An idea for bipartisan tax reform

[canceled.2021.1]

Again, your opinion, not the standard.

If they were so clearly written, you'd get more victories in court.

As it stands, you have ZERO.

The 9th and 10th Amendments are very clearly written. That the courts and Congress do not choose to abide by them does not eliminate what what really mean. They are very clear. That you can find some immoral jurist that rules your way does not mean I am wrong. It just proves their immorality

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Which is your opinion that has not been validated by the Judicial Branch.

So what we have here is you insisting on something despite the law saying otherwise.

For some reason, you think you're entitled to your opinion of what the Constitution says. You're not. The courts are.

There is a simple way to prove whether what I say is "opinion" or "fact". A very simple way indeed.

All you have to do is find and quote for me the relevant text that specifically states that it is the job of the federal government to provide for you your healthcare and retirement using the tax dollars of your fellow citizens. Surely those words exist in the US Constitution if I am only stating "my opinion".

And surely you will be able to do better than trying to contort and bend the "general welfare clause". Because using the general welfare clause is about the most lazy argument there is. It implies that the founders whose sole goal of the US Constitution was to LIMIT the scope and power of the US Constitution slipped that one phrase into the Constitution that could be construed as meaning the government should and can do all things it wants.

It is simply not the case. It is merely your policy preferences and not the text of the Constitution to which you are loyal. I am loyal to the original text of the US Constitution.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Which would be a goalpost shift from what you said before. But OK. Flip-flop around. I really don't care.





I'm not the one who thinks my opinion is the standard that supersedes centuries of judicial precedent and the powers given to the Judicial Branch.

That's all you.

Who says I have to bow down to judicial opinions with which I disagree? Do you agree with EVERY judicial decision?

Also, the US Constitution did not give the power of Constitutional review to the Supreme Court. That was a power the Court delegated for itself and the other two branches sat idly by. The US Supreme Court was designed to be the weakest of the three co equal branches. You would know that if you were up to speed on your history

 

[Ross Dolan]

This is you moving the bar again. You're not clarifying, you're redefining a second time.

You'd do better arguing with a brick than with him.

And chances are...the brick would offer better arguments.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The greed part is wanting everyone to pay for your voters instead of just you!

What the hell is that supposed to mean???

 

[LV426]

Well someone had to have been successful, and passed it along, why do you feel like you are entitled to any of it.

The person receiving it wasn't successful, so why should they get anything?

 

[LV426]

Go get a job, pay taxes, and if you ever become rich, give me half.

This is such an immature position to have.

I'd be happy to pay taxes so that you could have health care.

You're just a selfish prick.

 

[LV426]

How about all the rich democrats start by being charitable with the money they have been given, by being able to insider trade, then have all the hollywood jackasses come out of their mansions, and give more, set the example, you know put your socialism where your mouth is! I mean I know you don't work so you can't be but how about they set the good example pay more than they owe.

Because we live in a society. And in a society, you pay taxes so that society can function.

 

[LV426]

Again, I am referring to the original text of the US Constitution

NO!

You are referring to your bullshit interpretation and opinion of the Constitution.

Neither are a standard recognized by the Judicial Branch.

 

[LV426]

I am very familiar with Marbury v Madison where the US Supreme court assumed for itself powers that were never delegated by the US Constitution

Wow. Watching Conservatives re-litigate SCOTUS cases to conform to their perspective is peak Conservatism.

The Supreme Court was not given the power of judicial review of the Constitution.

Yes, they are.

Otherwise, we do not have three coequal branches of government.

You don't seem to know anything about this. Are you even an American?

 

[LV426]

The Constitution said what it said, it did not need "interpreting".

Yes, it does. "Originalism" is an interpretation. You are interpreting the Constitution along literal lines. Do you do that for the Bible too?

The only people who want to "interpret" it are those who do not want to abide by what is written in those words.

You sound like a sore loser.

 

[LV426]

The 9th and 10th Amendments are very clearly written.

Again, that's your interpretation and your interpretation is not the standard.

Get over yourself.

 

[LV426]

That the courts and Congress do not choose to abide by them does not eliminate what what really me

Perhaps it's not the courts or Congress that are wrong...perhaps it's you.

After all, why would you be right about any of this?

Insisting something doesn't make the insistence true.

That you can find some immoral jurist that rules your way does not mean I am wrong.

That is exactly what it means; you are wrong, your judgment sucks, your instincts are poor, and your character is rotten.

 

[LV426]

There is a simple way to prove whether what I say is "opinion" or "fact". A very simple way indeed

Your opinion is that we should view the Constitution according to your "originalist", literal interpretation.

You think you're entitled to that perspective and that we should accommodate that narrowness.

I'm telling you, and the courts are telling you, to go fuck yourself.

nd surely you will be able to do better than trying to contort and bend the "general welfare clause". Because using the general welfare clause is about the most lazy argument there is. It implies that the founders whose sole goal of the US Constitution was to LIMIT the scope and power of the US Constitution slipped that one phrase into the Constitution that could be construed as meaning the government should and can do all things it wants.

LOL! Gotta love this.

"Don't use the actual text from the Constitution even though I'm doing that exact same thing myself in my stupid argument".

The General Welfare clause means what it means. General welfare. Health care is general welfare.

It is simply not the case.

Which is just your opinion, which has not been upheld by any court.

So go fuck yourself.

 

[LV426]

Who says I have to bow down to judicial opinions with which I disagree? Do you agree with EVERY judicial decision?

When it comes to what we're talking about, bend over and spread your cheeks.

lso, the US Constitution did not give the power of Constitutional review to the Supreme Court. That was a power the Court delegated for itself and the other two branches sat idly by. The US Supreme Court was designed to be the weakest of the three co equal branches. You would know that if you were up to speed on your history

Gotta love this; "I'm opposed to anything that ruins the false narrative bullshit argument I'm constructing."

Go fuck yourself.

 

[Ross Dolan]

This is such an immature position to have.

I'd be happy to pay taxes so that you could have health care.

You're just a selfish prick.

Unfortunately...they all are.

That is the bread and butter of American conservatism.

I've got mine...fuck you.

Until THEY need something...and then the story changes a bit.

 

[Ross Dolan]

NO!

You are referring to your bullshit interpretation and opinion of the Constitution.

Neither are a standard recognized by the Judicial Branch.

Like talking to a brick...only the brick is smarter and more truthful!

 

[canceled.2021.1]

You seem really confused about your own position.

You think taxation is immoral, except not all of it, but actually all of it.




I only work with what you give me. You seem to want to give me squashy modelling clay as your belief system, that you then shape and mold as the conversation veers into territory where you contradict yourself.

Not sure what you are missing. I said I think a direct tax on income is immoral

 

[canceled.2021.1]

No, you interpret it that way and you are trying to establish your personal interpretation as the standard when you've done nothing to earn that entitlement or accommodation.

Nothing you believe is a given. Nothing.

You clearly don’t understand the text of the 10th Amendment and obviously haven’t read the federalist papers. It’s ok. I understand. It isn’t your fault. You were raised in the public school systems run by unions. It is they who have failed you

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Right...everyone is wrong except you and your fellow mouth breathers. People so dumb, they were conned by a reality TV show host.

OK.

LOL.

I understand that you have been brain washed to support all things government so you overlook their usurpations of power.

It is why I find the hand wringing over Trumps Emergency declaration laughable