01-03-2017, 08:39 PM
(01-03-2017, 04:08 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:(12-31-2016, 09:55 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(12-31-2016, 09:31 AM)The Wonkette Wrote: I believe Galen is referring to more than the Second Amendment. He is also referring to items such as the income tax, if I'm not mistaken. Do you believe that the income tax is unconstitutional?
I'd agree that Galen has any number of concerns, and many to most of them are valid. I haven't delved deeply enough into the income tax issue to have a firm opinion on it, but Congress was given a list of powers by the Constitution. They were originally interpreted as the only powers that the states granted the federal government, and properly so. The Supreme Court has since ruled that as one of these powers was to collect taxes, Congress can spend tax money on anything it wants. This was not the original intent. Also, when the Reconstruction efforts to give equal rights to blacks gave way to the Jim Crow era, the Supreme Court put out a series of court cases that collectively prevented the federal government from enforcing the entire Bill of Rights. The federal government has no police power, thus cannot enforce the Constitution. That power was reserved to the states. Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP in the mid 20th Century had modern courts overturn the Jim Crow decisions, except the 2nd Amendment which was allowed to linger until recently.
While I am generally with the progressives on a lot of social issues, I generally sympathize a lot with the conservatives with regard to the Constitution and the value of written rule of law. We are getting ourselves into trouble with national parties trying to impose one size fits all solutions on the entire country. I don't believe that the founding fathers intended that degree of control by the federal government over the states. Returning to the spirit and letter of the original document is worth considering, though the open cans of worms that would result would be many. A constitutional convention would likely be required to determine what federal powers are truly necessary in the modern world, and what powers only produce strife. At this point, the country is way too divided for such a convention. Ratification of anything would be very difficult or worse. Talking about what was and what ought to be is fine, though.
I approve this message!
I thoroughly disapprove, because of the slur against those victims of gun violence who are earnestly seeking redress of their grave injuries, by having the laws they propose referred to as "Jim Crow laws." That is exceptionally vile.