, you’re dealing with a trait that’s changeable, that’s inspired little prejudice historically (at least insofar as it means denial of opportunities or other practicaly consequences), and who have lots of political influence. So courts don’t worry as much about discrimination against the latter as the former.
Tangential question: where do gays fit into this paradigm? Closer to the race continuum than the wealth continuum, I’d argue, which is why I think laws prohibiting gay marriage probably should be unconstitutional. For what it’s worth.
Gentlemen and ladies, Our government is forced to continuously invent ways of extorting money from you to pay off the rapacious mobs our charitable acts of the past have fostered. For the uninformed I am referring to the federal “Entitlement†programs (40% of the budget), the largest ones going to the elderly, whom I might add are never satisfied and are ever trying to bleed more from the young. I hope you workers and tax payers will realize the hordes are at your door and stop the Congress from pandering to this rabble for their votes before not only you but your great-grandchildren are still paying for the greedy geezers Viagra. This from “an opinionated older ladyâ€Â.
Congress has power to tax and spend, under article I. Amendment 16 also speaks to the taxing power. What constitutional provision do you think progressive or regressive taxes violate?
This is just another in a long line of attempts to legislate behavior. Throw this one in with the war on drugs, that pathetic attempt to eliminate alcohol consumption and the paradoxial situation where we tax the shit out of tobacco products while subsidizing tobacco farmers.
The state of Kansas actually has a drug tax. If you deal in illegal drugs, you are supposed to buy tax stamps. If you are caught with illegal drugs and no tax stamps you can have another felony added to the charges and fines based on the amount of drugs you have.
I am in favor of a national consumption tax primarily because it encourages savings and eliminates the onerous paperwork burden on small businesses. An added benefit is that it brings the “underground” economy into the tax base.
That one thingy in there were everyone is supposed to be treated equally, that would be my guess.
Do some research, Ris. Tobacco farmers have never been subsidized by the government, but by their customers, through tobacco taxes, which finance the bureaucrats who regulate the business. The tobacco farmers get nothing, the bureaucrats all.
I’m defining a subsidy as a direct cash payment out of the treasury. A tax break is not a subsidy.
If discrimination according to wealth is unconstitutional, couldn’t the argument be made that the total amount of taxes paid to the government should be the same for everyone? If we’re talking about equality?
I realize it would be stupid to do that, I’m just wondering how you could argue against that, what the difference is?
Amendment 16 was adopted in direct response to a SCOTUS decision that progressive taxation was unconstitutional. Amdt 16 having been adopted after amdt 14, it’s presumed to override the equal protection clause as it applies to its relatively narrow scope of taxation, although even if that didn’t end the inquiry the rationale basis reasoning ably described above would lead to the same result. Roughly, since there’s no reason to suspect people have an irrational aversion to high income earners (contra blacks, Jews and women) the Constitution does not require an especially close look at legislation burdening the rich.
But the real takeaway is that when you amend the Constitution to grant powers to tax whatever you want, you pretty much foreclose judicial review. To put it lightly.
And the emanating penumbras thereof, in regards to self-identify one’s purpose in life is smoke 3-packs a day, watch barnyard bestiality pron, and play Grand Theft Auto…
TW: DUH!
Yeah…“flat taxesâ€Â…that tops it!
Not really a surprise coming from JG, the unabashed apologist the “Patriot Actâ€Â, a man known to appreciate Condi Rice’ black leather boots and Abu Ghraib’s canine-enhanced love fests!
Dude, the excessive amounts of freshly squeezed manshake you’ve ingurgitated seem to have drained your microeconomic common sense!
The marginal value of income is NOT the same at different income levels: the last $1,000 of earnings for a black blue collar living in poverty are MUCH MORE valuable than the last $1,000 of earnings for a former oil baron living in an undisclosed albeit deluxe DC location.
The former has to hunt rats in the Bayou to supplement his sparse soul food diet; the latter hunts ducks for PR n’pleasure in Texas to complement his abundantly soulless political “regimeâ€Â…
As Saint Augustine once said it’s the “caritas†vs. “cupiditas†thing.
Believe me, if they could, they’d slap extra taxes on Walmart, Kmart, Target, all ‘fast food’ joints, ToysRUs and anyother business that draws the patronage of the “unwashed masses” …
just to teach ‘em where they should shop…
WTF?
And 12 hours after rat-meat strombolis and twinkie supplies dry up, them darkies eat each other!!!
So as to intimidate–drunkenly–an attorney who wanted to leak that the President is the Leaker-in-Chef!
the short answer is no. Like I can come up with laws that regulate doctors. That say you can’t sell liquor on sundays, etc… Someone above mentioned the difference between the strict scrutiny and rational relation tests. Another issue is that equal protection is about people similarly situated. If a progressive income tax is applied at the margins, then the people are being treated quite equally when they are similarly situated.
Taxes aren’t the only way the government encourages “proper” behavior: it also doles out assistance based on whether your organization is ideologically correct. Government funds are withheld if your organization runs afoul of the latest fad in morality, e.g., if a university still insists on segregated-sex housing or whatever.
Or you get a tax break for being a home owner (which I happen to favor for my own selfish reason). Or for engaging in other behaviors that the gubmint considers beneficial for society.
I’m not entirely sure that’s a bad idea. Shouldn’t society grease the wheels to encourage good behavior and penalize bad?
But then, hijab is considered good for society, and music and ham sandwiches bad, according to some. Jeff is right: it cuts both ways.
TW: Either you’re damned or you’re damned.
Jack Roy
I’ll have to go do some digging, but IIRC the strained arguments in support of federal income taxes in the first place was to declare that income was not property but profit, thereby letting Congress have the power to (theoritically) confiscate it outright. What they did do is to actually create a divide and conquer strategy of pitting the classes against each other—the deserving poor v the thieving rich—and placate the poor/middle class by saying “see? we’ll get those EEEVVVIIILLLL rich with a 90% tax rate!” then whispering sotto voce to the rich “don’t worry, bud. we’ll put enough loopholes in the thing that you won’t REALLY be working for 10 cents on the dollar” and stiffing the rich, too, because the loopholes represented a carrot/stick to for Congress to fund their own pet concerns.
Progessive taxes may be legal, but they are immoral.
Because, ya know, White House gubmint’s primary job is imperial yet spiritually-sensitive social benevolence.
Haven’t seen that since, what was it, the late nineties?
tw: Married to the State.
And, given your impending place on the teat of our increasingly subjective, increasingly and excessively legalistic society, undoubtedly you’d come up with more…
About taxes, there’s one way to make em fair and utterly unburdensome to sovereign citizens … which is precisely why it’ll never happen:
Abolish every last vestage of the tax system. Declare an annual tax as, say, a percentage of the GDP.
Then do what we do already: Go print the stuff. Write a number in the Fed’s leger and let the rest of the country go about their now free, now efficient lives.
Or failing to give campus resources to recruiters that will discriminate against your students.
Talk about an increasingly subjective society
That’s all you needed there, actuse.
Not really. If you simply disallow all recruiters from using your campus resources, then the military is being treated the same as the others. So you have to clarify that the law is about preventing the recruiters that want to use your campus to discriminate against your students.
Some dollars are worth more than others? I think I be gettin’ paid wif dem po’ dollahs’, dat be why I’s so broke all de dam time!
Careful actus, you say that with a southern accent and you might get your card pulled.
Why Jeff, you know you could never chase me away with your potty mouth. I LOVE your mouth!
You have to admit that “sin” taxes have worked in reducing the umm….”sin.” Smoking has been reduced drastically for example.
On the one hand I agree with you completely for a flat tax, On the other hand (the hand that most bloggers misuse) I would advocate for ANYTHING that would reduce porn. Something that not only exploits and de-humanizes women, but is a gaping oozing maggot infected crusted wound on the ass of America.
That is all.
And you might be interested in related post I am putting up tonight or tommorrow. Trust me. You will want to read it.
It’s full of all kinds of naughty things.
http://www.rightwingsparkle.blogspot.com
I linkwhore because I can…..
And this is a problem how?
Just a little aside about what it takes for Italy to enforce such porn taxes:
My UPS man was telling me about a customer of his (in the US) that sent her daughter-in-law in Italy a tape she had made to assist DIL with an upcoming house-hunting trip back home in Michigan.
When the tape reached Italy, it got held up in customs and a notice sent to DIL that she had to come watch the tape with customs officials to determine that the tape was not actually homemade porn.
You learn interesting things about world affairs when you get stuck for 2 hours in a UPS office.
“Congress has power to tax and spend, under article I. Amendment 16 also speaks to the taxing power. What constitutional provision do you think progressive or regressive taxes violate?”
Posted by actus | permalink
on 04/08 at 04:29 PM
Moron alert. What I love about actus and his posse is that they have all sorts of intellectual bullshit to spew, but they appear to do it only as a way of feeding their egos as intellectuals.
Bravo! I think that just about anyone who regularly posts here could probably out-do him in the intellectual bullshit department, but fortunately, most posters here have taken the time to look at the real world that surrounds them.
Apparently, actus & Co. have never bothered to take into account the truth of human nature (as established over human history), or the reality of the world that surrounds them. History holds no lessons for these “brilliant, progressive minds”. The billions of people who have preceded them in human history were just TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND, and thousands of years of history are worth absolutely nothing! Freedom means that anyone who works their ass off to get ahead should automatically have to give actus (or his warped idea of a government) a cut. I mean, if people do something that I disapprove of, they should be taxed at least DOUBLE. That would show them, wouldn’t it?
actus, life is like a post office, and until you have lived in every single PO box in the building, you are nothing but a smug and linear asshole.
When do you start to grow up, Einstein?
I used to think like you when I was in the eighth grade. Am I close?
Progressive taxation isn’t the problem; loopholism is.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the gummint decides to collect revenue off a vice, doesn’t it then have a vested interest in keeping that vice going? I mean, how many states could “balance their budget” without tobacco tax money?
And those doofuses thought that you could dissimilate people based on race. Imagine that.
Its not that intellectual to read the damn constitution.
Toby
If you think people will willingly honor a tax rate of 50% or more, then you are not equated with the reality of human nature…
or the concept of justice
<blockquote>Not really. If you simply disallow all recruiters from using your campus resources, then the military is being treated the same as the others.</i>
No, they don’t get funding from the others. The relationship is fundamentally different. BTW, the military is part of the government, so don’t even try it.
Oh, and what is the “campus resource” they’re using? Space, isn’t it?
Lost Dog, you’ve got to stop thinking of actus as stupid and start thinking of him as dishonest.
And in this case, he wasn’t even being the latter.
You did a good… well… you did a … you posted an awful lot of words about why you think progressive taxation is unfair, but that’s not the same as unconsitutional. Look over what you quoted and try to explain what was actually incorrect with what he said. Try reading Allah’s post upthread for a little context. You may think actus misses the point, but that doesn’t make what he said false.
Part of his rhetorical strategy is letting people fly off the handle at him for stupid shit. Don’t feed it. Wait for him to do something like argue that the case against Libby exists in a bubble separate from whether or not a crime was committed when Valerie Plame’s name got to the press–like he did in another thread. That’s a good example of actus arguing something that is true in a very narrow definition because he’s trying to obscure the larger context by wasting everyone’s time.
It is “customary” in the law of most countries to define marriage to be between a man and a woman. This argument carries no weight with so-called progressives.
It has become “customary” in our laws to “soak the rich” by the enactment of “progressive” income tax rates. This argument carries great weight with progressives.
As has been said “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” but I suggest that SCOTUS should be foolishly consistent!
And sorry my Libertarian friends, I think customary laws should be honored as valid legislative enactments.
Check this out.
Since when was child sex-slavery (most of which is sold by the porn industry) considered legal?
Amendment XVI really did close the door on the Constitutionality of the income tax, in almost every form. By level of wealth is rationally related, if not particuallarly morally defensable (beyond “from each according to their ability” or the old “the rich benefit from society’s protections, infrastructure, etc. more than others”)
Allah is right – the only way an income tax could get taken down is if you had a tax that targeted Asians only, or a Left Handed Surtax, or a Transgender Tarriff or the like.
As far as States go, I am watching Maryland with keen interest. If that “Wal-Mart” health care tax scheme had been tried in IL, it would have been tossed by the first court that got it’s mitts on it. We have a protection against single subject legislation like that.
I’m not a Constitutional expert. Can anyone tell me where “strict scrutiny”, “intermediate scrutiny”, and “rational-basis review” appear in the Constitution?
Also, is income tax a direct or an indirect tax?
It might be. but the law is not that military must get access, but that it must get the same access as other non-discriminators.
Space and the work of the career offices. They organize career fairs and on campus interviews, etc…
Yes, well, when the gay-lesbian lobby gets done burying their cocks at Wounded Knee, maybe somebody can finish impeaching the Middle Eastern Studies professors that defend actual-gay-and-women-bashing third world savages.
Til then, the Pink Coalition of Righteous Buggery has absolutely ZERO moral authority.
You’re not defending gay rights by obstructing the military and giving the reach-around to Taliban-Man and CAIR and ANSWER and Divest! Israel moves and Walt and Mearshamer’s The Lobby conspirators, and any of a thousand other disgusting groups.
You’re either anitmilitary and a coward for hiding behind legalese or progay and a coward for running from knuckle-dragging, chador-imprisoning and rainbow-smashing psychos.
TW: W.M.F.S.C.A. World’s Most Fucking Stupidest Commenter, Actus
“Its not that intellectual to read the damn constitution.”
Especially when you have no concept of history, and think the world didn’t exist until you were born. Now THAT makes it very easy to understand the Constitution. It’s too bad that you can’t concieve of the idea of “personal responsibility”, as it appears that the founders just took it for granted that a sentient human being would take responsibility for their own decisions and actions.
Maybe you can explain why so many people would risk their lives and fortunes to have a revolution that would result in the same kind of place they had fled?
I am always in awe of people who think they are smarter than the billions of people who have lived on the Earth before them. actus, I salute your incredible elitism and your awe inspiring historical myopia. I just wish that I were as blind as you. Life would be much easier to comprehend AND I could tell everyone else what’s what.
TW: appeared – When I was young it appeared that I should push for the “revolution”. Be careful what you wish for…
Its not the same kind of place. And the constitution was written at least a decade after the revolution. Sll I did was mention basic items from the enumerated powers. Its not so intellectual to quote the damn thing. Rather un-intellectual, because, as you say, it misses the ‘concept of history.’
Living constitution and all…
WMFSCA
Not just. Even a dead constitution may require us to have a conception of history. Scalia’s originalism, for example, asks that we not just read the words and find out what they mean, but find out what they meant to the average reader in 1789. Simply quoting the text and expecting it to be what we think those words mean today doesn’t fly with that sort of a dead originalism.
For him, it is a concept of history that keeps the constitution from changing with the times. If we were to ignore history, we would have the ultimate living constitution.
“Its not so intellectual to quote the damn thing.”
Without context, all is meaningless. Removing words from historical context is just another way to be dishonest without appearing so. The Constitution was not written in a vacuum. I have yet to see anything in the Constitution that even vaguely points to personal IRresponsibility, or almost anything else that the left is pushing for.
As usual, you trump yourself by ignoring our own history, and the life and times of the founding fathers. I don’t think you could know anything about our history and still think that the Constitution in any way points to a “change my diapers” class in our society. Change your own fucking diapers, mon frere…
You apparently have absolutely no idea how our society worked before the government stepped in to destroy the families of the poor and created a large class of people who think that it is their God given right to be taken care of and treated like infants. Ahh! But I forget who I am talking to. This is obviously something you find desireable, because it plays right into your elitism and disdain for those who need to be coddled. What thoughts would fill actus’ intellectually superior brain if these people didn’t exist? God forbid that one day everybody woke up and said: “I take responsibility for my own life”.
Once again I have to say, actus, that your intellectual process reminds me of the way I thought in eigth grade. It’s too bad that your lack of shame will probably never allow you to grow up. The catharsis of seeing the truth involves a lot of pain and an immeasurable amount of humiliation. But, as with most lefties, I have a feeling that you have walled these two emotions off so tightly, that they will never be allowed to affect your point of view. It’s too bad. It’s always depressing to see an intellect such as yours walled off by vanity.
Just remember – those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
actus –
I must commend you for coming right out and saying that history is irrelevant. It takes brass balls to have that much hubris.
I’m afraid that that those who DO know history, still repeat it.
“there’s no reason to suspect people have an irrational aversion to high income earners”
Surely you’re joking. I’ll grant that its not entirely irrational, but there is no stronger aversion in human history.
Thats why its not so intellectual to quote it.
I said its un-intellectual to treat it as irrelevant. I said its required to have a concept of history for scalia’s originalism.
Where did I say it was irrelevant?
The Constitution is the list of First Principles.
If we know that Earth’s gravity pulls towards the center of the Earth, and we see a force pushing away from the center of the Earth, we know that it is NOT Earth’s gravity.
A ‘living’ Constitution would suggest that, oh, well, two hundred years ago, gravity went down, now up, and someday sideways, unless its a leap year in which we all get our own Constitutionally emanating penumbras.
No.Dice.Actus.
“I’m afraid that that those who DO know history, still repeat it.”
Jeez. Knock me off of my high horse, huh? And I was feeling SOOOO superior. That’s what I hate about common sense – I can’t even argue with that!
I am gratified by Lost Dog’s example.
Ahem.
Sir, you are incorrect in so many ways it absolutely boggles the mind. Further, you accuse your opponents of being simultaneously (a) know-it-all elitists and (b) not having the same understanding of history that you have, the irony of which I would guess escapes you if it weren’t almost unthinkable to miss such an 800 pound gorilla. Are you arguing against your opponents for being smarter than you, or dumber than you?
I don’t really have time to go through everything, but let me just cut to the chase: Actus is precisely correct in his/her constitutional analysis. Congress simply has that power. Your historical argument to the contrary (such as they are—I actually can’t identify a single salient point in your multiple musings on the subject) are simply incorrect. What you think to be true, is not true. I don’t know how plainer to put it.
Bezuhov: That’s funny, and I assume you are joking. Can you rally not think of any irrational aversion stronger than that to rich people? Like, say, I don’t know, America’s curious experience with race?
Jeff G: You commonly accuse me of thinking I’m smarter than people who agree with you. Given these two, I no longer will dispute the charge.
“For him, it is a concept of history that keeps the constitution from changing with the times. If we were to ignore history, we would have the ultimate living constitution.”
Perhaps I took this in the wrong way. I was assuming that you were openly advocating ignorance of history, as opposed to the stealth that you actually employ.
Verc: Got it. No constitutional theories that suggest gravity goes up. Understood. Now, would you mind making an argument?
Good thing I don’t call it that.
I have no idea why he’s foaming at the mouth.
Verc took my ‘concept of history’ line to mean something about living constitutions. I pointed out to him that it is dead originalism that relies on history, rather the opposite.
Looks like I’m not done educating Dr. Vic:
Wrong. That doesn’t follow. Diminishing marginal utility of money applies to a single person’s utility function. Interpersonal utility comparisons are quite another thing, which is why they aren’t done in economics. No one knows how the marginal utility of Bill Gates’ billionth dollar compares to that of my millionth, although DMUM would suggest that the marginal utility of Gates’ billionth is less than that of his millionth, and that of my millionth is less than that of my first.
That’s generally covered in the first 10 minutes of the first lecture of the first economics class. You may want to return to whatever gumball machine spit out your diploma and ask for your quarter back.
Roger that.* Above I was making an allusion to some form of instruction one might call an allegory**, or perhaps a metaphor, and tack on like or as and you have a simile.
Argument: The Constitution supercedes legislation unless the Constitution is amended by the constitutional process.
Got that?
Constitution = Big Chief
Congress = Indians
Courts = Indians
Lawyers = Not applicable, Messr John Smythe
It is fair game to quote, sing-song, write limmricks, pee the Enumerated Power Articles in the snow, because unless it makes the big list, its fungible, one decision, one legislation, one interpretation away from being moot.
Got that? Going against the Constitution is like going against the Mafia: You’ll wake up one day with a horse’s ass resting on your forehead**.
If you’re going to argue from ‘authority’, we can go back to first principles. If 200+ years of jurisprudence argue against the text, the next 200+ years will certainly sort that out.
Fin.
*Sorry, I’ll remember to read my “debate for ESL-impaired” guidebook.
**Do everything you to see Jesus Christ, as soon as possible, if you are still lost on that term.
**ie, you will be a horse’s ass…dat der iz subtlety!
And it isn’t a bad point*.
*[scourging out eyes, charring out tongue, feeding fingertips to my 2-week-starved pitbull, Happy]
Verc, it is due to your sort of clarity that we must have Bar Exams and laws against the unauthorized practice of law.
Thank you.
Hey, Jack Roy –
Thanks for the spanking.
Of course Congress has the power to do just about anything it wants to. That does not change the fact that the Constitution was written as a foundation for freedom, and the left has been intent on destroying many of those freedoms since who-knows-when.
Let’s see. Free speech – unless you hurt somebody’s feelings. Look at our Universities with their speech codes. How wonderful to spend all those years walking on eggshells so that you don’t accidentally hurt someones feelings. We all know that it is a God given right to never have your feelings hurt, don’t we? And do I qualify for this protection, being that I am a Christian, “white motherfucker”?
How about campaign reform? Now there’s a pretty good deal for free speech. For two months before an election, EVERYBODY has to shut up about it, except for the candidates, the media, and the uber-rich. Yup. It certainly leveled the playing field, didn’t it? I mean, now ONE man can sink close to 50 million dollars into a campaign, but I am not allowed to get together with my friends and buy a political ad in ANY media. I’m just so SURE that this is what the Founders meant by “free speech”. Un-fucking-beleiveable…
I am obviously an Originalist, and find absolutely no shame in being one. The Constitution is a distillation of millenia of human experience, and as far as I am concerned, there is no true understanding of it without an awareness of world history (and especially American History), and some comprehension of the lives of the “founders” and what they intended when they wrote the Constitution.
As far as I can tell, the Constitution was meant to be an anchor, not a kite to be be whipped around by the winds of politics. Unfortunately, our contemporary Solons seem to be more interested in buying votes than preserving an atmosphere of freedom and personal responsibility – or the Constitution itself. Too many in our political class see the Constitution as an obstacle rather than a precious gift.
As to “salient points”, I am not surprised that you can’t identify any. You are way too smart for me. I still have trouble seeing pnumbras and emanations when I actually read the document. Do you actually assume that our Constitution was written so that only lawyers could understand it?
I don’t. I have this crazy notion that it was written in plain English, but plain English that must be interpereted through a knowledge of the men that wrote it. Perhaps the Federalist papers would clear up a lot of misconceptions.
As a Connecticut Yankee who grew up in a town dripping with Colonial history, I see common sense as the basis for the Constitution, not a jump-through-hoops approach to find what you want to find. It says what it says very clearly if you are aware of our “Founders” lives and philosophies.
If you prefer equal misery to equal opportunity, then that is your choice. The Constitution laid out a path to equal opportunity, but our Congress in the past 50 years has done it’s best to short circuit any such notion. First they destroyed the notion of family, and are now bent on destroying our public education system – and apparently doing a bang up job of it.
In a few years, the notion of personal responsibility will have gone the way of the steam locomotive, thanks to our esteemed lawmakers, and people such as actus who live trapped in a world of that extends not much farther than the end of their noses. Of course actus’ world view would be utopian if it weren’t for the reality of human nature. Human nature is what the left obsessively denies in order to come to the conclusions that they do.
Well, Jack Roy. If your memories don’t extend much beyond 1970, you are living in a parody of America. If they do extend to pre-1970, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Verc, what on earth are you saying? You have failed to state an argument. It would be amusing if it weren’t frustrating. Your charming inside jokes about the mafia and horse’s asses notwithstanding, you have failed to take a position and defend it with any clarity. I wouldn’t have thought it would be too much to ask simply to expect you to be able to argue, for example, that the Constitution has no content outside its bare text, but you have failed to do even that much. Further, while telling someone he will be a horse’s ass if he goes against the mafia has a certain sophomoric charm, it is utterly senseless to suggest as much by saying he’ll have a horse’s ass on his forehead. Why would a horse’s ass have a horse’s ass resting upon its forehead? Quite confounding, and of course it misstates the most famous scene of the Godfather. The Big Chief explanation obscures more than it reveals (why are there two sets of Indians? it makes no sense). While I know what allegory means, I cannot make heads or tails of “Do everything you to see Jesus Christ.” Finally, your argument that the Constitution supersedes legislation is non-novel, obvious, unhelpful, misstated , and redundant.
(Jeff G., again, I’m going to remember this fellow the next time someone accuses me or Actus of snobbery. He may be the dumbest person I’ve ever encountered.)
Hey again, Jack Roy –
Your hubris really has nothing to do with Verc’s intellect. It has to do with your own…
God…
I’ve been to obedience skool…
Beyond parody…(+ God…)
Or maybe one set of Indians with elements, two of which are the Courts and Congress critters…
Good God…
TW: Testament, as in what the fuck does a civilization have to do to bring back the good old days of plagues and rains of frogs and dead first born, instead of the plague of morons?
Lost Dog, make an argument. Don’t speak in metaphors. The observation that the Constitution is not a kite is unhelpful, to put it lightly. If you’re going to say something is a parody of America, it would be helpful if you could spell out your ramblings enough that the argument is even decipherable. Liberals hate freedom and opportunity and responsibility and human nature? Similarly, this isn’t an argument.
This is news to me. Where does the Constitution talk about equal opportunity? The Constitution grants and constrains the powers of the government; it has very little to say about how individuals ought to live their lives except by implication.
This may be true, but the Constitution is also a legally operative document, and when discussing the legal meaning of the Constitution it’s simply irrelevant to say compare it to the Ark of the Covenant or to hold it up for reverence. What is its legal meaning? That’s the essential question, not whether the Framers were wise or just.
You don’t like campaign finance laws? Great. Do you think they’re unconstitutional, is the question you need to think about. Do you really think an unelected judge should overturn the judgment of the political branches? On what basis? Because the Framers hadn’t thought of campaign finance laws?! They hadn’t thought of aerospace, either, but that doesn’t make NASA unconstitutional. You have not thought through your arguments; they are insufficient.
Finally, what is it with everyone here that they think they have to complain when a lawyer pointedly disagrees with them on a legal question? The Constitution, you are correct, was intended to be be read by ordinary citizens, not lawyers. However it seems to be the case that many ordinary citizens are in fact incapable of understanding it, even the easy portions. I would love it if you or Verc could discuss the Constitution at a level above “Boo abortion and campaign finance laws.” But you can’t, to my lessening surprise.
That’s not what the SCOTUS said. They said that the government has free rein to raise a standing Army, and that the schools can shut up and like it.
What law are you referring to, Counselor Actuse?
Lost Dog, don’t be dense. Yes, I think I’m smarter than Verc. It doesn’t take a moment’s reflection to see that nothing actually follows from that. Are my arguments insufficient because I think I’m smarter than Verc? Are my conclusions suspect because I think I’m smarter than Verc? Is no one allowed to be smarter than anyone else, lest those left behind suffer hurt feelings? This sort of egalitarianism-of-idiocy is a curious thing for me.
The truth is, Verc is terribly stupid. Look at his posts, and try to suss out any sensible thought. You can’t do it, because there’s nothing there. Is it hubris to think I’m smarter than the author of “I’ve been to obedience skool…”? Then it’s hubris to be able to tie one’s own shoes.
The solomon amendment.
Hey again, Jack Roy –
I am getting a clearer picture of where you are coming from. How dare a mortal human question a lawyer? How could I possibly read or discuss the Constitution if I haven’t been to law school?
I can only rephrase –
Your hubris has nothing to do with anyone else’s intellect. It has to do with your own. If only I could live in the rarified atmosphere of being a LAWYER!
I bet you don’t fart, either. You are quite amusing, I must say.
Er, the Sixteenth Amendment doesn’t “override” the EPC. It grants Congress the power to tax income, but that power, like any other, is circumscribed by individual constitutional rights. If you think it isn’t, try passing a law that taxes income on the basis of the taxpayer’s race and see where it gets you.
…and completely bulletproof…
Allah, I’d actually thought about including that caveat but decided against it out of a principle of parsimony, as they say, and just indicate that with my “relatively narrow scope” proviso. You are of course correct, but it’s important to keep in mind the limits of that sort of reasoning. Equal Protection would forbid taxation based on race, but EP is centrally about race. Amdt. 16, however, is centrally about taxation. There’s a canon of interpretation that a specific rule will control over a contrary general rule, and it’s easy to see that at play here.
Lost Dog, there’s no rule that says you can’t understand the Constitution without going to law school. I’m completely at a loss why it is that you can’t.
Verc is a moron. I’m not going to avoid that observation out of some misguided concern for his feelings. If you think I ought to, well, you’re entitled to that opinion. But I’m also entitled to my contrary opinion. Call that hubris if you want. But the fact remains that you are mistaken, and whining about my hubris only means you’re a mistaken whiner. Christ, is it so much to ask you people just to be men for once, instead of kvetching about the mean liberals?
Ah. Then you’re examining minnows while ignoring the sea. The Constitution supercedes the Solomon Amendment. So, the law says that the government can withhold funding from schools that don’t cooperate with recruiters, by virture of the fact that the government has the authority to raise and maintain a standing army as it sees fit..
Are you sure you want to be a lawyer? There are thousands of you already, and they’re wasting gobs of our time and buckets of our money inventing new problems and causations, and just generally wasting our time with psuedo-intellectual mastubation at $250+/hour, plus court costs.
Enough, already. Have you ever considered social work? It’s cheaper, and not quite as useless. It would be a plus.
Pablo, inquiry into what the government can do is not the same inquiry into what the government has done. The Constitution grants Congress a power, but Congress still must pass a law before that power is exercised. Actus is correct, actually.
It may be so. But thats not what the law they passed said. It said they have to be treated the same.
No, it said they had to be treated at least the same. They are not on equal footing. The government enjoys a greater authority.
Maybe so. But the law the government passed did not use all of this supposed authority.
So Jack, when were you appointed to the SCOTUS?
They’re gonna be soooo embarrassed when they find out that they got it wrong unanimously in your absence.
tw: How would we get by without you?
There’s no maybe about it. It is so. As for the rest, so what? Do you think they surrender authority if they don’t excercise it? That’s just silly.
You could be a banana farmer, or a whale trainer, or maybe an MLB umpire. We’ve got enough lawyers for now, really.
Pablo:
You are mistaken. You do not understand what you are talking about.
Are you a law-person, Jack Roy?
Can you speak with more than two syl-la-bles, Jack Roy?
Do you like paste, Jack Roy?
Jack Roy, is this a forum on Constitutional issues? Are we preparing a brief for the Supreme Court?
No.
Actus made the assertion that quoting the Constitution is for rubes, beneath all of his year of law school experience. Perhaps he wasn’t using the ‘living’ constitution perspective, but that is certainly wrong.
If you want to banter about your progressive utopia deriving from the 16th Amendment, hey, rock on. I.DON’T.CARE. I never said anything about it here. I said that talking about the Law, it was cool to bring up the Constitution. Period. Fin.
If progressive taxation is legal, it shouldn’t be, because a progressive tax is a dumb idea. It doesn’t help equality, unless equal standing in penury is ‘superior’ to general living standards of the majority of citizens in the republic.
If that is what you want to argue, I know of no other insult than to point out that with every experiment with socialism, in every corner of the world and in our own cities, that it fails, often tragically. And the very foundation of our modern prosperity, and of those pioneers of the future, is success with capitalism and competition.
TW: Hat-Trick. Humorless, snobbish, and a moron who doesn’t learn from experience no matter how many times the end column adds up to a negative number. It is a badge of honor to be called a moron by someone who thinks Taliban Man is Yale material:
has anyone ever made the case that the Talib isn’t actually, you know, smart enough for Yale?
Of course. I don’t think they’ve surrendered it. Just that they didn’t use it. They passed a particular law, even though the could have passed a more onerous one.
Not a moron, but THE reason why we have cartel laws for lawyers. thanks!
Listen, sweet heart, I found a better boy-toy.
Run along and boycott the military for whatever is the flavor this weekend.
Thanks, Jack. But there’s just one problem. You do not understand what you’re talking about.
But thanks for playing!
So, what was the point you were trying to make again?
Scroll waaaaaay up, somewhere about 8:25 last evening. Then scroll back down to the comment box and apologize for wasting our time.
That the particular law they passed mandated that the military have equal acess, not that the military have access period.
And now you understand that the law says they have access, period. Right?
tw: very fine distictions…
Jack Roy does seem to have a rather high opinion of himself, yes? If he think Verc is stupid, then all I can do is cringe.
I may have gone “in-house” but at least the 11 years of practice I do have makes me shudder at the thought of actus trying to tell other why the “cartel” has to keep the great unwashed out of the noble profession.
Bar exams are simply a mechanism to keep the numbers what the “cartel” wants – ie. in Illinois the Powers Tha Be told the law schools here to knock off pumping out so many graduates. The law schools extended two middle fingers and explained how much they liked cashing the tuition checks. THe Powers That Be simply smiled and what do you know, we went from a 5% failure rate on theh bar exam to a 33% failure rate in a New York minute…
Congress MAY say that. But they didn’t.
They used to say that the military got “entry” into campus. Which they changed in ‘05 to say they got “acess … equal in quality and scope” to that of other recruiters.
That’s my point. We can’t have Verc’s sort of clarity clearing up our court systems.
Next thing you know, I might type a post over three words long without a misspelling. Butt do ‘nt Kount onn it!
Ever think that the Bar Exam might be a counterweight to your law school edumakacxion, a proof that you actually learned something?
And the fact that your profession has standards ought to be humbling:
What do you call a law student who hasn’t passed his Bar exam?
Just a college graduate.
Heh.
Not really. You learn bar exam law doing bar exam review.
More likely you’d end up being a paralegal.
heh, need to pass the third grade first…appling for Yale
appling = applying, or something.
Major John, sir, I’ll go half on Hooked On Phonics.
You sure that’s not your major, actuse? Constitutional law seems so irrelevant in your world.