$13 Trillion Challenge

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
dawnirion dawnirion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

$13 Trillion Challenge

This post was updated on .
Van is challenging anyone to come up with anything that Congress can't regulate under current legal precedent. Enter your ideas by replying to this post. Van is monitoring for new entries and will respond to as many as time allows.

(Please note that $13Trillion is the approximate National Debt, and anyone with any brains at all should recognize that Liberty Legal Foundation isn’t ACTUALLY going to give anyone any prize. This is just an intellectual exercise.)
Marine Marine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

$13 Trillon Challenge


When you ask a politician how the government can justify the un-Constitutional laws they write and he cites the "commerce clause" or the "general welfare" statement, remind him of this.......

    "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those
     specifically enumerated."
          ~Thomas Jefferson

Do you know of any politician qualified to debate the Constitution with Thomas Jefferson?
 

Marine
Marine Marine
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: $13 Trillon Challenge

In reply to this post by dawnirion


Congress has no right to write laws about health care. I know because I've read the US Constitution. The 535 Stooges act as if they've never read it.
 
See Article 1, Section 8, listing the only powers We, the people, gave the Congress. Everything else, according to the Tenth Amendment is off limits to Congress.

If you really think Congress has the Constitutional authority to take over health care in America, name one thing the Congress cannot do. Or do you think Congress can do anything it wants? If you believe that, why pretend we have a Constitution? Is Congress omnipotent? Is there no limit to its powers? Is that what the founding fathers gave us?
 
Our politicians forget that we, the people, wrote our Constitution. We don’t get our rights from the government. God gave us our rights. The government gets its rights from us.
          ~ Gordon Curtis [2004]
 
 "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but  
   only those specifically enumerated."
          ~ Thomas Jefferson
 
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."  
           ~James Madison
 
"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers enumerated in the Constitution connected with them.  To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
            ~ James Madison
 
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but    
   bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
        ~ Thomas Jefferson
 
An American who believes the government has dominion over us betrays our Constitution.
            ~ Gordon  Curtis
 
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing
        ~ Thomas Jefferson
 
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
        ~ Thomas Jefferson
 

~ Marine
Torm Howse Torm Howse
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: $13 Trillon Challenge

In reply to this post by dawnirion
The original challenge was expressed (via recent OCA email update) as:

"Your decisions that affect your lifespan, your health, or your financial security all are within Congresses authority to regulate. Congress can prohibit, require, punish and demand anything that affects your health, your finances or your lifespan. I challenge anyone to identify anything that is not within Congressional authority to regulate using this method of justification."

So, if that is the method of justification for this challenge, let us first recognize that, indeed, Congress' power invidiously infiltrates virtually every aspect of our lives these days, which (constitutionally) is far, far beyond the true authority granted (by us!), and would certainly cause every Founding Framer to roll several times over in their graves.

However, just for the grins of challenge, and maybe to make them also directly useful as examples to be leveraged right back into the current OCA lawsuit, relevant answers would be and are (drum roll.........):

1.  Your personal religious beliefs/Faith (not public acts/expressions, 'cuz that mixes into legal aspects of the First Amendment, etc., sometimes, but just your own personal, private beliefs, in your own home, etc.).

2.  Whether or not you procreate children, and, if so, how many children you procreate.

3.  Your personal preferences of music listened to, television and movies watched, books read, etc. (again, like #1 above, only your own personal, private, in-home, etc.).

4.  Your political party preferences and beliefs, etc....

5.  (so far still..) Your domestic traveling preferences/choices.

Sure, there's plenty of others.  But, let's also consider the opposite situation -- something that should be obvious to most every American citizen -- that the Congress does NOT and never did have ANY power, whatsoever, to regulate in any fashion, but yet it has done just exactly that, and in ever-increasing, ever invasive methods, over the past four decades and still counting, still increasing, out of control:

God-given, natural, inherent, blood relationships amongst the immediate members (fathers, mothers, children) of every single family unit in America!

Yes, even though the federal courts are always the first ones to state and rule that permanent decision-making aspects by government about any domestic relations matters belong exclusively to the States (federal courts will hear direct due process challenges to the actual procedures and similar matters of state domestic relations cases, but NEVER the actual merits of whether divorce, custody, guardianship, etc., was properly decided, themselves).

Yep! Every single day, federal courts are routinely dismissing challenges to wayward state domestic relations matters gone awry, often using -- get this -- their "domestic relations exception" (one of their "abstention" doctrines to avoid hearing anything from state courts that they don't wish to hear..), because the federal courts are uniform in quickly stating that the Federal Government has no moment to be involved with "state law matters", yet the Federal Government clearly has been DEEP into EVERY aspect of virtually every kind of "exclusively state law" domestic relations matters for DECADES now...  managing and micromanaging literally every step and procedure, via yet more carrot-and-stick policies, of every sort of "state law" cases over divorce and separation, child custody/support/visitation, adoption and foster care, child protective services, paternity, guardianship, etc., etc., and etc. ad nauseum...

With ever-expanding control, regulation, taxation, administration, etc., over virtually every conceivable angle of The American Family's interpersonal relationships -- beginning in the mid-1970s with the introduction of vast (and still rapidly growing) bureaucracies federalized to administer all of these various types of "exclusive state law matters", along with more and more taxation, regulation, policy and procedure to sink it in even deeper.

Now, the Federal Government literally controls every procedural step and result of all these federalized "state law" matters, and has vast money-skimming administrations over each and every one of them, actually destroying The American Family unit base (along with marriage, etc.) at a very alarming rate.

Yet, the federal courts 'recognize' that the Federal Government has no business or authority to monkey around with such (formerly-exclusive) "state law matters" in the first place.

In fact, the federalization of "child support" is a PERFECT example of what the federalization of Health Care will do.  Just before that first (and still biggest) federalization of "state" Family Law happened, by creating the OCSE (federal Office of Child Support Enforcement), the Fed had to "justify" the need for same, so the Fed spent some money and time crunching numbers of then-current "paid-in-full" child support obligors versus the ones not paid in full.  They found and published, as their "need" and "justification", that the long-term trend in America's child support payments had always been right around 79-80% paid in full.  So, they used that as "need" to federalize what had ALWAYS been an exclusive matter reserved solely unto state law, because the media and governmental hype was - naturally (and not offensively) - to increase that percentage of child support collected...  A noble idea, itself, just like noble ideas are often used to begin federal programs.

BUT, just like this Health Care "reform" legislation, the Federal Government typically makes much worse anything that it sticks its fingers into.  Soo, what happened after 35 years and some $3.2-3.6 TRILLION spent on all this new federalized program of enforcement bureaucracies (in actual dollars thru the years, and which would be worth some $12-15 Trillion in today's dollars if adjusted for inflation)???  Our great and wise Federal Government has dramatically increased the total national collection percentage of all child support a whopping 1-2 percent...  from 79-80% as the everlasting average rate in the 1960s and 1970s, clear up to a sizzling total percentage of about 81-82% today.

That's right.  For just this ONE federalization aspect of the American Family, the Fed has taxed and spent America to the tune of TRILLIONS of dollars, to fund vast, vast, vast bureaucracies and programs, in order to carrot-and-stick divorce and child support collection as a universally guaranteed result (ever heard of a filed divorce being dismissed, i.e., without the parties actually resulting in divorce?...), and in order to collect ONLY billions of dollars that might not have been collected before -- in order words, at a financial investment LOSS rate, every single day, in the range of HUNDREDS-TO-ONE...

And, actually, it's even worse, because 99% of all that extra measley billions does NOT go BACK to the taxpayers, but is simply forwarded on to the custodial parents, of course.  So, the reality is that federalization of child support (just ONE federalization program over the American Family, and there are several...) has cost America many trillions of dollars, in order to collect only billions extra than what would have NATURALLY happened, and, indeed, what HAD been naturally happening already - as far back as The Fed's crunched numbers also proved back then - in order to financially destroy taxpayers at the truer rate of a LOSS of THOUSANDS-TO-ONE, every day, everywhere, all the time...  let alone the catastrophic devastation to marriage and family in America...

Did I win the challenge yet?  Huh-huh?
Rube Simon Rube Simon
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: $13 Trillion Challenge

In reply to this post by dawnirion
While this is a good way to prepare for what may come, are you sure you want to give the enemy the answers this easily? Surely there could easily be a spy in our midst.
Van Irion Van Irion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: $13 Trillion Challenge

Rube,

We're not trying to hide anything. In fact, the point is to create the discussion. The more people know these arguments, the better.

Van
Van Irion Van Irion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: $13 Trillon Challenge

This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Torm Howse
Torm,

Nope. You didn't win. Great attempt. Below is the response Congress would use to justify regulation of the subject matter you suggest is outside their control. Now, keep in mind, this is Congress using the Wickard v. Filburn line of precedent.

Remember the facts of Filburn: A wheat farmer, growing wheat on his own land, for storage on his own land, for consumption by his family on his land, was deemed interstate commerce because if the "category of activity" was done by lots of people it could affect the demand on wheat on an interstate level.

You suggested:
1.  Your personal religious beliefs/Faith (not public acts/expressions, 'cuz that mixes into legal aspects of the First Amendment, etc., sometimes, but just your own personal, private beliefs, in your own home, etc.).

Wickard Analysis:  Individual religious beliefs can lead to purchasing of religious paraphernalia such as Bibles, candles, prayer rugs, etc. As a "category of activity" groups of people purchasing or not purchasing such items can effect interstate demand for such items, therefore, its interstate commerce.

2.  Whether or not you procreate children, and, if so, how many children you procreate.

Wickard Analysis: This one's easy. The more people there are, the more those people will purchase items, thereby effecting interstate demand. Therefore, you MUST have children all the time; or you can NEVER have ANY children (depending upon which way Congress wants to have it that year).

3.  Your personal preferences of music listened to, television and movies watched, books read, etc. (again, like #1 above, only your own personal, private, in-home, etc.).

Wickard Analysis: Again, easy. Your personal preferences, assuming lots of people have the same preferences (category of activity again), can shift demand in the music industry from Nashville (country music) to Hollywood (pop music). This clearly affects interstate commerce.

4.  Your political party preferences and beliefs, etc....

Wickard Analysis: If you vote Democrat, taxes will go up (They'll go up if you vote Republican too, but maybe they'll go up a little slower, maybe). Taxes effect interstate commerce. Therefore, your political preferences are within Congresses commerce clause authority.

5.  (so far still..) Your domestic traveling preferences/choices.

Wickard Analysis: Obviously if a bunch of people are deciding to travel or not travel from state to state, this IS interstate commerce. Therefore, you must now travel to Omaha at least once a year (because they paid the most to Congressional re-election funds). Next year the law will change to no one can travel outside their state.

Aren't these fun?! Please try again.

Now, you're probably thinking that some of these areas would be protected by other aspects of the Constitution, such as the Bill of Rights. You're right. Unfortunately this has never stopped Congress before. Obamacare, for example, violates at least six of the ten amedments in the Bill of Rights.

And remember, just because Congress hasn't gotten around to regulating the subject matter, doesn't mean that they won't get to it. In fact, they will absolutely, eventually, get around to it.

Van
Tamara Tamara
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: $13 Trillion Challenge

In reply to this post by dawnirion
I would suggest everyone read pages 169-173, and notice the outcome. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=004/llac004.db&recNum=82
Laurie Laurie
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: $13 Trillon Challenge

In reply to this post by Marine
Marine, thank you for those wonderful quotes.