From another board.

[GlockPride]

I say we strip the wealthy of their fortunes and pay off the national debt.

I really hope and trust that this was in jest. If not, we'll start with all yours. People are always okay giving when it comes from someone else's pocket but their own.

You realize that stealing, striping and confiscating all the wealth from the 'wealthy' would not only have zero residual impact on the debt, it wouldn't even run the government's expenditures but a mere 90ish days give or take a few. Then what? These 'rich' people that produce have no capital left to produce or take risks with and 0 incentive to do such so that it may be stolen.

The sooner your realize you have NO RIGHT to my money or talents the better off you'll be. But I will render unto Caesar, but the rendering is about done.

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

I really hope and trust that this was in jest. If not, we'll start with all yours. People are always okay giving when it comes from someone else's pocket but their own.

You realize that stealing, striping and confiscating all the wealth from the 'wealthy' would not only have zero residual impact on the debt, it wouldn't even run the government's expenditures but a mere 90ish days give or take a few. Then what? These 'rich' people that produce have no capital left to produce or take risks with and 0 incentive to do such so that it may be stolen.

The sooner your realize you have NO RIGHT to my money or talents the better off you'll be. But I will render unto Caesar, but the rendering is about done.

Wealthy people are evil and have done nothing to earn their wealth.

 

[GlockPride]

Wealthy people are evil and have done nothing to earn their wealth.

Must resist the troll!! Must resist the troll!!

 

[jmtgsx]

Here's the problem, a federal government violating the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution and uneducated Americans who either don't know what is in that document or Americans subverting that document for their own gain.

Why won't the Congress of the United States hold our president accountable for overstepping the power he has been entrusted with? Isn't it their legal responsibility? Where are the checks and balances?

 

[WTJ]

Why won't the Congress of the United States hold our president accountable for overstepping the power he has been entrusted with? Isn't it their legal responsibility? Where are the checks and balances?

Yer kidding me, right?

 

[TerryMiller]

Why won't the Congress of the United States hold our president accountable for overstepping the power he has been entrusted with? Isn't it their legal responsibility? Where are the checks and balances?

Really? I should remind everyone that it has been the U.S. Senate in the last few years that have refused to even consider a budget, let alone vote on it. We've seen over three years without them taking action. Instead, everyone is out there demanding that we raise the debt limit yet again instead of being responsible. So, with half of Congress refusing to do their job, as required by law, they are well past "kicking the can down the road," but instead are sending it down the barrel of a field gun.

Sadly, when the law was written (surprise....by Congress), it was set up so that the part of the Congress that would be responsible for punishing the wrongdoer in failing to pass a budget would be the one that hasn't done so. In other words, the House of Representative cannot legally do anything to punish anyone in the Senate for failing to act, and the Senate cannot punish anyone in the House.

Meanwhile, the EPA has passed regulations to deem airborne dust as a pollutant, thus seriously putting an anvil over the heads of all our farmers. Oh, they've also enacted controls on the water that farmers use for crops and will force them to clean up fuel spills. Good luck on getting bread. Who is going to want to farm if they face stiff penalties for raising dust as they farm?

 

[inactive]

Meanwhile, the EPA has passed regulations to deem airborne dust as a pollutant, thus seriously putting an anvil over the heads of all our farmers. Oh, they've also enacted controls on the water that farmers use for crops and will force them to clean up fuel spills. Good luck on getting bread. Who is going to want to farm if they face stiff penalties for raising dust as they farm?

They'll still farm, but we'll just have to pass a bigger farm bill to pay them to. That's the ultimate irony - putting goofy regulations on them that increase the cost of business so high we then have to subsidize them with tax dollars so they stay in production.

 

[freeranger]

Why won't the Congress of the United States hold our president accountable for overstepping the power he has been entrusted with? Isn't it their legal responsibility? Where are the checks and balances?

You do realize the there is one hen house and three foxes? The theory of checks & balances is a myth. Since the inception of the federal government, it has been doing everything possible to grow it's power. Case in point is the belief that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of issues. The only rightful jurisdiction that the Supreme Court has are with those issues that are enumerated in the Constitution. Article VI, second paragraph states, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;... shall be the supreme Law of the Land". The Supremecy Clause only pertains to laws made in pursuance of those powers enumerated within the Constitution. Taxes collected can only be collected when done in pursuance of those enumerated powers as well. The key to limiting the power and scope of the federal government are those simple words, "in pursuance thereof". This was understood for over a 150 years before the SC began to find nuances of power in the Constitution that benefited the growth of the federal government. These concepts to limit the federal government through the Tenth Amendment have historical documentation and debate that provides context and understanding of the Constitution.

 

[Lurker66]

You do realize the there is one hen house and three foxes? The theory of checks & balances is a myth. Since the inception of the federal government, it has been doing everything possible to grow it's power. Case in point is the belief that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of issues. The only rightful jurisdiction that the Supreme Court has are with those issues that are enumerated in the Constitution. Article VI, second paragraph states, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;... shall be the supreme Law of the Land". The Supremecy Clause only pertains to laws made in pursuance of those powers enumerated within the Constitution. Taxes collected can only be collected when done in pursuance of those enumerated powers as well. The key to limiting the power and scope of the federal government are those simple words, "in pursuance thereof". This was understood for over a 150 years before the SC began to find nuances of power in the Constitution that benefited the growth of the federal government. These concepts to limit the federal government through the Tenth Amendment have historical documentation and debate that provides context and understanding of the Constitution.

just wondering if your a Constitutional Scholar with emphasis on the 10 Ammendment?