and very naive.
You're implying that the government will only use the DNA it collects and stores for current-technology DNA profiles -- restriction enzymes and gels and the like. This is very naive and ignores the fact that technology is always progressing and before long it will be relatively easy to sequence a person's individual genome. Furthermore, the technology does exist now -- if they want it badly enough. It only needs to get cheaper and easier (and it will) before sequencing becomes common.
If we allow the government to start down this path and do not stop it, we will get there.
No, but if there had been any significant tax cuts, it might have...
Of course, the income tax does not exist in a vacuum. We live in a country where if the federal government doesn't get the money it wants from taxes, it can 'borrow' money any time it wants, creating money from nothing and devaluing our currency.
You are blindly running with the "individual income tax" data and ignoring social security and medicare taxes, which are income taxes just as much as the "individual/personal income tax" is. There are very few exceptions for SS/medicare taxes. Whether you make $10k or $200k you're paying about the same: 7% or so, with the employer paying another 14%, so you're essentially paying 14% since your employer could be paying you that 7% instead. If you're self-employed you pay the whole 14% yourself. PLUS the other income taxes.
From the wikipedia link:
Other taxes in the United States with a less progressive structure or a regressive structure, and legal tax avoidance loopholes change the overall tax burden distribution. For example, the payroll tax system (FICA), a 12.4% Social Security tax on wages up to $97,500 and a 2.9% Medicare tax (a 15.3% total tax that is often split between employee and employer) is a regressive tax on income with no standard deduction or personal exemptions. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-fourths of U.S. taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.[12] The Tax Foundation has stated that the burden of the corporate income tax (a 15-39% tax) falls on customers and workers of the corporations, who are often not rich.[13] Before you make the argument that "the poor" are the ones receiving most of the welfare payments, more than enough to cover what they pay -- which is true in many cases -- let me point out that there is no "the poor". There are only individuals who choose to receive or not to receive such payments. There are still a few honest people left in the country.
It's interesting that you think the framers of the Constitution would have been on your side. Tell me, why did the American Revolution of 1776 occur? Hint: it wasn't because the Founders thought they should be taxed more.
You suggest that this tax was passed "into law long ago". Then why does this article exist? This article is about a new tax passed into law by the state of New York, not a tax passed "long ago".
And then you claim that the Constitution doesn't allow the states not to lay such a tax? Please show me where the Constitution requires the states to tax imported goods. Then tell me why the states need a "license" from the Constitution not to implement this or any sort of tax. The Founders did not need to have the internet in order to conceive of inter-state imports and exports -- they had the latter already. If anything, if the Founders had had any idea of the degree of technology which was to develop over 220 years, they would have put much stricter limits on government powers, not enhanced them.
Taxes are used for the benefit of the people? No. Only a tiny fraction of the taxes could be categorized thus, if any.
You claim that I could somehow take the issue before the Supreme Court and "let them decide", but the fact is that the courts, and the Supreme Court especially, do not take a case unless they interpret that the plaintiff is directed affected by. As I do not live in New York and I do not run an inter-state Internet-based company, they would not hear the case.
Wikipedia is sometimes a useful short-cut, but unfortunately it is often inaccurate and misleading, as is the case with the article on Webster's dictionary. As I suggested, Webster spelled words as they were spelled already, although these varied widely.
See, for example, the word 'honor', not 'honour', here.
Also 'colourable' in this document.
'Labour' is used in the Constitution, as are 'chuse' and 'chusing', along with 'defence' and 'controul'. See also
here ('honor') and here ('honour').
'Labor' and 'honor' are used both in the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist Papers, not 'labour' or 'honour'. These also use 'centre'.
In case you hadn't noticed, all these were pre-1806.
That depends on your definition of 'liberal', as this is one of the words which has received the most abuse in the past century. Originally a 'liberal' was someone interested in small government and high individual liberty; hence its similarity to the word 'liberty' itself. However, over the last century the word has been co-opted by socialists and the true (classical) liberals have, quite often, allowed this. Now most people who use the term 'liberal' don't even know the original meaning, assuming it's always meant 'socialist'. Over the past 60 years then, 'conservatives' have been far closer to (classical) liberalism than the supposedly 'liberal' Democrats, who have twisted the word to their own uses.
If we're using the modern sense of the word 'liberal' as socialist or collectivist, then, the current administration is 'liberal'. It is exactly the modern 'liberals' who advocate more government power, and Bush is certainly in line with them on that. There are disagreements as to just how that power should be used, sure, but the main point is that they agree in taking the power from individuals and wielding it in the form of the government.
I've come to dislike this usage of the term 'liberal', prefering the older meaning, but to be consistent, if you apply it to the modern Democrat, then you've got to also apply it to the 'neocons' Bush, McCain, et al., no less.
I wonder if it is even worthwhile trying to reason with you. Do you believe in reality? You don't seem to. (To quote you, "where are you living?!?")
You may not have explicitly stated that the Constitution is invalid, but the effect of your words was to say that it is. If portions of the Constitution can be set aside completely in order to deal with "the realities" of our present time, the logical consequence is that the document is invalid. If you believe that "the realities" of our time require something like, for example, an import tax by a state, then the only way in which you can advocate such a tax is by first advocating a Constitutional amendment to allow said tax, without arguing, explicitly or implicitly, that the Constitution itself is invalid. (Or, of course, you could argue that the state secede from the union, as then it would no longer be bound by any US Constitutional restrictions; but then the Constitution would become literally invalid in that state, anyway.)
The Constitution was not intended to provide for merely "the realities of the time". It was intended to establish a government with strictly delimited powers, whose limitations were based on absolute principles. Granted, it had its weaknesses as far as that goes, but in no way can it be argued that those limitations were intended to be disregarded by future judges. Also, as mentioned already, a method of amendment was provided in the Constitution itself, in case of some significant change over time which was deemed to actually require government involvement.
Where do you get the idea that Webster changed the spellings of words, rather than using spellings which were already common in America when he made his dictionary? It's an interesting charge, and I'd like to see evidence of it if you have any, even though it is rather peripheral to our discussion.
I did not say that the meanings of words cannot change over time. I said that the words of 220 years ago cannot be arbitrarily redefined to suit our present needs, desires, or intentions. The meanings of words can change naturally over time as their use changes. For an extreme example, take the evolution of the word 'liberal' from 'liberty-oriented' to 'socialist', its current most-common sense. But while reading a word in the Constitution, any honest person will endeavor to read the word in its 18th-century meaning, even if that meaning is the opposite of the common meaning of the same word. Similarly, when a word has two or more meanings, we must read the meaning which was obviously intended in the Constitution -- thus, "the right to keep and bear arms" was not intended merely to prohibit forced amputations. If the word "speech" somehow evolves into the meaning "eating" in the course of the next 200 years, that will have no impact on the actual meaning of the phrase "freedom of speech" as found in the First Amendment. Actually my exact words were "words cannot be redefined... by courts", so perhaps it's that to which you're opposed. Would you like to have the court system re-writing our dictionaries and forcing us to use words with the new meanings they ascribe to them?
Even if the power of the courts to interpret the Constitution is granted, that does not mean they have the power to redefine the Constitution. An interpretation is an explanation -- putting the same meaning into different words -- not rejecting the old meaning and imposing a new one. Any "interpretation" of a 220 year-old document, then, which is not consistent with the actual meaning of that document, is not an interpretation. Further, no two contradictory interpretations over any expanse of time can both be valid, and it is an uncontestable fact that court cases have often conflicted with other court cases (a fact which you allude to yourself).
The claim that court rulings are as good as Constitutional amendments is a very dangerous view. The Framers of the Constitution deliberately made it relatively difficult
In our country, facts are facts and words cannot be redefined nor can documents be re-written arbitrarily by courts. If you don't like that, go somewhere else -- this is not your country. The courts are either correct or they are not -- that is a logical necessity -- "correct" is not defined simply as "had the last word" or "not proven incorrect yet" or "not yet contradicted since speaking". Those are your definitions of "correct" and they are, frankly, bullshit, as is the entire system of relativism that you blindly follow.
To summarize, A is A. Truth is truth. Regardless of interpretation.
Also, the charge that the Constitution is not "equipped" to deal with the internet and modern shipping is ridiculous. The fact is that the Constitution does deal with such issues by specifically leaving them out of the purview of the state governments. We the people deal with the internet and shipping just fine, by utilizing them freely. The claim that because we have technology that did not exist 220 years ago, the Constitution is no longer valid, is, to say the least, preposterous.
The terms "import" and "export" clearly refer to imports and exports into the state, regardless of where from. Court precedents are not always Constitutionally correct -- to assume otherwise is naive and logically inconsistent (as they often contradict other court cases). At the time the Constitution was ratified, the states clearly would have considered imports into the state to be imports. The states are each sovereign and independent states -- at the time of the signing of the Constitution this was obvious and commonly understand -- see, for example, the Treaty of Paris 1883. For further proof, see Article I Section 9, clause 4: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." Thus the word "export" (and hence) "import" do apply to the states (even though this prohibition in particular is on Congress).
force vs. outlaw
You present a false dichotomy, my friend.
The obvious and only appropriate policy is vaccines only for those willing to receive them/give them to their children, and private studies at the same time to ensure they are safe and make them more safe.
Slashdot Mirror
All DRIVERS are fingerprinted in Texas.
In other words, you're content to be a slave to the state, so long as you have a job and health care?
and very naive. You're implying that the government will only use the DNA it collects and stores for current-technology DNA profiles -- restriction enzymes and gels and the like. This is very naive and ignores the fact that technology is always progressing and before long it will be relatively easy to sequence a person's individual genome. Furthermore, the technology does exist now -- if they want it badly enough. It only needs to get cheaper and easier (and it will) before sequencing becomes common. If we allow the government to start down this path and do not stop it, we will get there.
No, but if there had been any significant tax cuts, it might have... Of course, the income tax does not exist in a vacuum. We live in a country where if the federal government doesn't get the money it wants from taxes, it can 'borrow' money any time it wants, creating money from nothing and devaluing our currency.
It's interesting that you think the framers of the Constitution would have been on your side. Tell me, why did the American Revolution of 1776 occur? Hint: it wasn't because the Founders thought they should be taxed more.
You suggest that this tax was passed "into law long ago". Then why does this article exist? This article is about a new tax passed into law by the state of New York, not a tax passed "long ago".
And then you claim that the Constitution doesn't allow the states not to lay such a tax? Please show me where the Constitution requires the states to tax imported goods. Then tell me why the states need a "license" from the Constitution not to implement this or any sort of tax. The Founders did not need to have the internet in order to conceive of inter-state imports and exports -- they had the latter already. If anything, if the Founders had had any idea of the degree of technology which was to develop over 220 years, they would have put much stricter limits on government powers, not enhanced them.
Taxes are used for the benefit of the people? No. Only a tiny fraction of the taxes could be categorized thus, if any.
You claim that I could somehow take the issue before the Supreme Court and "let them decide", but the fact is that the courts, and the Supreme Court especially, do not take a case unless they interpret that the plaintiff is directed affected by. As I do not live in New York and I do not run an inter-state Internet-based company, they would not hear the case.
Wikipedia is sometimes a useful short-cut, but unfortunately it is often inaccurate and misleading, as is the case with the article on Webster's dictionary. As I suggested, Webster spelled words as they were spelled already, although these varied widely.
See, for example, the word 'honor', not 'honour', here. Also 'colourable' in this document. 'Labour' is used in the Constitution, as are 'chuse' and 'chusing', along with 'defence' and 'controul'. See also here ('honor') and here ('honour').
'Labor' and 'honor' are used both in the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist Papers, not 'labour' or 'honour'. These also use 'centre'. In case you hadn't noticed, all these were pre-1806.
My apologies for the mis-use of the term 'sir'.
That depends on your definition of 'liberal', as this is one of the words which has received the most abuse in the past century. Originally a 'liberal' was someone interested in small government and high individual liberty; hence its similarity to the word 'liberty' itself. However, over the last century the word has been co-opted by socialists and the true (classical) liberals have, quite often, allowed this. Now most people who use the term 'liberal' don't even know the original meaning, assuming it's always meant 'socialist'. Over the past 60 years then, 'conservatives' have been far closer to (classical) liberalism than the supposedly 'liberal' Democrats, who have twisted the word to their own uses. If we're using the modern sense of the word 'liberal' as socialist or collectivist, then, the current administration is 'liberal'. It is exactly the modern 'liberals' who advocate more government power, and Bush is certainly in line with them on that. There are disagreements as to just how that power should be used, sure, but the main point is that they agree in taking the power from individuals and wielding it in the form of the government. I've come to dislike this usage of the term 'liberal', prefering the older meaning, but to be consistent, if you apply it to the modern Democrat, then you've got to also apply it to the 'neocons' Bush, McCain, et al., no less.
I wonder if it is even worthwhile trying to reason with you. Do you believe in reality? You don't seem to. (To quote you, "where are you living?!?")
... by courts", so perhaps it's that to which you're opposed. Would you like to have the court system re-writing our dictionaries and forcing us to use words with the new meanings they ascribe to them?
You may not have explicitly stated that the Constitution is invalid, but the effect of your words was to say that it is. If portions of the Constitution can be set aside completely in order to deal with "the realities" of our present time, the logical consequence is that the document is invalid. If you believe that "the realities" of our time require something like, for example, an import tax by a state, then the only way in which you can advocate such a tax is by first advocating a Constitutional amendment to allow said tax, without arguing, explicitly or implicitly, that the Constitution itself is invalid. (Or, of course, you could argue that the state secede from the union, as then it would no longer be bound by any US Constitutional restrictions; but then the Constitution would become literally invalid in that state, anyway.)
The Constitution was not intended to provide for merely "the realities of the time". It was intended to establish a government with strictly delimited powers, whose limitations were based on absolute principles. Granted, it had its weaknesses as far as that goes, but in no way can it be argued that those limitations were intended to be disregarded by future judges. Also, as mentioned already, a method of amendment was provided in the Constitution itself, in case of some significant change over time which was deemed to actually require government involvement.
Where do you get the idea that Webster changed the spellings of words, rather than using spellings which were already common in America when he made his dictionary? It's an interesting charge, and I'd like to see evidence of it if you have any, even though it is rather peripheral to our discussion.
I did not say that the meanings of words cannot change over time. I said that the words of 220 years ago cannot be arbitrarily redefined to suit our present needs, desires, or intentions. The meanings of words can change naturally over time as their use changes. For an extreme example, take the evolution of the word 'liberal' from 'liberty-oriented' to 'socialist', its current most-common sense. But while reading a word in the Constitution, any honest person will endeavor to read the word in its 18th-century meaning, even if that meaning is the opposite of the common meaning of the same word. Similarly, when a word has two or more meanings, we must read the meaning which was obviously intended in the Constitution -- thus, "the right to keep and bear arms" was not intended merely to prohibit forced amputations. If the word "speech" somehow evolves into the meaning "eating" in the course of the next 200 years, that will have no impact on the actual meaning of the phrase "freedom of speech" as found in the First Amendment. Actually my exact words were "words cannot be redefined
Even if the power of the courts to interpret the Constitution is granted, that does not mean they have the power to redefine the Constitution. An interpretation is an explanation -- putting the same meaning into different words -- not rejecting the old meaning and imposing a new one. Any "interpretation" of a 220 year-old document, then, which is not consistent with the actual meaning of that document, is not an interpretation. Further, no two contradictory interpretations over any expanse of time can both be valid, and it is an uncontestable fact that court cases have often conflicted with other court cases (a fact which you allude to yourself).
The claim that court rulings are as good as Constitutional amendments is a very dangerous view. The Framers of the Constitution deliberately made it relatively difficult
In our country, facts are facts and words cannot be redefined nor can documents be re-written arbitrarily by courts. If you don't like that, go somewhere else -- this is not your country. The courts are either correct or they are not -- that is a logical necessity -- "correct" is not defined simply as "had the last word" or "not proven incorrect yet" or "not yet contradicted since speaking". Those are your definitions of "correct" and they are, frankly, bullshit, as is the entire system of relativism that you blindly follow. To summarize, A is A. Truth is truth. Regardless of interpretation. Also, the charge that the Constitution is not "equipped" to deal with the internet and modern shipping is ridiculous. The fact is that the Constitution does deal with such issues by specifically leaving them out of the purview of the state governments. We the people deal with the internet and shipping just fine, by utilizing them freely. The claim that because we have technology that did not exist 220 years ago, the Constitution is no longer valid, is, to say the least, preposterous.
The terms "import" and "export" clearly refer to imports and exports into the state, regardless of where from. Court precedents are not always Constitutionally correct -- to assume otherwise is naive and logically inconsistent (as they often contradict other court cases). At the time the Constitution was ratified, the states clearly would have considered imports into the state to be imports. The states are each sovereign and independent states -- at the time of the signing of the Constitution this was obvious and commonly understand -- see, for example, the Treaty of Paris 1883. For further proof, see Article I Section 9, clause 4: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." Thus the word "export" (and hence) "import" do apply to the states (even though this prohibition in particular is on Congress).
force vs. outlaw You present a false dichotomy, my friend. The obvious and only appropriate policy is vaccines only for those willing to receive them/give them to their children, and private studies at the same time to ensure they are safe and make them more safe.