[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Ultimately it just comes down to the same thing...original intent vs some room for interpretation. Unfortunately I deleted my real response, but a few comments before I head to the airport...

I haven't heard that there was supposed to be any "versus" in the Constitution. There were enumerated powers granted to the Central government and its branches, all other rights, expressed or implied belonged to the States and the People. There was not supposed to be a war, turf or otherwise between parts of government. The only original intent that matters is what was finally agreed to and written as law--not the various and differing intents that were argued by the different state delegates who sometimes wanted opposite things. The compromises that were necessary to keep, and make more perfect the bonds of union were the final draft--written plainly and briefly in order to AVOID the legal complexity that arises when laws and codes are so detailed and precise to minutely specific situations rather than in general to a whole field of like situations, that the codex becomes ponderous, unwieldy, and itself becomes an implication that new laws must then be drafted for every occasion not described. The powers granted in the Constitution were thus intended to be broad and sweeping, but, for the Federal Government, only WITHIN THE ENUMERATION and defined STRICTLY BY THE TEXT. There was no intent to "leave room for interpretation." What was written was direct, and meant exactly what it said. The error in the "interpretation" made by "activist" judges is that by "interpreting" the intent to make Constitutional powers broad and sweeping by drafting them briefly rather than in minute detail, is to see those powers as so broad and sweeping that they overflow out of the bounds of what was enumerated and given in a strictly expressed text to the Federal Government. For example, the Federal Government was given the power to "regulate commerce . . .among the several States." The text granting this power is very brief--a narrow description which must be precisely followed or else, if added to, will have lost its meaning, and will become whatever monster the "interpreter" wishes. The text grants the power to "regulate" commerce, not create or destroy it, and only commerce "among" (between) the States, not commerce within States (and that only to strengthen the bond between the States rather than having the commercial war that existed between the them), and, finally, to regulate ACTUAL COMMERCE, not ANYTHING else that MIGHT in even a remote way have ANY KIND OF AFFECT on any economic or commercial activity. But it was with this kind of broad NON-ENUMERATED or NOT SPECIFICALLY STATED OR DEFINED "interpretation" that the FDR packed Court "interpreted" the commerce clause, and the welfare clause, and other parts of the Constitution. And the Constitution became a tool that no longer limited the Federal Government, but gave it almost dictatorial power over our economic and social well-being--WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WAS INTENDED AS PROSCRIBED IN THE NINTH AND TENTH AMMENDMENTS.

Sure people who take risks deserve reward, but we can't ignore that all fortunes are built on the backs of others. Without a system of shared sacrifice and effort there's no platform for wealth to be generated.

"built on the backs of others" is one of those talking point, buzz word, phrases that invokes a slave/master relation rather than voluntary employment--and usually well payed employment. For the most part, the effort here is shared, and so is the "sacrifice." I'm not sure what the beef is. Right now, everybody seems to be screaming for jobs to be created, not for some slave master to get off our backs. The dispute about "sacrifice" seems to be that the wealthier you are the greater the rate of "sacrifice" you should endure--even though that would'nt have much effect on "the economy"--just for "fairness."

My remark about the US Navy patrolling the worlds oceans was in context of securing private economic interests proactively, not more traditional national defense.

Well, "traditional" national defense is about securing the "private" lives of this country. But any use of national troops to favor a particular interest over another would be improper. Unfortunately, political power has been wielded corruptly since the beginning. The answer is not to raise the tax rates on all in graduated steps just to make up for corrupt use of the Navy. The answer should be to root out and prosecute the corruption.

I'm not sure the statistics really demonstrate that higher taxes will always inhibit investment. Yes, there are some mega-cycles where this has certainly been the case (i.e. the 1970's) but debating a few points here or there isn't going to make or break the economy. What's more important today is that we have sufficient taxation to reduce debt and a real plan to eliminate deficit spending as we're not likely to see strong enough economic growth this decade to do it on revenues alone. I don't think cutting taxes is going to be a magical fix, it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that. It does make for nice politics though...

As you say "it does makes for nice politics though . . ." That's the only definitive thing you've stated in the above paragraph. All else is not being sure . . .not really demonstrating . . . not always inhibiting . . . sometimes does . . debating points here or there . . . not making or breaking the economy . . . having sufficient taxation . . . having a real plan . . . not likely to see . . . I don't think . . . a lot more complicated . . . None of this creates or states a principle that requires graduated rates of taxation, nor, especially, creates a fixed standard for those rates so "business" can plan with certaintly.

In regards to tariffs, the situation is much different today vs then as the majority of commodity items people need to survive are imported. So we enter into trade agreements to artificially keep the prices low on a lot of our imports. You couldn't generate enough revenue to fund even a much smaller Federal Government under such conditions, and the global economy is here to stay.

The point was that tariffs are consumption taxes. There are proposed schemes for consumption taxes other than tariffs--e.g. the National sales tax.

I'd agree that the Founding Fathers didn't believe in excessive taxation, but remember, an antonym of "excessive" is "fair

-spence

Fair is a nebulous antonym of excessive, in this case. An opposite of excessive would be deficient or not enough. The opposite of "fair" would be "unfair." The problem with fair or unfair, as I've stated before, is that without defined parameters, "fair" is useless.