Surpreme Court Appointments, Roosevelt: 8, Truman: 4, 1932-1952...

[amicus]

http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria10_4.html



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/786244/posts

Monumental Changes in SCOTUS - 4 Bush Appointments?
Posted on 11/10/2002 8:56:18 AM PST by FutureSenatorFromKentucky

This being the first time since FDR that the GOP has controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, it occured to me that we are overlooking another possibility. Without referring to my copy of the Constitution, memory serves that Bush could possibly, albeit with difficulty, increase the number of Justices sitting on the Court. SCOTUS could be increased to 11, justices, and Bush could immediately appoint2 to open seats. Then retirees seats could be filled. That would reverse the FDR court-packing, and give conservatives a solid majority on the SC for decades.

It is hard to even imagine what America would look like if the New Deal was rolled back. Reverse the commerce clause interpretations of the FDR court, and 70% of the federal government would disappear! Can you think of other things?

Yes, cynics, I know the GOP won't have the guts, and I know about the filibuster, but this is an option that is open, and a good dream to have.

http://www.rhodes.edu/library/pathfinders/Justices.html

"Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution specifies only that the president '. . . by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court . . . .' In practice, when a Supreme Court vacancy occurs, the president selects a nominee, whose name is forwarded to the Senate for consideration, first by the Senate Judiciary Committee and then by the whole Senate. That consideration ultimately involves a vote by the Senate to confirm or deny the appointment. If more senators vote for than against confirmation, the nominee is confirmed as a lifetime appointee to the high Court. If the vote for confirmation fails to gain a plurality of the votes, then the nominee is rejected and the president submits another nomination."

http://rodan.asu.edu/~george/vacancy/faqs.html


http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/mcmahon1204.htm

http://www.spudart.org/supremecourt/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

While the dithering Democrats and flaming Liberals are all aghast at possible conservative judges being appointed and confirmed, it may be sobering to realize that between 1932 and 1952, twenty continuous years under control of Democrats, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, that a total of 12 supreme court appointments were made and confirmed.

Those Liberal judges, in fact, changed the history of the United States and the legacy they created, remains to this day.

For the first time since the era of FDR, Republicans now have an opportunity to change or change back what liberal democrats have destroyed.

Liberals should not just be concerned over Roe v Wade, or gay marriages, they need to be fully aware that the very concept of Social Security may be challenged and overturned as the Constitution does not support such a program.

Include also, as mentioned in some above articles, the entire involvement of the Federal government with Labor Unions. The NLRB itself might easily be reversed as well as forced school integration, property interventions that forced home owners to sell to anyone who offered to buy; and the list goes on and is a long one.

All the failed ‘grand’ New Deal and Great Society programs of the Lyndon Johnson Presidency will be subject to judicial review if two or more Conservative Bush appointee’s are confirmed.

The last two elections, more if you include off year elections, indicate that a majority of voting Americans have rejected the Liberal, social manipulative agenda of left wing democrats.

Now I wouldn’t even think of asking the Liberals to be fair, after all, they have only ruled for over 70 years, but they want it all.

Well, so do we and we are long overdue.



amicus...

http://www.publishamerica.com/shopping/shopdisplayproducts.asp?Search=Yes

http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-35000-3

 

[Colleen Thomas]

http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria10_4.html



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/786244/posts

Monumental Changes in SCOTUS - 4 Bush Appointments?
Posted on 11/10/2002 8:56:18 AM PST by FutureSenatorFromKentucky

This being the first time since FDR that the GOP has controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, it occured to me that we are overlooking another possibility. Without referring to my copy of the Constitution, memory serves that Bush could possibly, albeit with difficulty, increase the number of Justices sitting on the Court. SCOTUS could be increased to 11, justices, and Bush could immediately appoint2 to open seats. Then retirees seats could be filled. That would reverse the FDR court-packing, and give conservatives a solid majority on the SC for decades.

It is hard to even imagine what America would look like if the New Deal was rolled back. Reverse the commerce clause interpretations of the FDR court, and 70% of the federal government would disappear! Can you think of other things?

Yes, cynics, I know the GOP won't have the guts, and I know about the filibuster, but this is an option that is open, and a good dream to have.

http://www.rhodes.edu/library/pathfinders/Justices.html

"Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution specifies only that the president '. . . by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court . . . .' In practice, when a Supreme Court vacancy occurs, the president selects a nominee, whose name is forwarded to the Senate for consideration, first by the Senate Judiciary Committee and then by the whole Senate. That consideration ultimately involves a vote by the Senate to confirm or deny the appointment. If more senators vote for than against confirmation, the nominee is confirmed as a lifetime appointee to the high Court. If the vote for confirmation fails to gain a plurality of the votes, then the nominee is rejected and the president submits another nomination."

http://rodan.asu.edu/~george/vacancy/faqs.html


http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/mcmahon1204.htm

http://www.spudart.org/supremecourt/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

While the dithering Democrats and flaming Liberals are all aghast at possible conservative judges being appointed and confirmed, it may be sobering to realize that between 1932 and 1952, twenty continuous years under control of Democrats, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman, that a total of 12 supreme court appointments were made and confirmed.

Those Liberal judges, in fact, changed the history of the United States and the legacy they created, remains to this day.

For the first time since the era of FDR, Republicans now have an opportunity to change or change back what liberal democrats have destroyed.

Liberals should not just be concerned over Roe v Wade, or gay marriages, they need to be fully aware that the very concept of Social Security may be challenged and overturned as the Constitution does not support such a program.

Include also, as mentioned in some above articles, the entire involvement of the Federal government with Labor Unions. The NLRB itself might easily be reversed as well as forced school integration, property interventions that forced home owners to sell to anyone who offered to buy; and the list goes on and is a long one.

All the failed ‘grand’ New Deal and Great Society programs of the Lyndon Johnson Presidency will be subject to judicial review if two or more Conservative Bush appointee’s are confirmed.

The last two elections, more if you include off year elections, indicate that a majority of voting Americans have rejected the Liberal, social manipulative agenda of left wing democrats.

Now I wouldn’t even think of asking the Liberals to be fair, after all, they have only ruled for over 70 years, but they want it all.

Well, so do we and we are long overdue.



amicus...

http://www.publishamerica.com/shopping/shopdisplayproducts.asp?Search=Yes

http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-35000-3

FDR couldn't pack the courts and people actually liked him. GWb has no chance. It's a pipe dream.

A majority on the current court is however a possibility, although an unlikely one. Your best bet is 2 liberals, 3 moderate liberals, 1 to 2 conservatives and 2 to 3 reactionarys.

 

[amicus]

Perhaps, Colleen, perhaps...however, I think the current nominee will be approved by the Senate, I think Rendquist will be replaced before the end of the year and yet another very soon thereafter.

It will really become a fight after this nominee is confirmed, as Liberals truly realize what is at stake, but as I posted the Constitutional recipe for appointing and confirming Justices, you will note it says 'plurality', that means 51 votes, not 60.

There are 55 Republican Senators and perhaps a couple more in 2006, there is nothing the Democrats can do, nothing at all.


amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Perhaps, Colleen, perhaps...however, I think the current nominee will be approved by the Senate, I think Rendquist will be replaced before the end of the year and yet another very soon thereafter.

It will really become a fight after this nominee is confirmed, as Liberals truly realize what is at stake, but as I posted the Constitutional recipe for appointing and confirming Justices, you will note it says 'plurality', that means 51 votes, not 60.

There are 55 Republican Senators and perhaps a couple more in 2006, there is nothing the Democrats can do, nothing at all.


amicus...

I was counting this appointee as a reactionary. I assume one will get appointed eventually, if not this one then another equally odious.

55 is not guarenteed, especially when there are senators left who aren't afraid to say, hey, this guy's a turd. But in the gist of it, you're absolutely correct, we will get a reactioanry eventually.

From what I have read, Renquist dosen't like GW, he may well try and hold out for the next president. Granted, I see littlein the current state of the democratic party to make me believe that won't be Bill First or some other rightwing nut jobber. So you are probably correct in renquist being replaced and I counted that replacement in my 2 to 3 reactionaries as well.

So Bryer & Ginsburg will be there as the liberals, neither is likely to retire with a republican in office if they can help it.

Souter, Kennedy and Stevens as moderate liberals.

Thomas is a reactionary. Scalia was long a more strict consitituionalist, he's moved right in recent years, but I am hoping after he becomes chief justice he will move back towards conservative.

Renquist is a conservative.

Whoever Bush gets in will be reactionary.

It looks liely Renquist won't mkae it to the next president thus he will be replaced by a reactionary.

2006 is interesting. You might see the GOP gain. it's likely you will. But the possibility exits you will loose seats. And it only takes a couple of lost seats and a couple of fellows who aren't prepared to confirma guy for personal reasons. Of course that would assume the Dems voted en block to not confirm, which rarely happens either.

 

[Pure]

amicus and company underestimate the problem

getting back to the framer's views is not so easily accomplished. amicus and those he borrows from are simply taking a convenient out in rolling back the new deal, social security, federal labor law, etc. of the 1930s.

things obviously went quite askew in the 1860s with the 'reconstruction amendments' and the federal government's wanton and improper power grab in the 13th and 14th amendments (which stemmed from their military victories and suppression of southerners' army and southern white persons generally). slavery is free trade, and trying to 'command' that economy out of existence is both ineffective and improper. who is this 'government' to tell me what I can buy and sell?

what must be done to clean the stables, so to say, is constitute a new Supreme Court with justices drawn exclusively from the South, and committed to states rights. 'racial equality' is simply a liberal pipedream that no amount of welfare can create. who is the government to tell me what to make of a man's or woman's race, whether I want to buy him/her, sell him/her or hire him/her.?
Why cannot I hire all Black females, if I wish?

'sexual equality' likewise was never envisioned by the framers, and is an intrusion of 'big brother' into a private area. why, at the time of the Declaration of Independence did some of these same men avoid soliciting the signatures of any women? Again, government coerced sex equality a failure, if you note the differential wages and accomplishments of women generally.

it's time to start with a proper Supreme Court, as envisioned by the framers, amending out of existence every Constitutional amendment since the first ten. Big Brother government has no business getting involved in 'pie in the sky' causes. it's time to stop that abuses of power Abe Lincoln put into effect solely because of the military dominance of his Union army. then the framers can rest well in their graves.

 

[cantdog]

You are so cool, Pure. I can hardly wait.

 

[amicus]

Pure...you just don't get it, do you? I mean really, you just don't get it.

If you read a little deeper into colonial history than the introductory course, you will learn that the 'framers' and those earlier thinkers that were their mentors, did in deed and fact argue rights for women and the abolishment of slavery.

But then, as now, there are and were, opposition groups; and since this nation is a representational republic, the people choose the representatives, they gather, argue, compromise and then make law.

It is not that contemporary conservatives wish to abolish or eliminate those rights and liberties, just the opposite, they wish to maintain and protect them.

What they do not want and what I do not want, is the use of a power ful government to impose such restrictions on liberty so as to enforce equality on a population.

Affirmative action to liberals is a good thing, in reality it is a quota system which benefits a minority at the expense of other minorities and the majority; inherently unfair and injust.

You pansy assed liberals dream of an utopian world with enforced equality for all; it ain't ever gonna happen.

Divergent groups must be left free to compete with their rights to compete protected but the success of their competition left to be determined by the outcome of their efforts. (thas called freedom, if it escaped you)

70 plus years of liberal experiments in social management has failed. Back off, shut up, sit back and let freedom reign.

amicus....

sorry Candog, you backed the wrong horse...


amicus

 

[AngelCherysse]

Trash Social Security? Now who is dreaming!

Liberals should not just be concerned over Roe v Wade, or gay marriages, they need to be fully aware that the very concept of Social Security may be challenged and overturned as the Constitution does not support such a program.

I guess Amicus has never heard of AARP, or that they vote with a vengeance on issues that directly affect them. I GUARANTEE every senator, Republican and Democrat alike, HAS heard of them. Only the senators who don't want to be re-elected are willing to cross that live wire.

 

[amicus]

Hello angel....welcome....

Well the AARP and votes be damned....Social Security is not supported by the Constitution, so it will not be a matter of votes, but of a Surpreme Court overturning most of the New Deal legislation forced through by Roosevelt.

I know this may come as news to you, but the Federal government has no authority to tax you and force you to support a social security retirement program, that is up to the individual to do for himself.


amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hello angel....welcome....

Well the AARP and votes be damned....Social Security is not supported by the Constitution, so it will not be a matter of votes, but of a Surpreme Court overturning most of the New Deal legislation forced through by Roosevelt.

I know this may come as news to you, but the Federal government has no authority to tax you and force you to support a social security retirement program, that is up to the individual to do for himself.


amicus...

Sorry Amicus, but social security is supported by the constitution. It comes under the heading of neccessary and proper, within the necceessary and proper clause that defines the ability of congress to make laws that add to federal powers at the expense of reserve powers of the states.

I don't see any grounds on which you could challenge it that haven't already been tried. It's basically, an old age tax, and the power of congress to levy txes is defined and protected by the constitution.

 

[Pure]

nice try, ami

since you learn your history from novels, it seems you have serious misunderstandings, to wit:

Ami: It is not that contemporary conservatives wish to abolish or eliminate those rights and liberties, just the opposite, they wish to maintain and protect them.

What they do not want and what I do not want, is the use of a power ful government to impose such restrictions on liberty so as to enforce equality on a population. {my bold, pure}
====

I respond. First, it's quite doubtful if you're contemporary or conservative. You're a Utopian dreamer with an idealized form of 19th century capitalism as the Ultimate for Mankind.

These two sentences perfectly show your logical inconsistency. The 13th and 14th amendments were to set up a basis for social equality of the races. That could be set up, 'maintained and protected' (in your words) only through a "powerful government" (in your terms), i.e, centralized and federal. This is what Abe Lincoln did-- in your terms, the biggest federal power grab in the history of the US.

In your words, he, through the fed govt, "restricted the liberty" of slave owners, to further equality. Indeed, he stripped them of private property which came to them by their own efforts and entirely within the law. And offered no compensation. This is something, according to you, NO govt has a right to do.
Is there a greater crime a govt could commit? It's very much like what Stalin did to the peasants holding larger amts of land.

The 19th amendment was to set up a basis for sex equality. "The use of a powerful government" (your words) was exactly used to "enforce equality on a population" since only Wyoming, iirc, had chosen to give women a vote.

You claim to support certain rights as 'conservative' --but you are not one (at least a conservative who cares about civil rights), since you dismantle the means to secure and protect them. Going by your recommendations, you do not support guaranteed women's rights, e.g., to privacy, equal employment (and equitable remuneration).

IF you were consistently for 'minimal government' and 'freedom to buy and sell' you could not support such federal intrusions as the 13th 14th, and 19th amendments. Minimum federal government means reversion to a states' rights approach: under that, some states abolish slavery, some keep it. Some states give women a vote; some don't. And that's the way it should be, as you say, equality NOT being "enforced on a population."

A simple question, ami, my dreamer, Do you favor the 13th, 14th, and 19th amendments to the US constitution.?

After that, you may address whether you view the 16th (income tax) amendment as proper and constitutional, or deeply at variance with what the framers envisioned.

Or, you may instead deliver one of those canned "Human Events" type denunciations of the New Deal.

Whichever.

 

[amicus]

“…Sorry Amicus, but social security is supported by the constitution. It comes under the heading of necessary and proper, within the necessary and proper clause that defines the ability of congress to make laws that add to federal powers at the expense of reserve powers of the states…”

Dear Colleen, ‘necessary and proper’ is subjective, can mean anything and be interpreted in any way. Surely there is some vagueness, some loopholes that appeared as the document and the country aged.

Since we are a ‘nation of laws’, with the fundamental law being the Constitution and the bill of rights, those document must be ‘literally’ interpreted as to the innate meaning and the meanings of the framers. It is not a ‘living document’ to be tweaked as trends change.

Many others challenged the constitutionality of the social security legislation at its inception, the FDR packed court over-ruled the litigation. That may not happen with a court more attuned to ‘interpreting’ rather than legislating.

The whole point of my post was to illustrate that left wing democrats, FDR and Truman, had many more appointments than one might recall and that those appointments changed the course of history in the US.

The subordinate point was that President Bush not only has the right, but the obligation to appoint justices that reflect his political philosophy, (as did FDR and Truman), but that those appointments may also change the future to as great a degree as did the previous appointments. Not by innovation or pro active legislation, but by returning to a constructionist interpretation and abolishing 70 years of left wing manipulation.




Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


Amendment XVII

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.



Amendment XVIII

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.



Amendment XIX

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxix.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Pure, I have come to the conclusion that you simply cannot present an objective argument without stooping to personal slurs and attacks on the character of your antagonist. I suppose we who debate must accept that character flaw of yours or just ignore it.

While it is necessary for the Constitution to specify, as precisely as possible , the rights of the citizens of this nation possess, the purpose and the intent is to clarify that all are to be treated equally, ‘under the law’.

While few question the law of emancipation for slaves and women and ‘indians’, many question the accompanying methods of enforcement and application of those laws, when the impositions involve violations of other ‘guaranteed’ rights of other citizens.

While Colleen and Cloudy bemoan the treatment of Native Americans throughout history, they want more than ‘equal’ treatment under the law. They want compensation and ‘special’ treatment.

The same holds true with African Americans and their advocates, they want more than ‘equality’ under the law, they also wish compensation and ‘special’ treatment to help them compete more equally in society.

For those who believe in a large and active federal government, that interference and abridgement of the rights of others to accomplish those goals is an acceptable sacrifice of rights to attempt to manage a society.

For those who accept the laws you pointed out, but do not accept the use of force to implement desegregation, or the means to enforce compensatory equality in business for women, it becomes a different story.

I applaud the Amendments that confirmed women and slaves and Indians to be full citizens in this Republic, I do not applaud the social legislation that violates the rights of property owners, business owners and any other person whose rights were violated to provide the ‘framework’ for the imposition of equality in all levels of society.

Once again, I posted this thread to contrast the possible two or three supreme court appointments President Bush may have to the Eight that President Roosevelt had. It was intended to bring the frantic left wing to a level of awareness that might encompass recognizing that conservatives have an equal right to appoint according to their political philosophies also.

I had hoped the Lit liberals would quit whining and join the fight fairly. Instead, you just ignore the content and re direct the thread.

Typical reaction when you know you can not win an argument and have been bested before you begin.

Amicus…

 

[Colleen Thomas]

There is plenty of wiggle room. And plenty of room for interpretation. And quite often, there are challenges from the states when their reserved powers are being tampered with.

That does not change the fact that Social Security is constitutionally supported. Thus far, all judicial review has upheld that it falls within the bound of neccessary and proper. Until a challenge is mounted that it isn't, and judicial review finds some reason it isn't, it is constituionally supported.

 

[amicus]

Dear Colleen:

Since you are one of the few with a fairly rational mind on this site, I must ask if you support the concept of social security as a belief, as a necessary abrogation of individual rights or whether you support the compulsory confiscation of income for social planning.

Below are two links, one the history of the program and two, the Supreme Court case that challenged the concept. I did not read where they emphasized, 'necessary and proper' although I admit I scanned the brief rather than studied it.

This is most likely just academic discussion as Social Security has become entwined in the fabric of belief that it will never be seriously challenged. Although, as the program will go in the red in about 12 years, I could be wrong.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/50mm2.html

http://www.agh-attorneys.com/4_helvering_v_davis.htm



amicus

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Dear Colleen:

Since you are one of the few with a fairly rational mind on this site, I must ask if you support the concept of social security as a belief, as a necessary abrogation of individual rights or whether you support the compulsory confiscation of income for social planning.

Below are two links, one the history of the program and two, the Supreme Court case that challenged the concept. I did not read where they emphasized, 'necessary and proper' although I admit I scanned the brief rather than studied it.

This is most likely just academic discussion as Social Security has become entwined in the fabric of belief that it will never be seriously challenged. Although, as the program will go in the red in about 12 years, I could be wrong.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/50mm2.html

http://www.agh-attorneys.com/4_helvering_v_davis.htm



amicus

Hmmm, the question is difficult.

I suppose, the most honest answer is I don't have any problem with the theory. I have some serious qualms with the reality.

In theory, the government isn't taking your money, they are making you save a portion of it for something to live on when you are no longer able to work. Since the government would be responsibile for you if you reached that age and didn't have any money, it seems a reasonable course of action. If you go to work at 18 and retire at 60, you have been paying into the retirement fund 42 years and the money has been drawing interest. It seems doubtful you would live to 102 to take out as much as you put in, so in theory, the system is self funding. And your money is not taken, but invested. Not all that different from most voluntary retirement funds.

It would seem to me, you would have to dismantle the welfare system and allow the governement to abbrogate it's responsibility to take care of those who can't take care of themselves, before you could legitimately argue Social Security is theft.

As long as people see it as the government's duty and the law compells government to pick up those costs, The government would seem entierly justified in making you act responsibly.

Of course, in reality, we know law makers raped and pillaged the Social Security fund when it was flush with cash and pissed that money away on God knows what. And we know many people start drawing long before they put in as much as they will take out, some who never put anything in at all.

Within that reality, the argument it's theft could be legitimate. Lawmakers are parceling out retiree's money on things they know will bring no return and they system is paying out more than people contributed, even paying to people who never contibuted. That could logically be construed as stealing the retirement funds of people who are paying into the sytem. Especially if you have the chutzpah to suggest when their time to draw comes you might say, there's just no money left.

 

[amicus]

Thank you for a thoughtful answer, Colleen, and I do not wish to be just a pest of this issue, however.

The average life span of Americans when Social Security became law, was 47 years.

Payment did not begin until age 62, so that half those taxed, knew they would never see a penny returned.

Secondly, as you confirmed, the taxes collected were not wisely invested to provide a maximum safe, guaranteed return.

Following the 1929 stock market collapse, the great depression, the dust bowl, America was challenged to the very core of its belief about a free society and a free market place.

At that time, following the 1917 communist revolution, many thought that democracy had failed and they began to accept socialist legislation as an answer to poverty and unemployment.

Many do not know that the 'New Deal' plans of Roosevelt failed to solve the problems of the depression. In fact, poverty and unemployment continued until the war economy emerged following Pearl Harbor.

Although all this seems far distant history, it merged into the 1950's and prosperity, the 1960's and dissention, the 1970's and Vietnam and suddenly the end of the century and we look about us, sometimes in utter confusion as to how we arrived in the 21st century and why.

Few agree, but some do, that the Bush administration has an opportunity to redirect the course of human events. You among many, fear the direction this society may go, I do not.

I think a return to the basic fundamentals of a free market economy, a huge decrease in the power and scope of the Federal government and a reassessment of what we consider moral and immoral is an absolute necessity.

I appreciate your thoughtful comments.


amicus...

 

[R. Richard]

In the 1980s Cogress passed a law allowing governmental agencies to opt out of Social Security if they wished; just governmental agencies, not individuals.

For whatever reason, several municipalities and school systems in Texas opted out of SS. People covered under the Texas retirement acts are now retiring. They get some two to four times the amount that SS would pay. To make up for the larger payments, the retirees OWN their retirement account money and can pass it on to their heirs. Oh yes, each retiree gets a life insurance policy of, IIRC, his/her annual income up to $75,000. SS gifts a deceased with $255 and withholds the last month of SS payments.

You can Google the infomation in the 'Net.

 

[amicus]

Thank you R Richard, good to know...I think also one or more South American nations abolished government run retirement programs and transferred funds to private market sources.

amicus...

 

[Pure]

ami again

hi ami,
thanks for the actual reply, not just the Human Events tapes:

Here is the core of what you say:

While it is necessary for the Constitution to specify, as precisely as possible , the rights of the citizens of this nation possess, the purpose and the intent is to clarify that all are to be treated equally, ‘under the law’.

While few question the law of emancipation for slaves and women and ‘indians’, many question the accompanying methods of enforcement and application of those laws, when the impositions involve violations of other ‘guaranteed’ rights of other citizens.

While Colleen and Cloudy bemoan the treatment of Native Americans throughout history, they want more than ‘equal’ treatment under the law. They want compensation and ‘special’ treatment.

The same holds true with African Americans and their advocates, they want more than ‘equality’ under the law, they also wish compensation and ‘special’ treatment to help them compete more equally in society.

For those who believe in a large and active federal government, that interference and abridgement of the rights of others to accomplish those goals is an acceptable sacrifice of rights to attempt to manage a society.

For those who accept the laws you pointed out, but do not accept the use of force to implement desegregation, or the means to enforce compensatory equality in business for women, it becomes a different story.

I applaud the Amendments that confirmed women and slaves and Indians to be full citizens in this Republic, I do not applaud the social legislation that violates the rights of property owners, business owners and any other person whose rights were violated to provide the ‘framework’ for the imposition of equality in all levels of society.
=====

I believe this illustrates my analysis of your dilemma quite nicely. In an abstract way, you are OK, with 'equality under the law' applied to Black persons, women, Native Persons, etc.

But should the Federal government actively try to promote that right, you start talking
interference and abridgement of the rights of others to accomplish those goals

In particular, you love to talk 'rights of property owners.' and the tired refrain

'special treatment.'

I'm sure you'd be yelling this in the face of emancipating slaves from owners, or enforcing 'no discrimination' in hiring.

The businessman 'property owner' , according to you, should NOT be compelled to avoid discrimination with respect to hiring women; and if he does hire any, he has sovereign right to pay them half what he pays the men, or whatever he wishes. He should NOT end up in Federal court, like Bell Telephone.

Again, we know that even the constitutional amendments did not secure Black voting in some areas. Hence the "Civil Rights" legislation of the Johnson era.

This gets you right in there with Wallace and Maddox talking against:

the use of force to implement desegregation

This ignores the State of Mississippi's use of force, or the KKK's or the sheriff's who helped the KKK kill the three civil rights workers.

So given the practicalities of laying a basis for social equality by race and sex, I hope you can understand why some of us view your stated commitment to Black and women's rights if not dubious, entirely vacuous.

You probably have personal good will toward lots of people, but are ideologically blinded to what it takes to give them a foundation for an equal chance at life's rewards and opportunities.

---
Here in Canada one can see another example: The Federal gov, through legislation, just gave the approval to 'gay marriage.' Why, because the provinces would take their sweet time (as would the Southern States, re slavery). So in Canada and a number of countries, there is a federal gov strong enough to ensure a right to gay persons (i.e, they will have a right to sue).

In most cases, although the agitation comes from below, it is the higher levels of government, the ones most detested by you-- the ones willing to use national guard to desegregate, as you put it-- that do the concrete steps necessary to ensure and protect a right.

 

[Pure]

Bogus

R Richard: In the 1980s Cogress passed a law allowing governmental agencies to opt out of Social Security if they wished; just governmental agencies, not individuals.

For whatever reason, several municipalities and school systems in Texas opted out of SS. People covered under the Texas retirement acts are now retiring. They get some two to four times the amount that SS would pay. To make up for the larger payments, the retirees OWN their retirement account money and can pass it on to their heirs. Oh yes, each retiree gets a life insurance policy of, IIRC, his/her annual income up to $75,000. SS gifts a deceased with $255 and withholds the last month of SS payments.

A fairly bogus argument and no evidence.

At the 'bogus' level: Of course a local school board, like the one in our city (in negotiation with a teachers' union), may have a very generous retirement pension. Far greater than federal old age pensioin. It's because the latter is designed as a floor.

What this alleged example ignores is the lowest paid, or not continuously employed persons. My mother worked for a county entity--as a receptionist-- that opted out of SS., and she views herself as screwed financially, since no deductions were made. And the county retirement plan for minimum wage receptionists of only 10 years experience is pretty abysmal.
----

Of course there's no evidence about the implications of your suggestion. That most would prefer to go private. You're simply taking the 'best case' and using to argue against insurance for all. (which is supported by law, and by the vast majority).

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thank you for a thoughtful answer, Colleen, and I do not wish to be just a pest of this issue, however.

The average life span of Americans when Social Security became law, was 47 years.

Payment did not begin until age 62, so that half those taxed, knew they would never see a penny returned.

Secondly, as you confirmed, the taxes collected were not wisely invested to provide a maximum safe, guaranteed return.

Following the 1929 stock market collapse, the great depression, the dust bowl, America was challenged to the very core of its belief about a free society and a free market place.

At that time, following the 1917 communist revolution, many thought that democracy had failed and they began to accept socialist legislation as an answer to poverty and unemployment.

Many do not know that the 'New Deal' plans of Roosevelt failed to solve the problems of the depression. In fact, poverty and unemployment continued until the war economy emerged following Pearl Harbor.

Although all this seems far distant history, it merged into the 1950's and prosperity, the 1960's and dissention, the 1970's and Vietnam and suddenly the end of the century and we look about us, sometimes in utter confusion as to how we arrived in the 21st century and why.

Few agree, but some do, that the Bush administration has an opportunity to redirect the course of human events. You among many, fear the direction this society may go, I do not.

I think a return to the basic fundamentals of a free market economy, a huge decrease in the power and scope of the Federal government and a reassessment of what we consider moral and immoral is an absolute necessity.

I appreciate your thoughtful comments.


amicus...

I know you think you know my fears well, but in fact, they aren't so obvious. And the direction Bush & Company are leading us in shoul dbe of just as much concern to you as it is to me on many of the core issues I fear.

We disagree strongly on reproductive rights, but if you are opting for a smaller, less intrusive Fed, then attempts to over throw Roe V. wade should concern you. If you over turn it, you aren't looking at smaller, less obtrusive governent, you are looking at a larger and more personal presence of the fed in people's daily lives. You are also looking at the Fed, usurping reserve powers of the states, thus expanding, not contracting big government. this same will, to federalize the province of the states is apparent in much of the Bush Progrom. From medical marijuanna, right to die laws, marriage acts, and cencorship. In each case, no matter where you satnd on the issue, the fed is trying to usurp reserve powers. It's trying to expand the influence of federal authority, regulation, enforcement and beauracracy into areas heretofore reserved to the states. that's troubleing. Especially to me, as I was raised in the south and voted republican for many years because they were the party that respected states rights.

You want to see a return to old fashioned values. I grew up in them and save for a very few, never lost them. But pushing values isn't the province of a small government. It's the province of religion. And the melding of religious crusade with secular enforcement authority scares the hell out of me. You profess to have no religion, yet you seem willing to let the government foster the precepts of one upon you And I don't understand that. If I am to enjoy freedom, it would seem the freedom to acept or reject the tenets of a certain religon should be among the primary exercises of that freedom. But if those tenets have become law, then it would seem my only freedom would be to arm myself and rebell or accept becoming a follower of that religion, even if I reject it's claims of salvation.

A conservative revolution dosen't really bother me. As many of my concerns would be served by one as hurt by one. A reactionary revolution, that owes it's success to the far religious right is another matter entierly. None of my interests are served and all are harmed by that. If I wished to live in a theocracy, I wouldn't be here.

And if it comes to theocracy, none of your interests are served either as freedom becomes a slogan, not a practical thing.

I'mnot suggesting you become a liberal or a democrat. In my disgust I haven't managed to see that as a better option. But you should check you hole card and consider what price is being paid by conservatives for the power they now theoretically wield.

Conservatives are riding a tiger and they should remember the smiling young lady from Niger.

 

[amicus]

"...who ended up...inside the tiger..."


"...We disagree strongly on reproductive rights, but if you are opting for a smaller, less intrusive Fed, then attempts to over throw Roe V. wade should concern you. If you over turn it, you aren't looking at smaller, less obtrusive governent, you are looking at a larger and more personal presence of the fed in people's daily lives. You are also looking at the Fed, usurping reserve powers of the states, thus expanding, not contracting big government. this same will, to federalize the province of the states is apparent in much of the Bush Progrom. From medical marijuanna, right to die laws, marriage acts, and cencorship. In each case, no matter where you satnd on the issue, the fed is trying to usurp reserve powers. It's trying to expand the influence of federal authority, regulation, enforcement and beauracracy into areas heretofore reserved to the states. that's troubleing. Especially to me, as I was raised in the south and voted republican for many years because they were the party that respected states rights...."

In general, Colleen, I maintain that I hold and offer a consistent, non contradictory set of values and political axioms.

We disagree on abortion only because you do not accept that a human life begins at conception. If you were to acknowledge that, logic would force you to share my position as no other consideration would supercede the taking of a human life.

Marijuana...I advocate the full right of anyone to grow, manufacture, own, use, distribute and sell any and all substances they may choose. Government has no constitutional right to dictate our diet or smoking habits.

Right to die...I maintain that a person has the right to take his own life for whatever reason he sees fit, and to solicit the assistance of a physician if he so chooses.

Marriage acts....I do not like homosexual individuals, but that is my right. However, I do not set forth to abridge the right of any individual to express their sexuality in any manner they choose.

People desiring to formalize a relationship, approach government for legal permission to form a union and a bond. I do not agree that one must seek permission from government to marry; I do however understand that for a contract to be legal, it must be approved and protected by law so that collateral events of that contract can be enforced.

This government and myself included have no interest in individuals choosing a homosexual lifestyle.

What this government objects to, by law, as do I, is the formalization of homosexual marriage as a government institution, requiring full protection of the law in all aspects just as a heterosexual marriage.

There is an existing definition of the term, 'marriage'; it is included in the basic laws of the land. If you and others wish to change that, you must amend the constitution and you have every right to attempt that.

You know the lengthy procedure required to amend the constitution. What I and many other object to, is the attempt to avoid the constitutional process through the courts and the legislatures of individual states.

You above all others on this site are required to respect and uphold the basic laws of the land. If you believe that 'gay' marriage should be constitutional then you should work to make it so.

Censorship was the last item you mentioned. If I could but provide you with 3000 hours of radio talk show programs where I have defended, over and over again, the near absolute right to self expression, you would know that I do not wish government censorship of any form of expression at any time on any venue. The caveat of course, the right to scream fire in a crowded theatre, when there is not fire. Even then, you have the 'right' to do that, but there are consequences.

Again, I maintain I advocate a consistent and non contradictory political and moral position on all things...or I say that I am in doubt, or do not know.

If you have an example wherein I am not consistent or in contradiction, please point it out, I will be happy to respond and perhaps even change my position if you can clarify the issue.


Thank you again....


amicus...

 

[The_Fool]

I must have missed that section of the Constitution that defines marriage. Can you post that portion please?

 

[Guest]

I must have missed that section of the Constitution that defines marriage. Can you post that portion please?

I think it accidently caught on fire. Oops.

(And where the heck is your AV???)

 

[The_Fool]

I think it accidently caught on fire. Oops.

(And where the heck is your AV???)

I between AVs right now. Trying to cut back.

Actually I need to play with the digital camera and make another one. No cigar this time. I am been chastised.....