Question: The Electoral College

[92tide]

I don't disagree, particularly in any swing state where it matters, but there's just no excuse for someone in the party - especially in those states. Obviously, I haven't decided whom to vote for yet and obviously it won't matter one iota here. Additionally, unless the democrats nominate Paul Pot I'll likely recommend everyone vote for that person where it matters. If they do nominate Paul Pot I could be swayed by his dead state limiting his ability to commit mass murder and therefore being a possibly better choice than the current White House resident.

is that manny the hippy's new moniker?

 

[uafanataum]

I've read a few articles like this one that make it sound pretty (constitutionally) controversial. Given the current court makeup, I think I know how they would rule.

My problem is this: if you want it to be constitutional then you can make an argument for that. If you want it to be unconstitutional you can make an argument for that. However it can only be one or the other. Why can we not find an objective person to look at the facts and make an unbiased decision?

 

[NationalTitles18]

is that manny the hippy's new moniker?

Took me a minute, but hahahaha!

 

[92tide]

Took me a minute, but hahahaha!

i figured he would be on the county commission in humboldt by now

 

[TexasBama]

Paul Pot

Pol Pot's cousin?

 

[NationalTitles18]

Pol Pot's cousin?

Haha! Yup. Little known fact: he has another cousin - a redneck terrorist named Dun Bin Did. They are the Jimmy Swaggart,, Mickey Gilley, and Jerry Lee Lewis of the criminal underground. Paul is the goofy, likeable one, but can grate on your nerves.

 

[Tidewater]

More of a question than a comment... It appears from personal experience that several states that do not have an income tax replace it with a Wealth Tax including Tennessee and Florida. I have not studied the matter but it would seem that a tax could be designed in such a way to avoid a Supreme Court ruling that would effectively throw out all wealth taxes.

States can do all kinds of things that the federal government is prohibited from doing.

 

[Tidewater]

My problem is this: if you want it to be constitutional then you can make an argument for that. If you want it to be unconstitutional you can make an argument for that. However it can only be one or the other. Why can we not find an objective person to look at the facts and make an unbiased decision?

The problem with judging the constitutionality of most issues boils down to this: Are you judging based on the Constitution as adopted or the Constitution as one side or another wishes it to be?
As adopted, if you want to judge the constitutionality of an act by looking at Article I, Section 8. If it is listed there, then it is constitutional. If not, it is not constitutional. On the other hand, since about 1790, there have been those who judge the constitutionality of an act by "I want X to be constitutional, therefore it is," or "if you torture the language enough, you can see a penumbra that covers Y," or "if I had been in Philadelphia, I would have included Z, therefore Z is constitutional."
The latter method has held sway for a long time, but the former still asserts itself from time to time.

 

[CharminTide]

The problem with judging the constitutionality of most issues boils down to this: Are you judging based on the Constitution as adopted or the Constitution as one side or another wishes it to be?
As adopted, if you want to judge the constitutionality of an act by looking at Article I, Section 8. If it is listed there, then it is constitutional. If not, it is not constitutional. On the other hand, since about 1790, there have been those who judge the constitutionality of an act by "I want X to be constitutional, therefore it is," or "if you torture the language enough, you can see a penumbra that covers Y," or "if I had been in Philadelphia, I would have included Z, therefore Z is constitutional."
The latter method has held sway for a long time, but the former still asserts itself from time to time.

Stated more accurately: written language is an imperfect medium to convey precise meaning.

There will always be unforeseen grey areas that require interpretation. Hence my link showing two framers of the Constitution on opposite sides of a Supreme Court case arguing the limits of federal taxation authority under the Constitution that they both helped create.

 

[Tidewater]

Stated more accurately: written language is an imperfect medium to convey precise meaning.

There will always be unforeseen grey areas that require interpretation. Hence my link showing two framers of the Constitution on opposite sides of a Supreme Court case arguing the limits of federal taxation authority under the Constitution that they both helped create.

I appreciate that.
The Framers were the proposers only. The ratifiers were, in fact, the real Founders. Madison put it best:

"[T]he legitimate meaning of the Instrument [the Constitution] must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be, not in the opinions or intentions of the body which planned and proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions, where it received all the authority which it possesses.” Letter from James Madison to John G. Jackson (Dec. 27, 1821), in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, (New York: R. Worthington, 1884), 3:228.

The Founders in the state conventions were divided into two camps: (1) those who opposed ratification because they believed that the federal government would exercise powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution and (2) those who supported ratification because the federal government would never be able to exercise any powers but those expressly enumerated in the Constitution.
There were none, not one, who said, "I believe we should ratify this Constitution because the federal government will be able to loosely interpret its own powers."

 

[Tidewater]

And Hamilton arguing in favor of an excise tax (but describing it as not a direct tax) sidesteps the issue. Hamilton in Philadelphia argued for federal selection of state governors and a federal negative on state laws (and did not get a second). When he did not get his way, he described the constitution as adopted as a "frail and worthless fabric." If there was money to be made by Hamilton or his friends, Hamilton would argue that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.

On the issue of a wealth tax, I would place it in the category of "good idea" (maybe) but not in the category of "constitutional idea." Not every good idea is constitutional and not every constitutional idea is a good idea. Plus, I think, even if adopted, it would not raise the tax revenue hoped for, because you would give a powerful incentive to the super wealthy to move their wealth out of the United States.