"The Constitution was intended to expand power of the government"

[Arion45]

The constitution is written to increase the power of government. It could have been written to only allow it's delegated powers only and thats it. But it included a house and senate with no limit on how many times it could meet a year. No limit on senators and congressmen terms. Then the founders decided to allow the federal government to judge and rule how much power to give itself through a supreme court. If anything the court should have been made up of state judges. That would have been a true check.

Standing armies should have only been allowed in times of declared war. It should have barred it from collecting income tax ever.

In all honesty the constitution has failed miserably to keep government small. The only thing left to do is abolish the federal government.

 

[Travlyr]

You are both right.

Expanded: The Constitution established a republic with three separate branches of governance.
Limits: The "Bill of Rights" states that the government cannot infringe on certain inherent rights.

The U.S. Constitution was not intended to allow unlimited power to government. The people have responsibility in government, but they have ignored their responsibility for generations and continue to ignore their responsibility. Until the people take their responsibility seriously, then government will continue to trample on the rights of the people.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Spooner aside, isn't an oath essentially a verbal contract? (Haven't read the whole thread, perhaps you've made this argument.)

ETA: Regardless of the intent of the Constitution, isn't it a fact that it hasn't stopped the gov't from expanding in size and power, and thus is flawed? I suppose I could make the argument that it's the people who are flawed, but shouldn't it somehow take the nature of people into account?

The federal government had no net expansion prior to 1913 when the states changed the Constitution away from the Founders intentions.

In 1912, the federal share of the GNP was only 1.75%. This was actually smaller than when the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781, and was about the same as when George Washington was president in the 1790s.

These are the facts that you opponents of the US Constitution need to deal with. Deal with it. Either that, or go over to the dailykos where they don't like the Constitution either.

 

[amy31416]

These are the facts that you opponents of the US Constitution need to deal with. Deal with it. Either that, or go over to the dailykos where they don't like the Constitution either.

My question/comments to you were civil. Too bad you aren't capable of the same, nor are you capable of responding without the typical status quo Republican response of "you're a liberal."

Pretty fucking lame. Piss off.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

The constitution is written to increase the power of government. It could have been written to only allow it's delegated powers only and thats it. But it included a house and senate with no limit on how many times it could meet a year. No limit on senators and congressmen terms. Then the founders decided to allow the federal government to judge and rule how much power to give itself through a supreme court. If anything the court should have been made up of state judges. That would have been a true check.

Standing armies should have only been allowed in times of declared war. It should have barred it from collecting income tax ever.

In all honesty the constitution has failed miserably to keep government small. The only thing left to do is abolish the federal government.

The original Constitution did prohibit income taxes. The Constitution did a great job keeping the central government small, yet provided for free trade and order so wealth could be accumulated without a need to build giant castles with knights protecting the landowners.

It was the state governments that blew it. First the southern states kept slavery and then Jim Crow laws, which provided the impetus for centralizers. From the 1840s until the 1960s, the chief argument used by centralizers has been racial bias.

Second, the States abandoned the principles of James Madison when they amended the Constitution twice in 1913. People here continually blame the federal government for these amendments, but it is the states that did them.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

My question/comments to you were civil. Too bad you aren't capable of the same, nor are you capable of responding without the typical status quo Republican response of "you're a liberal."

Pretty fucking lame. Piss off.

This a pro-Constitution website. Trolls like you have been coming over here for years causing trouble. I defend the US Constitution, as does Ron Paul, and the Founding Fathers.

 

[libertybrewcity]

Article 1, Section 8. The founding fathers were skeptical of a large federal or any federal government at all. That is why they tried the Articles of Confederation. It failed so they decided to put in a more centralized and powerful federal government, but still one that is very limited.

 

[libertybrewcity]

The federal government had no net expansion prior to 1913 when the states changed the Constitution away from the Founders intentions.

In 1912, the federal share of the GNP was only 1.75%. This was actually smaller than when the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781, and was about the same as when George Washington was president in the 1790s.

It had a small share because they didn't have war debts. One reason why the federal government was created was to collect taxes and pay off the debts.

 

[sailingaway]

Thomas Jefferson: "in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution"

http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/kyres/kydraft.html

 

[erowe1]

That is why they tried the Articles of Confederation. It failed.

Failed to do what for whom?

And along those lines, when a government succeeds, that's generally a bad thing. Right?

To give an analogy, we could similarly say that our federal government tried governing without an income tax and it failed (which it did from the perspective of the leviathan), so they gave themselves an income tax.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The original Constitution did prohibit income taxes.

Get real.

How many times do I have to post Alexander Hamilton's brief argued personally before the Supreme Court, on the Carriage Tax, elaborating on the undefined meaning of the words direct and indirect?

How many times does it have to be pointed out under the Articles of Confederation the legitimate objects of Congress for constitutionally delegated subject matter was States and under the Constitution the legitimate objects of Congress for constitutionally delegated subject matter is states or people?

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Get real.

How many times do I have to post Alexander Hamilton's brief argued personally before the Supreme Court, on the Carriage Tax, elaborating on the undefined meaning of the words direct and indirect?

How many times does it have to be pointed out under the Articles of Confederation the legitimate objects of Congress for constitutionally delegated subject matter was States and under the Constitution the legitimate objects of Congress for constitutionally delegated subject matter is states or people?

Dude, even the Supreme Court agreed that income taxes were illegal. They even said it AFTER 1913. The text of the original Constitution is very clear and simple to understand.

 

[Travlyr]

Spooner aside, isn't an oath essentially a verbal contract? (Haven't read the whole thread, perhaps you've made this argument.)

ETA: Regardless of the intent of the Constitution, isn't it a fact that it hasn't stopped the gov't from expanding in size and power, and thus is flawed? I suppose I could make the argument that it's the people who are flawed, but shouldn't it somehow take the nature of people into account?

The Constitution hasn't failed, the people fail in their duty to the Constitution.

You are correct that the Oath is a contract. And a contract requires consideration in order to be valid. Elected officials are required to purchase a penal bond (consideration) in order to validate their contract "The Oath of Office. The fact that no elected official has purchased the penal bond since the 1960's means that all public offices are currently vacant. It also means that the elected officials who are pretending to hold office are likely felons through embezzlement.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=249886

 

[Anti Federalist]

The Constitution hasn't failed, the people fail in their duty to the Constitution.

You are correct that the Oath is a contract. And a contract requires consideration in order to be valid. Elected officials are required to purchase a penal bond (consideration) in order to validate their contract "The Oath of Office. The fact that no elected official has purchased the penal bond since the 1960's means that all public offices are currently vacant. It also means that the elected officials who are pretending to hold office are likely felons through embezzlement.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=249886

Excellent excellent point.

Well done.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Dude, even the Supreme Court agreed that income taxes were illegal. They even said it AFTER 1913. The text of the original Constitution is very clear and simple to understand.

Dude and it has been pointed out many times despite many Supreme Court rulings upholding income taxes before and after 1913 there was one Supreme Court ruling in 1895 that declared income derived from land a direct tax which must be apportioned. This ruling also happened to be the drive behind the 16th Amendment to close the loophole considering the source of income.

Do you have some citation to rebut an overwhelming amount of citations that have been presented on taxation to convey the taxation powers of the federal government are constrained beyond anything contained in the Constitution such as direct or indirect?

 

[Travlyr]

Excellent excellent point.

Well done.

Thanks AF. Currently, a lawsuit has been filed in the courts of New Mexico indicating that the two candidates for governor in New Mexico, Susana Martinez (R) and Diane Denish (D), are alleged felons for embezzlement because they were pretending to serve because they did not purchase the required bond.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Dude and it has been pointed out many times despite many Supreme Court rulings upholding income taxes before and after 1913 there was one Supreme Court ruling in 1895 that declared income derived from land a direct tax which must be apportioned. This ruling also happened to be the drive behind the 16th Amendment to close the loophole considering the source of income.

Do you have some citation to rebut an overwhelming amount of citations that have been presented on taxation to convey the taxation powers of the federal government are constrained beyond anything contained in the Constitution such as direct or indirect?

All you are doing is twisting the plain words of the Constitution, just like Alexander Hamilton did. The Constitution is not a "living" document.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Excellent excellent point.

Well done.

Unfortunately it is a varsity level excellent point well beyond the understanding of most citizens.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

All you are doing is twisting the plain words of the Constitution, just like Alexander Hamilton did. The Constitution is not a "living" document.

LO-f'n-L

Was this your comment a moment ago?

These are the facts that you opponents of the US Constitution need to deal with. Deal with it. Either that, or go over to the dailykos where they don't like the Constitution either.

Face the facts dude. Deal with it or go over to the dailykos.

I am twisting plain words? No I am not twisting shit. Hamilton included the well understood history of taxation in his brief by referring to Locke. The Supreme Court has always upheld Hamiltion's arguments on direct versus indirect. Unfortunately this shit is too true for someone to simply make up. This would also be the reason you have no citations or anything other than hot air holding up your posts with any claims on the subject of taxation.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Okay, Ron Paul Forum posters! Don't let me down here!

I am in a constant political debate on a comic book message board that consists of 80% liberals, 10% Republican, and literally TWO libertarians. I just posted this to someone:



to which a liberal law degree grad replied with the following:



Let's hear your thoughts on this, I need some more ammo to fire back at this guy. Personally, I think he is being ignorant of the many amendments of the Constitution to cherry pick his point of view. Hell, he even proved that in his own words.

So, that is sixteen hot-pink liberals, two baby-blue Republicans and two bland Libertarians? This is true if the two libertarians make up the other 10% left over from the combined 90% the liberals and Republicans make up.
There are three answers to this question. One side, the other side, and no side whatsoever. As we don't, as the head of our dinner tables, have to legislate, administer or judge at them, I prefer the latter.