If the government were constitutional..


#1

If the federal government were constitutional:

-There would be no social security
-There would be no medicare of federal medicaid, and also the requirement of medicaid for states to pay a certain percent is grossly unconstitutional.
-No federal nutrition guidelines
-No income taxes* [1]
-No federal police groping old ladies at the airport
-No ethanol subsidies or other subsidies of any kind. [2]
-No direct transfer payments to individuals via “tax credits”
-No graduated income tax rates [3]
-No preference for minorities over whites (Violates 14th amendment and no bill of attainder clause)

Which other of the myriad things it does are not constitutional that you can think of?

1: The government is technically given the power to have an income tax by the 16th amendment, which in and of itself was dubiously passed, however, it DID NOT make it legal for the government to be able to require you to investigate you to find out your income (or search for it), which is prohibited by the 4th amendment, and the 5th amendment prohibits them from forcing you to incriminate yourself, so as the constitution stands, the government can require you to pay income taxes, so long as you willingly surrender them to the government. (If the 16th amendment is even legitimate, evidence strongly suggests that it was not legitimately passed.)

2: The constitution does not grant this power, it grants the right to REGULATE interstate “commerce”, which by definition does not grant the right to make transfer payments, and if it did, you’d be required to cross a state line before receiving a subsidy… and that is just plain silly and obviously not the intent of the constitution.

3: Passing taxes only on certain groups of people is a bill of attainder because it targets one group in order to punish them more severely than it does others.


#2

If a bull frog had wings, he wouldn’t bump his arse, every time he jumps.


#3

“Yeah, if a bullfrog had wings he wouldn’t bump his ass every time he jumped, either.” means “True, but not possible in our collective reality.”

Hmm, interesting saying.

I don’t think it is impossible to go back to a government that follows the constitution, it would simply require some type of secession or revolution against the federal government, which given the cowardice of the states, will have to be lead at a grassroots level.


#4

I cannot see us returning to constitutionality. Liberals are too entrenched, the public left is too in love with entitlements,and the Pubbies do not have the stones to confront this.
The American public would rather accept the Status Quo, than to upset their daily lives to effect a change.


#5

Possibly, but I think you underestimate the number of people necessary to affect a serious change.

If, for instance, only 60% of the voters in Wyoming grew a pair (Only around 150,000 people) , and expelled the federal government from regulating unconstitutional mandates in their state, threw out tax IRS agents and whatever else was necessary to enforce their state sovereignty, other states would begin to follow suit and there would be a national crisis.

It is unlikely that things like social security or medicare would be removed, but as the nation’s finances continue to deteriorate almost exclusively due to these programs, the action caused by state rebellions would accelerate the necessary changes to these programs and rein in the federal government.

Remember, the civil war was largely started by South Carolina. South Carolina tried to secede in 1828 but a southern president prevented the other southern states from joining them. When the federal government continued to abuse the south through massive tariffs (people kid themselves who think it was about slavery - nobody cared back then, everything is economic, not moral)

There is no longer the will in the US to wage a civil war if states rebel and it won’t be necessary, it is just a matter of there being a state willing to lead.


#6

I see you listed Social Security & Medicare, but left out Public Aid. In spite of the abuses, most of the people getting SS & MC paid into it. Not that I don’t think it shouldn’t go away, but take away welfare first.


#7

[QUOTE=GT7;422861]Possibly, but I think you underestimate the number of people necessary to affect a serious change.

If, for instance, only 60% of the voters in Wyoming grew a pair (Only around 150,000 people) , and expelled the federal government from regulating unconstitutional mandates in their state, threw out tax IRS agents and whatever else was necessary to enforce their state sovereignty, other states would begin to follow suit and there would be a national crisis.

No, the National Guard would be called from all over to institute Martial Law. Federal Money corrupts state governments. You are fighting a no win battle.

It is unlikely that things like social security or medicare would be removed, but as the nation’s finances continue to deteriorate almost exclusively due to these programs, the action caused by state rebellions would accelerate the necessary changes to these programs and rein in the federal government.

What are you contemplating, Civil War?

Remember, the civil war was largely started by South Carolina. South Carolina tried to secede in 1828 but a southern president prevented the other southern states from joining them. When the federal government continued to abuse the south through massive tariffs (people kid themselves who think it was about slavery - nobody cared back then, everything is economic, not moral)

Do you honestly think people want that? It would be a half century before the succession states recovered. I am telling you plainly, a revolt would be put down, quickly.

There is no longer the will in the US to wage a civil war if states rebel and it won’t be necessary, it is just a matter of there being a state willing to lead.

Naive. There would be no question that the gooberment would retaliate. Common Sense is all one needs to figure that out.
Not to mention, only 3 states have balanced budgets. Now, the elderly have no paychecks, no insurance, and no food. Hospitals who depend on grants, will close. Federally maintained roads will be off limits. No fed taxes, no federally taxed gasoline. no Federal protection so you would be subject to anyone who wished to make the news.
We need common sense solutions, not the lunatic fringe.


#8

#9

No, the National Guard would be called from all over to institute Martial Law. Federal Money corrupts state governments. You are fighting a no win battle.

There is no reason that a state could not form its own national guard, and the federal government is not going to attack a state government over refusing to pay medicaid because they would swiftly lose public support over invading a state for taking a course of action that doesn’t effect anyone else.

The government quickly lost public support to fight terrorists that attacked the country.

If a state quit paying medicaid and quit following other federal mandates (such as obamacare and federal gun laws - two things which have already happened), the federal government would have no choice.

They absolutely cannot invade a state and declare martial law over things like that and get away with it.

They might get away with it if a state became violent, but not if the state passed resolutions to ignore federal mandates. The federal government would be better off just letting the incident be talked about for a day on fox and then sweeping it under the rug the best they could, armed response would result in other states doing the exact same thing in protest.

So you are wrong, states passing resolutions to not follow federal law would not result in an invasion by the federal government, and if it did, it wouldn’t end well for the federal government.

That is why they have ignored the fact that many states have ALREADY started passing resolutions to remove federal law. It just has to be taken to the next level.


#10

What are you contemplating, Civil War?

There are more types of rebellion than civil war but I’m also not saying that those types of rebellion wouldn’t still lead to civil war. For instance, if several states passed resolutions barring the federal government from collecting income taxes in their lands or one large state did, but something like that would only happen after other things were prevented. (For instance, a state like Utah might bar federal income taxes being taken to pay for abortions)

States not paying medicaid anymore is NOT out of the question, some states have already taken steps towards this and it has happened before and states have expelled federal agents before without triggering a military response like described above to claim that state revolts won’t work.

They already are working on many important things, such as gun laws.


#11

Basically, the course of action that I would advocate for now and the reasons:

  1. Elect anti-federal activists (or tea party) to every level of state government. They need to be activists, not just republican wannabes.
  2. Enact state laws prohibiting federal law from being enforced or carried out in the state. (Under the tenth amendment)
    2a) Ignore the federal government’s lawsuits, they are nothing but kangaroo courts.
  3. If the federal government tries to take your road or school money, respond by not collecting whatever percent of taxes that represents.
  4. Start small and work your way up incrementally as you gain momentum and create barriers to continuing federal intrusion. Do not back down no matter what they do.

We have already started in small ways towards these goals, but just imagine how much more effective the states suing over the constitutionality obamacare would be if instead of continuing the lawsuit, they simply voted to ban it in their state and setup penalties against the federal government for trying to enforce it. obamacare would already be gone.

Look at what happened with states banning federal gun laws: Montana did it and then many others followed.

The federal government is nothing but a terrorist organization, you cannot negotiate with a terrorist organization. We have negotiated long enough and slowly but surely lost everything we were trying to preserve.

Terrorists are afraid of action, and the best action we can take right now is to elect anti-federal state governments that will fight back against the federal government.

There is no question that the Montana gun law will complicate the anti-gun legislation some criminals in congress are advocating, similar laws dealing with healthcare and taxes would have a similar impact. That should be our goal across the board right now.


#12

[QUOTE=GT7;422889

]There is no reason that a state could not form its own national guard, and the federal government is not going to attack a state government over refusing to pay medicaid because they would swiftly lose public support over invading a state for taking a course of action that doesn’t effect anyone else.

The government quickly lost public support to fight terrorists that attacked the country.

You were talking of throwing out IRS agents, and such. Don’t think the gooberment cares about you, the public or the law. They only care about keeping America indebted.

If a state quit paying medicaid and quit following other federal mandates (such as obamacare and federal gun laws - two things which have already happened), the federal government would have no choice.
They would simply cut off all funding to your state. They’d block all transportation in and out of your state. You wouldn’t see gasoline, or other commodities for some time. Believe me,they’d make you pay, big.

They absolutely cannot invade a state and declare martial law over things like that and get away with it.

Who is gonna stop them?

They might get away with it if a state became violent, but not if the state passed resolutions to ignore federal mandates. The federal government would be better off just letting the incident be talked about for a day on fox and then sweeping it under the rug the best they could, armed response would result in other states doing the exact same thing in protest.

If you say so. For someone who appears to hate the Gov’t as much as you,you sure are confident of their sense of fair play.

So you are wrong, states passing resolutions to not follow federal law would not result in an invasion by the federal government, and if it did, it wouldn’t end well for the federal government.
What about kicking out the IRS? You are naive. They’d react,and harshly.

That is why they have ignored the fact that many states have ALREADY started passing resolutions to remove federal law. It just has to be taken to the next level.

They challenged Obamacare, not the IRS. I think you are way to trusting of a gooberment run by a Communist.


#13

Name one time they expelled feds out with out punishment.
First, you get zero Federal money. Next, you forfeit interstate transportation rights. No federal protection, so you best not be Louisana or Florida, because FEMA is lousy, but better than no help at all. Your Seniors are cut off Social Security and your disabled get no disability. With no federal help,not long before your funds run out,and you cannot afford to help the starving. Things snowball until the masses revolt and welcome the Gooberment back, at any cost.
If States could get away with what you propose, Texas and Alaska would be sovereign countries. Ain’t gonna happen, so come on back to Earth.


#14

[quote=“GT7, post:3, topic:28931”]
Hmm, interesting saying.

I don’t think it is impossible to go back to a government that follows the constitution, it would simply require some type of secession or revolution against the federal government, which given the cowardice of the states, will have to be lead at a grassroots level.
[/quote]Are you still fighting the civil war? Honestly if I listened to you, we would be throwing the baby out with the bath water and be damned with what happens to the baby.

I would have to theorize that once you reach that golden age where you too will have social security and other things you will probably rethink your positions.


#15

That’s what I say to people. Wait until my prostate goes out and I’ll probably will be singing different tune.


#16

They would simply cut off all funding to your state. They’d block all transportation in and out of your state. You wouldn’t see gasoline, or other commodities for some time. Believe me,they’d make you pay, big.

Then why haven’t they blockaded Montana, South Dakota, Missouri, Virginia or Arizona yet? (All of which have recently made federal law… not the law of the land)

If you say so. For someone who appears to hate the Gov’t as much as you,you sure are confident of their sense of fair play.

No, if the federal government *could get away with it * ubama and his friends would have already killed all of their opponents. They aren’t even against killing one of their own, if they think it benefits them (and I believe they were involved in shooting Giffords), however, the government has nothing to gain by attacking a state because it would turn popular opinion against them.

Just like the Kent State incident did with the Vietnam War, except you are talking on a much larger scale, so the resulting turn in popular opinion would be much larger and the response would show the governments true colors, just as the Boston Massacre showed the true colors of the British tyranny.

That is why ubama didn’t invade Montana when they made it illegal for him to enforce his gun laws there or invade Missouri when they voted by a huge margin to ban obamacare there.

It would only rally other states to their cause if the federal government had a violent response and there would be war instead of just revolt.

If States could get away with what you propose, Texas and Alaska would be sovereign countries. Ain’t gonna happen, so come on back to Earth.

Only some 15% of people in Texas support secession at this time, but if Texas did secede, the federal government would be in big trouble the way things stand right now. Texas represents 10% of the nations population and economy, is home to most of the oil refineries, and the surrounding states are sympathetic to the cause.

If the government did stop all trade with Texas, like you said they would, much of the rest of the country would come to be without oil or be paying very high rates for oil in short order, and it doesn’t matter if they can import more oil, they wouldn’t have anywhere to refine it.

They challenged Obamacare, not the IRS. I think you are way to trusting of a gooberment run by a Communist.

That is pretty much one in the same. A state that bans obamacare, like Missouri did, is in fact banning IRS agents from enforcing what the IRS sees as the law. If all 27 states in the lawsuit banned it, there isn’t even a way the federal government could have an effective military response. The only saving grace of government is that it is incompetent, it is unlikely they will even have an effective response against the four states that have banned it already.

Even the communist hellhole of California was going to pass a resolution not to follow federal law and there were no planned blockades or wars to force them to follow it.


#17

I would have to theorize that once you reach that golden age where you too will have social security and other things you will probably rethink your positions.

The likelihood of me receiving social security is zero, but even if I were going to receive it, the whole program is a flimflam. Even if you just invested the money on the general market, the returns would be higher over a 45 year period than you could ever even dream of getting back from the government AND you’d be in control of your money instead of having it stolen.

Social security is just another tax and the system that it was setup to pay out for was always intended to be a Ponzi scheme. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Ponzi schemes go broke and social security went broke last year. Even if the government isn’t bankrupt by the time anyone under 40 can collect, it is unlikely there will be social security because the government not being bankrupt will imply some level of responsibility was accepted, and that means ending social security. (Otherwise, we will just be bankrupt and it won’t matter regardless.)


#18

GT7, remember Waco? Your “vision” is a hallucination. You are way to optimistic about an oppressive gooberment.
Oh, and I have heard “won’t be there when I retire”’ for 50 years. My Mom said it, and I said it, and now,you are saying it, but it is still there.
Yes, it needs reform. But, the reason it is in such trouble, is because the Dems and some Pubbies have used it as their own personal “slush fund”.


#19

[quote=“Tiny1, post:18, topic:28931”]
GT7, remember Waco? Your “vision” is a hallucination. You are way to optimistic about an oppressive gooberment.
Oh, and I have heard “won’t be there when I retire”’ for 50 years. My Mom said it, and I said it, and now,you are saying it, but it is still there.
Yes, it needs reform. But, the reason it is in such trouble, is because the Dems and some Pubbies have used it as their own personal “slush fund”.
[/quote] I heard the same stories back when I was a kid 55 years ago.


#20

Same here - except I wasn’t exactly a kid 55 years ago.