• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Doing things the "right" way

gdgyva

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
13,001
Reaction score
6,973
Location
Near Atlanta Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The Twenty-seventh Amendment (Amendment XXVII) to the United States Constitution prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives. It is the most recent amendment to be adopted, but one of the first proposed.

It was submitted by Congress to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, along with eleven other proposed amendments. While ten of these twelve proposals were ratified in 1791 to become the Bill of Rights, what would become the Twenty-seventh Amendment and the proposed Congressional Apportionment Amendment did not get ratified by enough states for them to also come into force with the first ten amendments. The proposed congressional pay amendment was largely forgotten until 1982 when Gregory Watson researched it as a student at the University of Texas at Austin and began a new campaign for its ratification.[1] The amendment eventually became part of the United States Constitution on May 5, 1992, completing a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days.[2]


That was the last amendment passed.....back in 1992.

Hell, we dont even try to pass laws anymore. We just do executive orders. Why try to work with the other side?

Our federal agencies write their own "laws"....or regulations, bypassing congress. Giving them more power than our founders ever dreamed of

The supreme court no longer just rules on the constitutionality of a law....they help rewrite it.

Seems like we have gone over the edge as to what was intended, and how much much power we so called people granted to the government to rule over us

Anyone else want to go back to doing things the "right" way?
 
The Twenty-seventh Amendment (Amendment XXVII) to the United States Constitution prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives. It is the most recent amendment to be adopted, but one of the first proposed.

It was submitted by Congress to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, along with eleven other proposed amendments. While ten of these twelve proposals were ratified in 1791 to become the Bill of Rights, what would become the Twenty-seventh Amendment and the proposed Congressional Apportionment Amendment did not get ratified by enough states for them to also come into force with the first ten amendments. The proposed congressional pay amendment was largely forgotten until 1982 when Gregory Watson researched it as a student at the University of Texas at Austin and began a new campaign for its ratification.[1] The amendment eventually became part of the United States Constitution on May 5, 1992, completing a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days.[2]


That was the last amendment passed.....back in 1992.

Hell, we dont even try to pass laws anymore. We just do executive orders. Why try to work with the other side?

Our federal agencies write their own "laws"....or regulations, bypassing congress. Giving them more power than our founders ever dreamed of

The supreme court no longer just rules on the constitutionality of a law....they help rewrite it.

Seems like we have gone over the edge as to what was intended, and how much much power we so called people granted to the government to rule over us

Anyone else want to go back to doing things the "right" way?

Don't be so old fashioned.
 
Good luck getting all of that toothpaste back into the tube. Of our 535 congress critters you may vote for (or against) at most two of them in any election cycle. 5/4 split SCOTUS decisions now alter, make and sanction as constitutional many things as "the law of the land" which were never specifically addressed by the constitution.

The constitution defines three classes (areas?) of powers: those specifically enumerated to the federal government, those reserved to the people and the rest are left up to the several states - getting back to that is highly unlikely to ever happen.

More and more power will continue to flow to the federal level being taken, without need for constitutional amendment, from the people and from the states. The most fearsome power of the federal government is the unfunded mandate enforced by an extra-judicial personal penalty called a tax - you must buy, rent or otherwise lawfully posses X or we can take Y from you as a tax in its stead (PPACA?).
 
That was the last amendment passed.....back in 1992.
Okay, and...? ;)


Hell, we dont even try to pass laws anymore. We just do executive orders. Why try to work with the other side?
It is plausible that the post-WWII / Cold War period is the exception, not the rule. Partisan strife, not comity, has been part of the US political system pretty much from day 1 (meaning 1583).


Our federal agencies write their own "laws"....or regulations, bypassing congress. Giving them more power than our founders ever dreamed of
bzzt nope sorry wrong

Congress in recent years has chosen to delegate significant powers to Executive agencies. Federal agencies are required to stay within the boundaries set by Congress when making rules. Congress can override any federal rule by passing new legislation, and those rules are frequently subject to court challenges, so there is plenty of checks and balances going on.

E.g. when the EPA decided that CO2 was a pollutant, this was based on Congress delegating that determination to the EPA. When this outraged certain powerful industries, the sued for years to prevent the implementation. The SCOTUS finally ruled that it was within the EPA's powers.


The supreme court no longer just rules on the constitutionality of a law....they help rewrite it.
Pardon my legalese, but that's bull****. People say this whenever the court doesn't rule in a way they like. The reality is that there is no one single uniform way to interpret the Constitution, or the laws of the nation as passed by Congress.


Seems like we have gone over the edge as to what was intended, and how much much power we so called people granted to the government to rule over us
Pardon my gender bias, but: NUT UP. Be a citizen. Get involved. Write your representatives. Do something.


Anyone else want to go back to doing things the "right" way?
Ugh... Vague nostalgia FTW NOT

When was this time that you want to go back to? Hmm? When was this magical time of comity and responsiveness? Be specific.
 
More and more power will continue to flow to the federal level being taken, without need for constitutional amendment, from the people and from the states. The most fearsome power of the federal government is the unfunded mandate enforced by an extra-judicial personal penalty called a tax - you must buy, rent or otherwise lawfully posses X or we can take Y from you as a tax in its stead (PPACA?).
Yeah, that's not quite how it works.

Yes, the federal government has lots of power. However, the states are hardly lap-dogs, and frequently flex their muscles to run things their own way. We see this with the dust-ups over Obama's attempted deportation deferments, Trump's travel ban, and now the "sanctuary city" nonsense.

Taxes are also not "extra-judicial." If the federal government wants to whack you with a tax penalty because you do something, or don't do something, that is within their powers. Similarly, the federal government can give you a tax credit if you do something they like -- such as buy a home, or operate a small business.
 
Yeah, that's not quite how it works.

Yes, the federal government has lots of power. However, the states are hardly lap-dogs, and frequently flex their muscles to run things their own way. We see this with the dust-ups over Obama's attempted deportation deferments, Trump's travel ban, and now the "sanctuary city" nonsense.

Taxes are also not "extra-judicial." If the federal government wants to whack you with a tax penalty because you do something, or don't do something, that is within their powers. Similarly, the federal government can give you a tax credit if you do something they like -- such as buy a home, or operate a small business.

Wow - the 16A said all of that?
 
Wow - the 16A said all of that?

Actually, it's Art. I, §8, cl. 1
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393

E.g. there are no problems with federal tax laws that provide a credit for mortgage interest, or a one-time credit to first-time home buyers, or providing a credit to purchase a new car contingent on turning in an old clunker. Nor are there problems with penalties for withdrawing early from an IRA or other retirement-specific question.

As to the ACA, as Roberts wrote:

The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct.

I.e. the federal government has significant latitude to use tax credits as a carrot, or tax penalties as a stick. The fact that millions take the penalty rather than buy health insurance is a clear indicator that the ability to use taxes in this way are not unlimited, nor is this really any more egregious than the mortgage tax deduction or other permutations to the federal tax code.
 
Actually, it's Art. I, §8, cl. 1
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393

E.g. there are no problems with federal tax laws that provide a credit for mortgage interest, or a one-time credit to first-time home buyers, or providing a credit to purchase a new car contingent on turning in an old clunker. Nor are there problems with penalties for withdrawing early from an IRA or other retirement-specific question.

As to the ACA, as Roberts wrote:

The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct.

I.e. the federal government has significant latitude to use tax credits as a carrot, or tax penalties as a stick. The fact that millions take the penalty rather than buy health insurance is a clear indicator that the ability to use taxes in this way are not unlimited, nor is this really any more egregious than the mortgage tax deduction or other permutations to the federal tax code.

No, Mr. Smith we are not jailing you for speeding, we are jailing you for non-payment of the fine (plus penalties, interest and court costs) imposed for speeding. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom