Aztlan

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry pal, but the way the US government is set up, calling laws created by congress constitutional or not is what the Supream court is set up to do. It is it's job.

Can you point to anything in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court that right? Let me save you some time, and say NO, there is not. Marshall gave the SC that right in 1803 and no one decided to challenge that.

And YES, according to the 10th amendment, that is EXACTLY what the constitution, and mainly the bill of rights, was designed to do, keep the feds from becoming what they have.

Well obviously it hasn't succeeded. Either meaning that everyone on the Supreme Court from 1800 on was wrong, or contrary, that you are wrong. I'm sorry, but I'll trust 200 years of Supreme Court justices.

Almost everything in the Federal budget is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Read the 10th amendment and see for yourself.

I know the 10th Amendment (I'm in law school). Can you point to ANYTHING in the budget that violates it? Just one thing is all I ask. Btw, in framing your answer please check out Article 1, Section 8 (because that will invalidate 90% of what is in your mind right now).

[Ramo]

My mistake, I remembered the exact wording of the 9th wrongly.

Anyways:

From dictionary.com:

e·nu·mer·ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-nm-rt, -ny-)
tr.v. e·nu·mer·at·ed, e·nu·mer·at·ing, e·nu·mer·ates
1. To count off or name one by one; list: A spokesperson enumerated the strikers' demands.
2. To determine the number of; count.

As you can see, my interpretation uses the primary defintion of "enumerate."

From FindLaw:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/

''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments. . . .

Again, Tom you show impressive ignorance of Constitutional history. This is really basic, here. I'm sorry, but calling someone an "idiot" and running off isn't a valid counterargument, rather it reveals your own idiocy.

Funny, I know several Mexicans that wear Aztlan t-shirts.

Out of how many? I've lived in Santa Barbara and Austin for most of my life and I've never seen anything like that.

This concept is called "self determination", I believe that you already expressed disgust at the concept earlier in the thread, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong.

I expressed dusgust at the idea that citizens should be able to do whatever the hell they please to noncitizens. It's common decency, you might be familiar with the concept.

[TomCB]

Spelling?
That is why I said in the US.
1) I have no problem with opportunities, the problem I have is when they try to expand their country in some part here.
Past groups have assimilated, current ones tend not to.
Since you are not here, you don't know what I mean.
2) I never said anything remotely like "sub human". As far as rights outside the writings of the US government are concerned, sure, just not within the US borders.
The only rights we have here are the ones written down for here by us.
3) Multiculturalism is a way for inferior, and by that I mean less able to allow progress, cultures to dilute stronger ones. If their cultures are so wonderful, why not stay where they came from.
Culture and progress are joined to each other.
I don't buy the "paranoid and the delusional" attack at all. I don't want my country to end up like so many others around the world, what's wrong, don't you respect MY opinion?
4) My country is "best" because we have the most of what we value. Economic strength, security, and although we are giving up WAY too much, freedom.
Americans tend to look at thing differently than other nations, and I know that difference makes us stronger.
5) I disagree with respecting beliefs such as the anarchist's. Respect is earned, not bestowed.
May he have them? Sure, have at it.
Just like I do not respect the opinions of quite a few groups in this country, the religious right for one, they still have the right (here anyway) to voice those beliefs.

Lets talk about Europe.
There was a "right winger" in Austria was it?
He became the leader and the rest of Europe just freaked.
Did they respect his opinion, Hell NO, they threatened not to let Austria join the EU if he was in charge.

Pardon me about the exact details, it was some time ago and since I don't read German very well, information is hard to come by.
If you have any links about exact facts, please feel free to post them.

I wonder if the current crop of European leftist would have such an accommodating attitude if a Nazi Germany like state started up again

PS" No spell check, so don't bother complaining about my lousy typing.

[MyraeJ]

Originally posted by cinch


As for making more valid points:

1. Immigrants are NOT out to get you. They come seeking opportunity, not conquest.

I can think of at least 18 who wanted to do harm.

2. People who come from other countries are not sub-human. They have rights, too. And yes, 'rights' do exist outside of the writings of the American government.

Does this include the right of self-determination? You seem to forget this one. How about private property? Do you believe in that one?

3. Multiculturalism is beautiful way to live and learn. Ethnocentrism is a relic from imperialist times, kept alive only by the paranoid and the delusional.

You obviously have not looked into this in any depth. Cultures form for a number of reasons, but mostly necessity, read SURVIVAL. This is the true damage that colonialism caused the third world, it pulled the foundation out from under the third world cultures which had sustained their people for ages.

4. Just because your nation has the most money and the biggest guns, does not mean that you have the "best culture". Every culture can be the "best" in its own way. There is no set measure for culture.

There are any number of metrics one can measure a cultures success, freedom, wealth, health, happiness. You are just refusing to make a judgement.

5. I respect your right to your opinion, but I don't respect the fact that you dismiss others because of their beliefs. An anarchist's views should be treated with as much respect as those of, say, your President. That's equality.

I'll judge the posts on their merit. I'm giving you a D for lack of original thought. I don't believe Anarchism can possibly work, so I guess I'm already prejudiced against Ramos arguements, but I'm willing to listin.

Peace.

Not at the price of freedom.

[MyraeJ]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well obviously it hasn't succeeded. Either meaning that everyone on the Supreme Court from 1800 on was wrong, or contrary, that you are wrong. I'm sorry, but I'll trust 200 years of Supreme Court justices.
[

I was listening to a law professor on the radio and the host asked him about the tenth amendment. The profs reply was something to the effect that the Supreme Court hadn't ruled on it so it was irrelevent. This is the only explaination that I can think of to justify legislation that clearly doesn't stand the test of the tenth.

[cinch]

I can think of at least 18 who wanted to do harm.

18 out of many millions. I can name 18 American citizens who want to do harm, too.

There are any number of metrics one can measure a cultures success, freedom, wealth, health, happiness. You are just refusing to make a judgement.

Okay, I'll try out your categories...

America has wealth, yes. The people are mostly happy, and mostly free (though that is changing...)... but many cannot afford health care. America can be an instigator (Iraq). It worships oil, and lets pollution slide. A lot of countries, including my own, are very much like America in these respects.

Many mixed-socialist countries have less wealth and power than America, but the people are happy, free, and all have access to health care.

Neither system is better; they both have their pros and cons.

Peace.

Not at the price of freedom.

When did I ever say anything about taking away freedom?

[TomCB]

GADS, a would be lawyer.

Look up "Marbury v. Madison (1803)" If that is not the one you are refering to. Also look up Article III, section 2.
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,......."
It says "ALL LAW", and since congress makes ALL LAWS, that should be fairly simple to connect.
That is where the Supreme court gets the obligation to call laws unconstitutional.
That was the check on the legislature built into the system when it was formed.
The check on the courts is that congress and the states can create an amendment that the supreme court MUST obey.
It was a beautiful system when it was designed.

As far as the 10th amendment goes, I had read that there has NEVER been a case brought to the Supreme Court that challenged governments powers using it.
I just did a quick search and found not ONE case brought to the court.
So, if there is any "case law" please feel free to forward it.
In the meantime, the amendment is pretty clear.

Only ONE thing. Hmmm Lets see, a national retirement plan is not mentioned in the constitution, nor is any of the whole alphabet of agencies. That should cover almost everything short of Defense, Interior and State.
Lets refresh, shall we.
"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."

It does not say reserved to Congress, it says the states or the people.
The constitution also has the means of being expanded. This has been done 17 times so far.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but the 16th amendment covers that point also.

I am not one of those that thinks the government may not collect taxes, I am one that knows that at least 85% of what is spent is illegally spent.

For instance:
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ........."

Since the IRS decides what constitutes a religion, and tax exempt status is granted on that basis, and the IRS gets it's power from the congress, this amendment is being violated.

You may want to give up mind reading, it is not your calling.

[cinch]

Tom:

Culture and progress are joined to each other.

Are they? I'd argue that the pre-colonialism Native American cultures were beautiful cultures, and they had very little scientific progress. Their "simple" lives may seem inferior to us at first, but that's only if you subscribe to the belief that there is only one way for a culture to thrive. The pro-environment, pro-consensus stance of some native tribes is just as good as the imperial Europeans' gunpowder and big government, in my opinion.

My country is "best" because we have the most of what we value. Economic strength, security, and although we are giving up WAY too much, freedom.

Economic strength is fleeting, and holding it up as a value is dangerous, in my eyes. But I respect your opinion.

There was a "right winger" in Austria was it?

Jorg Haider. He was/is a neo-fascist. I, for one, am glad the EU was hostile towards him.

[TomCB]

Cinch
I live very close to Canada, they have national health care. I only works if you don't need it.
We read stories about people having to wait weeks for things we can walk in and have done.
I had LASIK surgery done in the US, took about 5 days from appointment to surgery.
My sister in law tried to have it done in Canada, she gave up after 2 months of trying.
We constantly hear about the wealthier of Canada coming to the US for surgery because of the huge back log. We read that Britain is not any better and as a matter of fact, didn't the health minister get canned for not improving things a year or so ago.
Health care is very available here, as a matter of fact, no hospital may refuse anyone for emergency care if they are involved in any government program.

Iraq is the instigator because they are violating the termsThe Us and Britain are th eonly countries with the foresight (and balls) to hold them to it. of their surrender after their defeat in the gulf war, which was caused by their invasion of Kuwait.


We are starting to learn that as soon as people do not pay for what they want, they will want more of it.
Then, since costs are not an issue, since some unseen group is paying for it, no one cares about controlling costs.
The US health care costs started to rocket out of control after the creation of medicare.
Medicare pays the health care for the poor and elderly.
Problem is, they only pay about 60% of the actual costs. The difference is passed on to users of insurance.
Than add on the added costs of doing business with the government, paper work, wait to get paid 30-90 days, reviews etc. and again add more because of the whole insurance company vs trial lawyer thing going on, and it gets pretty high.
National health care would just destroy the system and popular protests already killed the last attempt to put it into place.
The US is one of the cleanest countries in the world.
Perfect, no, but far better than environmentalists want to believe.

[MyraeJ]

Originally posted by cinch


18 out of many millions. I can name 18 American citizens who want to do harm, too.

Can you name 18 who have flown airplanes loaded with civilians into office building filled with workers?

[Imran Siddiqui]

My God Tom, do you have a piss poor understanding of the Constitution.

Look up "Marbury v. Madison (1803)" If that is not the one you are refering to. Also look up Article III, section 2.
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,......."
It says "ALL LAW", and since congress makes ALL LAWS, that should be fairly simple to connect.
That is where the Supreme court gets the obligation to call laws unconstitutional.
That was the check on the legislature built into the system when it was formed.
The check on the courts is that congress and the states can create an amendment that the supreme court MUST obey.
It was a beautiful system when it was designed.

Yes, the judicial power extends to ALL cases arising under Art 3, Sec 2, but where does it say that judicial power means that the judiciary can invalidate laws of Congress? There was nothing in the common law that gave the Courts this power and there is nothing in the Constitution.

The Courts have the power to decide all cases. No where in that is the power to invalidate laws.

As far as the 10th amendment goes, I had read that there has NEVER been a case brought to the Supreme Court that challenged governments powers using it.
I just did a quick search and found not ONE case brought to the court.
So, if there is any "case law" please feel free to forward it.
In the meantime, the amendment is pretty clear.

Which probably means the Supreme Court did not issue cert. to hear a case on the 10th Amendment or a case on it was dismissed.

Look at the language. THEN look at Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States...

Note the bolded part. Social Security plans and the 'alphabet of agencies' are part of the general welfare.

I think I read your mind fairly well.

Since the IRS decides what constitutes a religion, and tax exempt status is granted on that basis, and the IRS gets it's power from the congress, this amendment is being violated.

The Establishment Clause merely means the creation of a national church. However, if you believe that is means that Congress can't make any law on religion (which means that you think 'under God' should be removed from the Pledge), I can easily point to the fact that Congress didn't make the law. The IRS is an executive agency.

Executive Agencies are deemed Constitutional because they help the President carry out his executive job. This is also in the Constitition (Section 2, Clause 2: ...Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers [such as public Ministers of Consuls & Officers of the US], as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments).

[TomCB]

Actually, I think your understanding of the Constitution is severely limited.
You are ignoring the whole intent of checks and balances.
Your interpretation is flawed because that you make no other branch able to check The Congress.
As I have pointed out and you even quoted.
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States,......." That does say all cases, not just those that do not involve the Constitution.
The bulk of the Constitution was written with common English law in mind, but the Founding Fathers knew that no branch should be allowed more real power then any of the others. That is why it says in VERY plain English "...all laws...".
I was debating whether to point out your flaw in the "General welfare" point before you said it, but I decided to wait. The federal government is LIMITED by what it is allowed to do by the 10th amendment and other parts of the Constitution.
The individual states may create those agencies, or an amendment can be passed by the several states, however, under your "logic" the congress can do anything just by passing whatever laws they want to.
They may take away rights not DETAILED in the Constitution, they could do anything, just pass a law. Under your argument, the congress could control everything if they could over ride a veto and NO ONE would have any recourse.
If the Supreme Court can’t invalidate the laws of congress, what laws can it invalidate?
No other group can make laws......
Unless you think the Founding Fathers actually created it to control the states.
Please tell me that is what you think.
The IRS was created by congress (as per 16th amendment) and receives it funding by congress, so, though it is run by the executive, which has the responsibility to enforce the laws of the land, it is still a creature of the Congress.
The First amendment does not say anything about a "national church", although history tells us that was a concern, so I will agree in principle on that point.
The wording though is vague on purpose.
The 1st Amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;……."

By depriving a church of tax exempt status, the IRS is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof;……." And if that is too vague for you, tax-exempt status is clearly “respecting the establishment of a religion” Does not say religion, it says A religion.
Don't believe me; just imagine the squalling we would here if churches had their tax exempt status taken away.
But yes, I think that The Congress "shall make no law....." The rest mean for or against.
The Congress must be religion neutral.

http://www.irs.gov/irs/index.html. This is the link to the IRS web site and it's history. Nothing real big there, except it was ruled unconstitutional in 1894, which was before the amendment was passed in 1913.
That is the same process that must be adhered to for EVERY government agency.
Under your thinking, as long as it is an executive agency, it can do anything, even violate the First amendment.
The US is a country created on Judea/Christian beliefs, I personally have no problem with "under god" being on the money since most Americans claim to believe in God.
I know there are many people that do have issue with it, but I see it as harmless and not worth fighting over.

I do have a problem with the FACT that our currency is not even ours (go ahead, read it) and that the Congress has shirked it's obligation to:
Article 1 Sec 8
"To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;"
This power has been assigned to the Federal Reserve, which is not even a Federal agency.
It's Chairman must be confirmed, but that is all the control The Congress has over the value of money.

You can’t seriously call the fed chairman a “Head of Department”.

Once again, I think you should give up mind reading, and maybe law too, at least Consitutional law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You are ignoring the whole intent of checks and balances.

Yes, you said it. INTENT. Because 'checks and balances' isn't explicitly stated anywhere in the Constitution.

I thought you wanted to focus on the words and not the intent of the document. Because I can assure you, there are plenty of things the framers intended that aren't in the Constitution. After all Alexander Hamilton was the first Secretary of the Treasury, which you state isn't allowable by the Constitution.

Why don't you read what Thomas Jefferson had to say about judicial review. I assure you, it wasn't pleasant.

The federal government is LIMITED by what it is allowed to do by the 10th amendment and other parts of the Constitution.

Yes, and the Constitution provides Congress the right to make laws for the "GENERAL WELFARE" of the US. Social Security, etc are part of the general welfare of the US.

You have problems with reading, I see.

If the Supreme Court can’t invalidate the laws of congress, what laws can it invalidate?

Well because of tradition it CAN invalidate laws of Congress. However, I find those people amusing that say the government engages in unconstitutional laws and then uphold judicial review because they IMPLY that it is in the Constitution.

There was a reason Marshall was so careful with the right.

And btw, in the UK, the courts cannot overrule a law of Parliament, and they seem to work fine. They rule on cases based on Parliamentary laws. That satisfies ALL CASES.

The IRS was created by congress (as per 16th amendment) and receives it funding by congress, so, though it is run by the executive, which has the responsibility to enforce the laws of the land, it is still a creature of the Congress.

Um no. The ability to tax incomes was made legal by the 16th Amendment. I don't see in the text of that amendment the right to create an Internal Revenue Service. Another unconstitutional agency to you?

The IRS is an executive agency, whose head is appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.

Btw, also there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for a creation of a Department of Defense. It was simply some executive agency that Washington created (though it was called Department of War then). Is that unconstitution? After all, Congress has the right to wage war. Shouldn't a Department for Defense be run by Congress then, if it should exist at all?

This power has been assigned to the Federal Reserve, which is not even a Federal agency.
It's Chairman must be confirmed, but that is all the control The Congress has over the value of money.

You can’t seriously call the fed chairman a “Head of Department”.

You seem to be under the delusional belief that Congress cannot transfer its duties to agencies that are created. The Federal Reserve Chairman IS the 'Head of a Department'. There is nothing else he can be.

And that's all the control Congress has over value of money? I'm sorry, I didn't see where Congress gave up its power to raise and lower taxes, which affects the value of money.

By depriving a church of tax exempt status, the IRS is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof;……." And if that is too vague for you, tax-exempt status is clearly “respecting the establishment of a religion” Does not say religion, it says A religion.

Please detail how not allowing, say, a Scientology church tax exempt status prevents its worshipers from freely exercizing their religious beliefs?

Under your thinking, as long as it is an executive agency, it can do anything, even violate the First amendment.

I'm glad you've decided to stick words in my mouth, but I never said that an executive agency can DO ANYTHING. Obviously it cannot pass a Bill of Attainder and Ex Post Facto laws among other things. What I was saying is that to someone who believes that Constitution should be strictly applies (such as yourself), you should note that the First Amendment says 'CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...', which clearly does not refer to executive agencies.

Once again, I think you should give up mind reading, and maybe law too, at least Consitutional law.

I'm sorry, I didn't know I was in the presense of such a distinguished legal mind. Can you detail for me which law school you attended?

I'd seriously love to know, because with your beliefs about what the Constitution means, you'd get laughed out of any Constitutional Law class.

[TomCB]

(heavy sigh)
The checks and balances are clearly written into the Constitution, you just chose to ignore them.
I never said anything about the Secretary of the Treasury. I said the Federal Reserve Chairman. There is a difference.
This is a prime example of your inabilty to read correctly.
Damn public education.

My reading is perfect, yours is selective.
The Congress is limited on what it can do for the "general welfare" by the Constitution.

There is a profound difference between the Judicial and legislative branches.
The legislative branch, in collusion with the executive branch has worked to keep the judicial branch out of the mix. Only cases brought to the courts may be reviewed and decided. That has not been done yet as one needs a tremendeous amount of money to do so.
There is no implications, only words you wish to ignore and other words you wish to give more weight than the rest of the Constitution combined.

And as far as England is concerned, good for them.

The IRS. The duty to create such an agency was already taken care of in article 1 section 8. Nice try though, I had to look that one up. I am surprised you didn't know that already.

As far as the department of defense goes, you already quoted "Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers [such as public Ministers of Consuls & Officers of the US], as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments)."
You may want to look up "Presidential Line of Succession" at http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_succ.html while you are at it.

The difference between the Dept of Defense and the Federal Reserve is that the former is the responsibility of the executive branch as commander and chief, while the latter is the duty of the Congress.
Can they farm out work, sure, but they did not JUST farm it out, they totally removed themselves from it.
They don't even provide for it's budget or administration.
The Federal Reserve is not a government agency, it is owned and operated by the largest banks in the US.
I never said anything about Congress giving up it's rights to raise and (laugh) lower taxes.
This must be another example of your being unable to read.
The value of money is not taxes.
The value of money is stating what amount of real property the money is worth, until 1973, that was measured in gold.
Congress could have said that 1 oz of gold was worth $100 dollars or $500 dollars. Now they can't.
They can't even decide what the interests rates on money are going to be.
The Congress is powerless in regards to money, except that they can increase the debt level and thus raise the rate of inflation by introducing more money into the system.

Churches, like everyone else, needs money, if they have to pay taxes, they can't operate as well, thus the "free excercise thereof"
By the way, that was one of the points the Scientology used, but very quietly. They used it as more of a club.

Laws: However Article 1 section 1 states:
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
So, no, executive agencies, or any other, or the judiciary, may not make laws.
I know, there is that pesky "ALL" word again.

".....you should note that the First Amendment says 'CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...', which clearly does not refer to executive agencies."

Under your argument, an agency can create laws that Congress can not.

WOW.

My back ground? Lets keep that quite for now, since anything can be made up on here, there is no point, at present.

I note the arrogance that thinks that only lawyers can read the Constitution,
Very simular to the early Roman Catholic church that saud only priests should read the bible.

And lawyers wonder why they are thought so lowly of.

You may wish to change schools it yours teaches this "thinking".

[MyraeJ]

Imran, I'm curious as to where you stand on the present size of the federal government. If you have studied the founders, can you believe that this bloated bureaucracy that could regulate away private property rights was the founders intention? Isn't it possible that the government went a little overboard on the whole "promote the general welfare" and the interstate commerce clause? I'm pretty sure that private property was considered one of those inalienable rights along with the others.