Rick Perry and his interview of death

[fskimospy]

So tell me this...

Which parts of it do we get to ignore and which parts do we have to listen too?

No one would dare to challenge the 1st amendment, but the 2nd? Well it doesn't really mean what people think it means...

How about the 10th? Probably the most overlooked amendment and most ignored.

Seems pretty simple. If the constitution doesn't give the power to the government to do something then it can't do it! The state though can do what ever they please, as long as they are barred via the constitution.

A state wants to pass Romneycare then fine, but the Federal government... nope, doesn't have the power.

What do you mean by 'ignore' and 'listen to'? It says Congress can 'regulate interstate commerce'. What does that mean? What qualifies as commerce? What qualifies as interstate? What qualifies as regulation? They have all the 'necessary and proper' powers to do so. What's necessary? What's proper?

Have you ever spent ten minutes to read the Constitution? It is insanely vague, and on purpose. The idea that you could just read it like a reference book and come up with a yes or no answer to every problem is blind, willfully ignorant stupidity.

 

[HomerJS]

What do you mean by 'ignore' and 'listen to'? It says Congress can 'regulate interstate commerce'. What does that mean? What qualifies as commerce? What qualifies as interstate? What qualifies as regulation? They have all the 'necessary and proper' powers to do so. What's necessary? What's proper?

Have you ever spent ten minutes to read the Constitution? It is insanely vague, and on purpose. The idea that you could just read it like a reference book and come up with a yes or no answer to every problem is blind, willfully ignorant stupidity.

I doubt Rick has either

 

[ProfJohn]

1. SS and Medicare are highly sucessful and popular programs. He is the first one I've heard suggest they are unconstitutional

Bernie Madoff was very successful too.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/19/medicare-ticking-bomb-opinions-contributors-goodman.html
Social Security Liability: $19 trillion <- T for trillion
Medicare Liability: $89 trillion <- T for trillion

They are only successful as long as more people are paying in than taking out. These programs no longer fund themselves and general tax dollars have to be used to keep them afloat. That means we will need to raise taxes on everyone to pay for these two programs. By 2030 as much as 1 out of every 2 dollars going to the government will be used for these two programs. By 2050 SS, Medicare and Medicaid alone will take every dollar sent to the government. There will be NO money for anything else. Nothing! No education, no roads, no defense, no EPA, no FDA etc etc.

We are on a path to destruction and if we don't fix some of these long term problems we are screwed.

 

[Ausm]

Bernie Madoff was very successful too.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/19/medicare-ticking-bomb-opinions-contributors-goodman.html
Social Security Liability: $19 trillion <- T for trillion
Medicare Liability: $89 trillion <- T for trillion

They are only successful as long as more people are paying in than taking out. These programs no longer fund themselves and general tax dollars have to be used to keep them afloat. That means we will need to raise taxes on everyone to pay for these two programs. By 2030 as much as 1 out of every 2 dollars going to the government will be used for these two programs. By 2050 SS, Medicare and Medicaid alone will take every dollar sent to the government. There will be NO money for anything else. Nothing! No education, no roads, no defense, no EPA, no FDA etc etc.

We are on a path to destruction and if we don't fix some of these long term problems we are screwed.

The other reason why the bastard got away with it is because the cops on Wall Street were useless.

 

[ProfJohn]

What do you mean by 'ignore' and 'listen to'? It says Congress can 'regulate interstate commerce'. What does that mean? What qualifies as commerce? What qualifies as interstate? What qualifies as regulation? They have all the 'necessary and proper' powers to do so. What's necessary? What's proper?

Have you ever spent ten minutes to read the Constitution? It is insanely vague, and on purpose. The idea that you could just read it like a reference book and come up with a yes or no answer to every problem is blind, willfully ignorant stupidity.

I know that Social Security and Medicare are NOT interstate commerce.

I know that the original intent was to have a small central government and leave the rest up to the state or local governments.

BTW did you click the link and read the article?
He isn't against the concepts of SS or Medicare. He just believes that the states would do a better job of running the programs than the feds.

California has all kinds of awesome public benefits, but you have to pay for them via taxes. If want to live that life style then that is your right. But if you don't want to live that way then you can move to a cheaper state.

That is HIS point. Let the state decide what to offer or not offer and then let the people decide where they want to live and what the want to pay for.

 

[HomerJS]

Bernie Madoff was very successful too.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/19/medicare-ticking-bomb-opinions-contributors-goodman.html
Social Security Liability: $19 trillion <- T for trillion
Medicare Liability: $89 trillion <- T for trillion

They are only successful as long as more people are paying in than taking out. These programs no longer fund themselves and general tax dollars have to be used to keep them afloat. That means we will need to raise taxes on everyone to pay for these two programs. By 2030 as much as 1 out of every 2 dollars going to the government will be used for these two programs. By 2050 SS, Medicare and Medicaid alone will take every dollar sent to the government. There will be NO money for anything else. Nothing! No education, no roads, no defense, no EPA, no FDA etc etc.

We are on a path to destruction and if we don't fix some of these long term problems we are screwed.

A little slight of hand done in this article. First he lumps SS and Medicare together and states they payout more them they take in. SS does not currently add to the debt. Here is a more accurate picture of the state of SS and explains the ""SS negative cash flow" claim
http://blogs.reuters.com/reuters-mo...rity-reform-arguments-when-will-media-get-it/

 

[Texashiker]

who takes this guy seriously?

Big business takes him very serious.

Need a law passed? No problem, just show him the money.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I do not like Perry at all, but many people myself included interpret the constitution to mean that Congress can tax and use the money to promote the general welfare but the ways in which they do so are limited by the enumerated powers. If Congress can do anything it wants to promote the general welfare, why did they bother listing 17 specific powers? The Constitution could have been a lot shorter.

I don’t think our founding fathers when they were putting the term “general welfare” in there were thinking about a federally operated program of pensions nor a federally operated program of health care.

So you think the founding fathers did mean SS and federally funded health care? If so then that is even more stupid.

The dems are also way into a very loose interpretation of the commerce clause as well. Bothe of these, as they are interpreted today, are way off base from what the founders intended as evidenced by the early years of the country - after the constitutiohn was ratified.

Having a huge number of elderly people without health care coverage would put a drain on our economy as well...

People often call Medicare and SS ponzi schemes, but that's a bunch of nonsense. The actual problem with both programs is that people are living longer and that healthcare is getting more expensive. The former could be dealt with by raising the SS retirement age and the latter by imposing some kinds of caps on what Medicare pays for. We need somebody to grow a pair of balls and say no, we will NOT pay for ICU care for 90-year old dementia patients with metastatic cancer.

The government has gotten great mileage out of promiting the notion that retirement is a right. It's not. We're being killed by a generation that retired at 65 (or even 55 if you're in certain unions) and live into their 80s. Public pension funds, Medicare, and SS are crushing us financially. I agree with your statement about raising the retirement age, btw. But I can't stand the dem response to any attempt to reform SS or medicare.

Yeah, we probably will need to bite the bullet and raise taxes, but it won't be enough to offset the insane spending that's going on right now. We need to find ways to get corporations off their collective butts to where they feel comfortable hiring again. We need private sector jobs to bring in revenue. If we don't find a way to create private sector jobs, we're screwed like a $5 whore during shore leave. I have no idea which candidate can manage that. I only know that Obama won't cut it because he thinks that the .gov is the answer to everything.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
No plausible interpretation of the words “general welfare” does not include programs that ensure that all Americans can live their entire lives secure in the understanding that retirement will not force them into poverty and untreated sickness.

See bolded word above - That right there is where I strongly disagree with you.

IMO, the FF would have used the word "allow" or "permit" in that sentence, meaning the USA would not prevent or impede you from achieving that for yourself etc. (I don't think they'd have a problem with a state creating these programs either - states were designed to experiment.)

IMO, if the FF had meant for the phrase "General Welfare" to encompass all it does these days we wouldn't have had to wait until the 20th century to have such programs.

Fern

 

[the DRIZZLE]

What do you mean by 'ignore' and 'listen to'? It says Congress can 'regulate interstate commerce'. What does that mean? What qualifies as commerce? What qualifies as interstate? What qualifies as regulation? They have all the 'necessary and proper' powers to do so. What's necessary? What's proper?

Have you ever spent ten minutes to read the Constitution? It is insanely vague, and on purpose. The idea that you could just read it like a reference book and come up with a yes or no answer to every problem is blind, willfully ignorant stupidity.

The Constitution isn't intended to provide answers, it's intended to place limits on government power.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Have you ever spent ten minutes to read the Constitution? It is insanely vague, and on purpose. The idea that you could just read it like a reference book and come up with a yes or no answer to every problem is blind, willfully ignorant stupidity.

I think the adjective "insanely" is over-the-top.

Yes, it is vague on purpose, but not purposely vague in the sense to allow it to morph into whatever one wants. The more precise you write the law the more opportunities for loopholes and such maneuvers are injected. This is one reason our tax code is a billion pages.

So, you either write the Constitution in a 'spirit of the law' manner, or you make it a billion pages detailing everything out.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

I think the adjective "insanely" is over-the-top.

Yes, it is vague on purpose, but not purposely vague in the sense to allow it to morph into whatever one wants. The more precise you write the law the more opportunities for loopholes and such maneuvers are injected. This is one reason our tax code is a billion pages.

So, you either write the Constitution in a 'spirit of the law' manner, or you make it a billion pages detailing everything out.

Fern

This sort of reasoning only takes you so far. It doesn't solve the interpretive difficulties that are being mentioned. What is the "spirit" of the commerce clause? The clause is vague, plain and simple. And it was written that way for a reason.

The dichotomy you present - very brief and "spirit of law" versus a "billion pages" - is a false one. You could add about 20 lines to the Constitution and clear up a LOT of the things that people have been arguing about since its inception. Not everything down to the last detail mind you, but many of the major philisophical divisions engendered by the ambiguity that currently exists.

 

[Fern]

This sort of reasoning only takes you so far. It doesn't solve the interpretive difficulties that are being mentioned. What is the "spirit" of the commerce clause? The clause is vague, plain and simple. And it was written that way for a reason.

The dichotomy you present - very brief and "spirit of law" versus a "billion pages" - is a false one. You could about 20 lines to the Constitution and clear up a LOT of the things that people have been arguing about since its inception.

I disagree.

As I have seen in over 30 yrs of tax law, the more you add the more you create opportunities to skirt the law.

The further you define something, the easier it is for me to make sure that I don't (exactly) meet that definition and thus am excluded from it.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

The Constitution isn't intended to provide answers, it's intended to place limits on government power.

Uhmm, it's designed to provide answers on the scope and limits of federal responsibilities and authorities. That's the whole point.

The idea that the Constitution is designed to limit federal power has twisted history into an exact 180. The Constitution was designed to vastly INCREASE federal power over what currently existed. Of course it was designed with limits in mind, but to think that its purpose was to limit federal power is not correct.

 

[fskimospy]

I think the adjective "insanely" is over-the-top.

Yes, it is vague on purpose, but not purposely vague in the sense to allow it to morph into whatever one wants. The more precise you write the law the more opportunities for loopholes and such maneuvers are injected. This is one reason our tax code is a billion pages.

So, you either write the Constitution in a 'spirit of the law' manner, or you make it a billion pages detailing everything out.

Fern

Of course it's not so vague as to be able to be morphed into whatever we want, then there would be no purpose to it. No one has made that argument though, it's just an attempt to exaggerate someone's position in order to discredit it.

Not only that, but attempting to read it in a 'spirit of the law' manner leads you to a dead end really quickly. What exactly do you believe the 'spirit of the constitution' and the framers meant in reference to the activities of US orbital spy optics assets in relation to national security and the 4th Amendment? It's an absurd question, and it just showcases how ridiculous the idea of applying two century old standards is to modern life.

 

[woolfe9999]

I disagree.

As I have seen in over 30 yrs of tax law, the more you add the more you create opportunities to skirt the law.

The further you define something, the easier is it for me to make sure that I don't (exactly) meet that definition and thus am excluded from it.

Fern

That is a matter of opinion, but it still doesn't resolve the problem of how to interpret something that is written in a very general fashion. The key issue here is that people who view themselves as "strict constructionists" adhere to the fallacy that everything in the Constitution is clear and unambiguous, when in fact all they are doing is imposing their interpretation on something that is not defined for every circumstance. You're arguing that being too specific provides opportunity for too many loopholes begs the question here - is the Constitution clear and unambiguous, or is it not? You haven't even attempted to answer that question.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

That is a matter of opinion, but it still doesn't resolve the problem of how to interpret something that is written in a very general fashion. The key issue here is that people who view themselves as "strict constructionists" adhere to the fallacy that everything in the Constitution is clear and unambiguous, when in fact all they are doing is imposing their interpretation on something that is not defined for every circumstance. You're arguing that being too specific provides opportunity for too many loopholes begs the question here - is the Constitution clear and unambiguous, or is it not? You haven't even attempted to answer that question.

You are the one who is presenting a false dichotomy. There is some ambiguity in the Constitution and some of that was probably intentional. However, it's not nearly as vague as what your implying. For example, interstate commerce is somewhat vague, but not infinitely so. You could argue along similar lines about the second amendment. The right is not well defined but it's clear that there is some sort of right to possess firearms.

Other constitutional disagreements like people claiming that the necessary and proper clause allows the government to do whatever it wants are just failures of reading comprehension.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Uhmm, it's designed to provide answers on the scope and limits of federal responsibilities and authorities. That's the whole point.

The idea that the Constitution is designed to limit federal power has twisted history into an exact 180. The Constitution was designed to vastly INCREASE federal power over what currently existed. Of course it was designed with limits in mind, but to think that its purpose was to limit federal power is not correct.

I will rephrase. I meant that it's not intended to provided answers to whether specific policies are "good" or "bad". Whether the Constitution was intended to the grant the government powers or limit them is really just a semantic argument, we could just say that it defines the powers of the Federal government.

It very generally describes the goals of government, and fairly specifically defines the means by which it can accomplish this goals and reserves all other means to the states or the people. You could think of it as providing a boundary on government. If you don't like those boundaries, you are free to use to amendment process.

 

[fskimospy]

I will rephrase. I meant that it's not intended to provided answers to whether specific policies are "good" or "bad". Whether the Constitution was intended to the grant the government powers or limit them is really just a semantic argument, we could just say that it defines the powers of the Federal government.

It very generally describes the goals of government, and fairly specifically defines the means by which it can accomplish this goals and reserves all other means to the states or the people. You could think of it as providing a boundary on government. If you don't like those boundaries, you are free to use to amendment process.

I guess it's just semantics, but I'm not aware of too many people who believe the Constitution to be 'fairly specific'... which is sort of the whole point.

 

[Fern]

Of course it's not so vague as to be able to be morphed into whatever we want, then there would be no purpose to it. No one has made that argument though, it's just an attempt to exaggerate someone's position in order to discredit it.

Well, we won't agree here.

E.g., IMO the Interstate Commerce Clause spring into existence as a result of states enacting tariffs etc which had the effect of impeding interstate commerce. I.e., the ICC's purpose is to protect or allow for interstate commerce

We've seen that morph into view that the ICC can prevent a private person from growing crops for personal consumption of his own private property.

Not only that, but attempting to read it in a 'spirit of the law' manner leads you to a dead end really quickly.

To the contrary, since the Constitution doesn't provide extreme detail 'spirit of the law' is what we're left with.

What exactly do you believe the 'spirit of the constitution' and the framers meant in reference to the activities of US orbital spy optics assets in relation to national security and the 4th Amendment? It's an absurd question, and it just showcases how ridiculous the idea of applying two century old standards is to modern life.

I don't see a big problem, personally, in trying to figure this out. Was it OK to spy in a person's home with one of those 18th century spyglasses? I don't think so. WTH is the difference when it's a much more powerful 'spyglass' mounted on a satelitte? None, in my opinion.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

I don't see a big problem, personally, in trying to figure this out. Was it OK to spy in a person's home with one of those 18th century spyglasses? I don't think so. WTH is the difference when it's a much more powerful 'spyglass' mounted on a satelitte? None, in my opinion.

Fern

The answer to that is yes, by the way. Therefore you think it is no violation by the US government to casually use thermal imaging to watch you and your wife having sex? Since hearing what someone said through their window was likely ok then, it's ok for them to use parabolic microphones to get the sound effects as well?

If you don't see problems with applying 18th century minds to problems involving 21st century lifestyle, you have not thought this through.

 

[Fern]

That is a matter of opinion, but it still doesn't resolve the problem of how to interpret something that is written in a very general fashion. The key issue here is that people who view themselves as "strict constructionists" adhere to the fallacy that everything in the Constitution is clear and unambiguous, when in fact all they are doing is imposing their interpretation on something that is not defined for every circumstance. You're arguing that being too specific provides opportunity for too many loopholes begs the question here - is the Constitution clear and unambiguous, or is it not? You haven't even attempted to answer that question.

Well, it's a different question, isn't it?

We started out with 'vague' vs detailed.

I think the areas the Constitution addresses are fairly clear.

The major problem IMO is the apparent belief that the Constitution DOES address everything if you look hard enough. E.g., it doesn't address abortion; that should have been left up to the states. Instead, we had to use the 14th, enacted in abolishing slavery, to find an unmentioned 'right to privacy', then extend that over to abortion. IMO, that's some MF'ing serious morphing.

Fern

 

[Fern]

The answer to that is yes, by the way. Therefore you think it is no violation by the US government to casually use thermal imaging to watch you and your wife having sex? Since hearing what someone said through their window was likely ok then, it's ok for them to use parabolic microphones to get the sound effects as well?

If you don't see problems with applying 18th century minds to problems involving 21st century lifestyle, you have not thought this through.

If there's a problem, it lies with the 1st decision saying govt spying on people isn't limited by the 4th.

Fern

 

[her209]

How about the 10th? Probably the most overlooked amendment and most ignored.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Seems pretty simple. If the constitution doesn't give the power to the government to do something then it can't do it! The state though can do what ever they please, as long as they are barred via the constitution.

In your opinion, if the Constitution doesn't expressly deny a power to the states, the states can do whatever they please? I'll give an an example, immigration. Since the Constitution doesn't prohibit states from enacting their own immigration laws, states can enact immigration laws so long as it doesn't interfere with federal ones. Therefore, a state can pass laws that require additional requirements to becoming a citizen?

 

[woolfe9999]

Well, it's a different question, isn't it?

We started out with 'vague' vs detailed.

I think the areas the Constitution addresses are fairly clear.

The major problem IMO is the apparent belief that the Constitution DOES address everything if you look hard enough. E.g., it doesn't address abortion; that should have been left up to the states. Instead, we had to use the 14th, enacted in abolishing slavery, to find an unmentioned 'right to privacy', then extend that over to abortion. IMO, that's some MF'ing serious morphing.

Fern

You think the commerce clause is self-defining in terms of its scope? I specifically mention that because the interpretation of it is the core of the disagreement between small government ideologues and progressive ideologues. I could mention numerous other issues that the Constitution does address, and we can get really Socratic in having you defend a particular interpretation as being absolutely the correct one, but this one will suffice for now.