rushmc 23
wmw999 2,589
Tell you what. You can quit paying for welfare as soon as I can quit paying to make up for corporations that don't pay, and for military programs I don't agree with.
Fortunately, keeping track of what each and every person is and isn't willing to pay for is free 
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Quote
Let's take the example of the military, your person who pays $30k, and your person who pays $0. Can you really say these two people are benefiting equally? Who really has more to lose if the military fails to defend the country? (a situation where the victors line every last person up and shoots them notwithstanding)
A typical Conservative attitude. You are basically saying that property trumps Freedom. That is obnoxious.
champu 1
QuoteQuote
Let's take the example of the military, your person who pays $30k, and your person who pays $0. Can you really say these two people are benefiting equally? Who really has more to lose if the military fails to defend the country? (a situation where the victors line every last person up and shoots them notwithstanding)
A typical Conservative attitude.
?
QuoteYou are basically saying that property trumps Freedom.
?
QuoteQuoteQuote
Let's take the example of the military, your person who pays $30k, and your person who pays $0. Can you really say these two people are benefiting equally? Who really has more to lose if the military fails to defend the country? (a situation where the victors line every last person up and shoots them notwithstanding)
A typical Conservative attitude.
?QuoteYou are basically saying that property trumps Freedom.
?
Sorry. I assumed you were implying that the property owner has more to lose and thus has a lower net benefit than the person who pays zero.
muff528 3
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
Let's take the example of the military, your person who pays $30k, and your person who pays $0. Can you really say these two people are benefiting equally? Who really has more to lose if the military fails to defend the country? (a situation where the victors line every last person up and shoots them notwithstanding)
A typical Conservative attitude.
?QuoteYou are basically saying that property trumps Freedom.
?
Sorry. I assumed you were implying that the property owner has more to lose and thus has a lower net benefit than the person who pays zero.
Well, one loses Freedom. The other loses Freedom + property. I don't see where that is either a conservative or a liberal concept. Just math.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
Let's take the example of the military, your person who pays $30k, and your person who pays $0. Can you really say these two people are benefiting equally? Who really has more to lose if the military fails to defend the country? (a situation where the victors line every last person up and shoots them notwithstanding)
A typical Conservative attitude.
?QuoteYou are basically saying that property trumps Freedom.
?
Sorry. I assumed you were implying that the property owner has more to lose and thus has a lower net benefit than the person who pays zero.
Well, one loses Freedom. The other loses Freedom + property. I don't see where that is either a conservative or a liberal concept. Just math.
What if neither one loses their Freedom? The military preserves both of their Freedom. The one who paid 30K (presumably the property owner) feels that he's been under-compensated. If he's a liberal, he doesn't mind, but the conservative feels that the lazy bum who paid nothing is getting a free ride. If the guy who has the property is unwilling to support the military (or other essential services) then how can Freedom be preserved for either one?
muff528 3
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
Let's take the example of the military, your person who pays $30k, and your person who pays $0. Can you really say these two people are benefiting equally? Who really has more to lose if the military fails to defend the country? (a situation where the victors line every last person up and shoots them notwithstanding)
A typical Conservative attitude.
?QuoteYou are basically saying that property trumps Freedom.
?
Sorry. I assumed you were implying that the property owner has more to lose and thus has a lower net benefit than the person who pays zero.
Well, one loses Freedom. The other loses Freedom + property. I don't see where that is either a conservative or a liberal concept. Just math.
What if neither one loses their Freedom? The military preserves both of their Freedom. The one who paid 30K (presumably the property owner) feels that he's been under-compensated. If he's a liberal, he doesn't mind, but the conservative feels that the lazy bum who paid nothing is getting a free ride. If the guy who has the property is unwilling to support the military (or other essential services) then how can Freedom be preserved for either one?
Well, his question was "Who really has more to lose if the military fails to defend the country?"
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
Let's take the example of the military, your person who pays $30k, and your person who pays $0. Can you really say these two people are benefiting equally? Who really has more to lose if the military fails to defend the country? (a situation where the victors line every last person up and shoots them notwithstanding)
A typical Conservative attitude.
?QuoteYou are basically saying that property trumps Freedom.
?
Sorry. I assumed you were implying that the property owner has more to lose and thus has a lower net benefit than the person who pays zero.
Well, one loses Freedom. The other loses Freedom + property. I don't see where that is either a conservative or a liberal concept. Just math.
What if neither one loses their Freedom? The military preserves both of their Freedom. The one who paid 30K (presumably the property owner) feels that he's been under-compensated. If he's a liberal, he doesn't mind, but the conservative feels that the lazy bum who paid nothing is getting a free ride. If the guy who has the property is unwilling to support the military (or other essential services) then how can Freedom be preserved for either one?
Well, his question was "Who really has more to lose if the military fails to defend the country?"
Mathematically speaking that case is degenerate. The answer is, it doesn't matter. Since Freedom is infinitely more valuable than property, they both lose just about the same amount.
champu 1
QuoteSorry. I assumed you were implying that the property owner has more to lose and thus has a lower net benefit than the person who pays zero.
Ah... In that case, yeah contempt would be understandable.
My point was that if he tries to make this a strictly monetary argument, he'll end up concluding that progressive income taxes actually are the fairest way to pay for things considering the way many things the federal government spends money on are "distributed." I recommended that if someone has a problem with specific expenditures they should make their arguments there as opposed to making convoluted (and invalid) arguments against the federal income tax.
/edited to add:
QuoteThe one who paid 30K (presumably the property owner) feels that he's been under-compensated. If he's a liberal, he doesn't mind, but the conservative feels that the lazy bum who paid nothing is getting a free ride.
I don't suggest anyone feel under-compensated and merely not mind. That's not being a liberal, that's being a chump.
muff528 3
QuoteQuoteSorry. I assumed you were implying that the property owner has more to lose and thus has a lower net benefit than the person who pays zero.
Ah... In that case, yeah contempt would be understandable.
My point was that if he tries to make this a strictly monetary argument, he'll end up concluding that progressive income taxes actually are the fairest way to pay for things considering the way many things the federal government spends money on are "distributed." I recommended that if someone has a problem with specific expenditures they should make their arguments there as opposed to making convoluted (and invalid) arguments against the federal income tax
I think this is where I reach an impasse with dj. I don't think there is an argument about whether we should be taxed. Only how we are taxed and how we determine how much a particular individual should be taxed. Personally I don't think we needed an amendment to the Constitution to establish a tax system. We could have done it by law. And to butt heads with billvon, nor do I think we needed the 13th to abolish slavery. If we interpret the Constitution through the lens of other writings, i.e. The Declaration of Independence (We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, ....) then the abolition of slavery is already addressed and there was only the need to enforce it in the future when the time became right. Further, I think it is entirely possible that the question may have been intentionally (and stealthly) left for future interpretation. Unfortunately, it took a century and a terrible war to just begin to come to that realization. As dj pointed out earlier, the founders stumbled over the question of slavery and a compromise was reached. But the writers left an opening......
billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>And to butt heads with billvon, nor do I think we needed the 13th to
>abolish slavery. If we interpret the Constitution through the lens of other
>writings, i.e. The Declaration of Independence (We hold these truths to
>be self-evident, that all men are created equal, ....) then the abolition of
>slavery is already addressed and there was only the need to enforce it in
>the future when the time became right.
If the original US Constitution had not mentioned the details of returning escaped slaves I would agree. But since it did indeed contain explicit instructions on the management of slavery, it required an amendment to nullify that portion of the Constitution.
>abolish slavery. If we interpret the Constitution through the lens of other
>writings, i.e. The Declaration of Independence (We hold these truths to
>be self-evident, that all men are created equal, ....) then the abolition of
>slavery is already addressed and there was only the need to enforce it in
>the future when the time became right.
If the original US Constitution had not mentioned the details of returning escaped slaves I would agree. But since it did indeed contain explicit instructions on the management of slavery, it required an amendment to nullify that portion of the Constitution.
muff528 3
Quote>And to butt heads with billvon, nor do I think we needed the 13th to
>abolish slavery. If we interpret the Constitution through the lens of other
>writings, i.e. The Declaration of Independence (We hold these truths to
>be self-evident, that all men are created equal, ....) then the abolition of
>slavery is already addressed and there was only the need to enforce it in
>the future when the time became right.
If the original US Constitution had not mentioned the details of returning escaped slaves I would agree. But since it did indeed contain explicit instructions on the management of slavery, it required an amendment to nullify that portion of the Constitution.
Article IV, Section 2 does not explicitly mention the return of slaves. This section deals with extradition and while it was likely written to gain support from slave States/owners, the last paragraph can also be interpreted to refer only to the return of escaped convicted prisoners (the previous paragraph referring to the return of a person charged with a crime). In that case "the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due" would be the State and not a person. I believe the word "Party" could have intentionally been chosen for ambiguity. The word "Owner" or something similiar could have easily been used. The XIII Amendment basically repeats the last paragraph of Art. IV, Sec.2 but clarifies the meaning in that it refers to escaped convicts, not slaves. I am just saying that taken together (Declaration and Constitution, along with other writings), the idea of ownership of some people by other people already contradicted the original principles. Also, the words "...under the laws thereof,..." is conspicuous. Can a State write a law that denies a person his inalienable rights as guaranteed by the Constitution? Who then gets to choose who is eligible for slavery and who is not? I think it was "known" that the idea of slavery would not stand up to a future challenge. And I don't think the founders would have left open the possibility that anyone could be subject to ownership by another.
"Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
Of course the last paragraph was "superceded" by the XIII Amendment.
Edited to include: Look at the 1st sentence of Section 2. Seems a little unrelated to the following paragraphs in that section unless those paragraphs also refer to citizens and not property. No accident there either. Also see the references to personhood in both paragraphs.
billvon 3,120
> the last paragraph can also be interpreted to refer only to the return of
>escaped convicted prisoners . . .
As US courts have ruled that that section of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th Amendment, I don't think you can make that argument.
>escaped convicted prisoners . . .
As US courts have ruled that that section of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th Amendment, I don't think you can make that argument.
muff528 3
Quote> the last paragraph can also be interpreted to refer only to the return of
>escaped convicted prisoners . . .
As US courts have ruled that that section of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th Amendment, I don't think you can make that argument.
US courts didn't need to rule that the 13th Amend. superseded that paragraph. The amendment was crafted and ratified specifically to supersede that paragraph when the amendment was written. My point is that the amendment wasn't necessary in the first place.
billvon 3,120
>US courts didn't need to rule that the 13th Amend. superseded that
>paragraph. The amendment was crafted and ratified specifically to
>supersede that paragraph when the amendment was written.
That's a fair point - but the rulings do serve to clarify the meaning of that line in the Constitution, even if they were not strictly needed.
> My point is that the amendment wasn't necessary in the first place.
Again, I think it's hard to simultaneously make the argument "the 13th amendment was designed to override a part of the US constitution" and "we didn't need the 13th amendment to override anything." (I think both positions have merit, but they're not really compatible.)
>paragraph. The amendment was crafted and ratified specifically to
>supersede that paragraph when the amendment was written.
That's a fair point - but the rulings do serve to clarify the meaning of that line in the Constitution, even if they were not strictly needed.
> My point is that the amendment wasn't necessary in the first place.
Again, I think it's hard to simultaneously make the argument "the 13th amendment was designed to override a part of the US constitution" and "we didn't need the 13th amendment to override anything." (I think both positions have merit, but they're not really compatible.)
wmw999 2,589
But if it was written to gain support from slave states, then its intent was to cover the return of slaves.QuoteArticle IV, Section 2 does not explicitly mention the return of slaves. This section deals with extradition and while it was likely written to gain support from slave States/owners, the last paragraph can also be interpreted to refer only to the return of escaped convicted prisoners
At least according to Wikipedia, it was:
QuotePierce Butler and Charles Pinckney, both from South Carolina, submitted this clause to the Constitutional Convention. James Wilson of Pennsylvania objected, stating it would require that state governments to enforce slavery at taxpayers' expense. Butler withdrew the clause. However, on the next day the clause was quietly reinstated and adopted by the Convention without objection. This clause was added to the clause that provided extradition for fugitives from justice.
If we shouldn't torture the Constitution to say things that the founders didn't think of in some areas, we shouldn't do so in other areas, either. It is what it is; a great template, with the means for modification.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Andy9o8 2
QuoteNo Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
For good or for ill, I've spent a lifetime in the wacky business of interpreting this gobbeldy-gook for a living.
It meant "slaves". That's what it was intended to mean, and that's what it did mean. End of discussion.
muff528 3
Quote>US courts didn't need to rule that the 13th Amend. superseded that
>paragraph. The amendment was crafted and ratified specifically to
>supersede that paragraph when the amendment was written.
That's a fair point - but the rulings do serve to clarify the meaning of that line in the Constitution, even if they were not strictly needed.
> My point is that the amendment wasn't necessary in the first place.
Again, I think it's hard to simultaneously make the argument "the 13th amendment was designed to override a part of the US constitution" and "we didn't need the 13th amendment to override anything." (I think both positions have merit, but they're not really compatible.)
Well, I think the 13th Amendment did place a nice punctuation mark on the abolition of slavery at the end of the War to give teeth to the Emancipation Proclamation (which, itself, abolished slavery) and the war's ultimate effect on slavery. Kind of a coup de grace so to speak. And.....It really is not hard to make the argument that "a thing" that was designed and implemented to do "something" was not needed in the first place.
muff528 3
QuoteBut if it was written to gain support from slave states, then its intent was to cover the return of slaves.QuoteArticle IV, Section 2 does not explicitly mention the return of slaves. This section deals with extradition and while it was likely written to gain support from slave States/owners, the last paragraph can also be interpreted to refer only to the return of escaped convicted prisoners
At least according to Wikipedia, it was:QuotePierce Butler and Charles Pinckney, both from South Carolina, submitted this clause to the Constitutional Convention. James Wilson of Pennsylvania objected, stating it would require that state governments to enforce slavery at taxpayers' expense. Butler withdrew the clause. However, on the next day the clause was quietly reinstated and adopted by the Convention without objection. This clause was added to the clause that provided extradition for fugitives from justice.
If we shouldn't torture the Constitution to say things that the founders didn't think of in some areas, we shouldn't do so in other areas, either. It is what it is; a great template, with the means for modification.
Wendy P.
I like my Constitutions nice and strong, to that it can carry the weight of centuries of constitutional lawmaking. Not weakened by a lot of stuff hanging off of it in all directions. And yes, it is curious to me that the clause was added by one of the slave states and did not mention slavery specifically.
muff528 3
QuoteQuoteNo Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
For good or for ill, I've spent a lifetime in the wacky business of interpreting this gobbeldy-gook for a living.
It meant "slaves". That's what it was intended to mean, and that's what it did mean. End of discussion.
I'm a n'er-do-well college drop-out and I like to believe that the founders knew that ultimately the ownership & enslavement of other humans could not be reconciled with the founding principles of the Union....and provided the mechanism to do away the idea when the stars aligned.
And, (tongue-in-cheek) most lawyers I know spend their time arguing with other lawyers while still another lawyer acts as a referee.
billvon 3,120
> I like to believe that the founders knew that ultimately the ownership &
> enslavement of other humans could not be reconciled with the founding
> principles of the Union . . .
I think it's pretty clear that at least some of the founders thought that slavery was a fundamental enough part of the economy that it had to be legally protected.
>and provided the mechanism to do away the idea when the stars aligned.
Well, I think it was more that they realized (wisely) that they wouldn't be able to cover everything in one static document, so provided a mechanism for "modernizing" it so to speak.
> enslavement of other humans could not be reconciled with the founding
> principles of the Union . . .
I think it's pretty clear that at least some of the founders thought that slavery was a fundamental enough part of the economy that it had to be legally protected.
>and provided the mechanism to do away the idea when the stars aligned.
Well, I think it was more that they realized (wisely) that they wouldn't be able to cover everything in one static document, so provided a mechanism for "modernizing" it so to speak.
muff528 3
Quote> I like to believe that the founders knew that ultimately the ownership &
> enslavement of other humans could not be reconciled with the founding
> principles of the Union . . .
I think it's pretty clear that at least some of the founders thought that slavery was a fundamental enough part of the economy that it had to be legally protected.
Obviously, or there would be no discussion.
>and provided the mechanism to do away the idea when the stars aligned.
Well, I think it was more that they realized (wisely) that they wouldn't be able to cover everything in one static document, so provided a mechanism for "modernizing" it so to speak.
Don't you think that at least some of these other founders were opposed to slavery and that was enough motivation to provide a "fix"? I think if all of the founders were criminal, slave-mongering scoundrels, and if slave labor was absolutely essential to the economy then there would have been more direct and bullet-proof protections for slavery included in the Constitution.
Like this (Constitution of the Confederate States of America):
Article 4 Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition
1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
2. A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime against the laws of such State, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.
3. No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due.
Now this says "slaves" and means "slaves".
wmw999 2,589
No, they didn't all want slavery protected. But they made deals, just as happens today. And the end result of the deals includes that clause including the protection for slavery.
The ability to change the Constitution with amendments was not put in just so that they could take the "slavery deal" out.
Dude -- slavery was a part of reality in the US in the 1770's. Some states had it, others didn't. Kind of like medical marijuana, only more common.
Wendy P.
The ability to change the Constitution with amendments was not put in just so that they could take the "slavery deal" out.
Dude -- slavery was a part of reality in the US in the 1770's. Some states had it, others didn't. Kind of like medical marijuana, only more common.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Wendy P.
Which is a choice you make and by that, you limit the outcomes
Right?
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln