The ‘anchor baby’ provision in the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) was meant to clarify citizenship issues for native Americans and the children of recently emancipated slaves. Granting citizenship to the babies of people here intentionally illegally and then permitting those illegal alien parents to stay in the country to raise their newborn American citizens was not part of the discussion. That concept is bizarre in the least. What national good is to be obtained? The unspoken answer today is that such policies secure potential millions of votes for the ‘compassionate’ Democrats who support such warped and illogical interpretations. There is nothing uniquely ‘American’ about sneaking across our border in the middle of the night just to deliver a baby in the hope of gaining access to our soil and benefits. That is inherently an illegal act. And no, it is not uncaring to ‘punish’ the child for the sins of the parent. The child is a citizen of the parent’s home country and can enjoy all of the duly forthcoming fruits and benefits upon its speedy return. There is no punishment, just level-headed enforcement of the rule of law and common sense. The Constitution and laws of our country are about fairness and equal treatment. They are about preserving our national sovereignty. They are not about enforcing feelings and securing votes for Democrats.
Showing posts with label 14th amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 14th amendment. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Monday, August 25, 2008
Thinking Can Be Taxing
I just concluded a discussion (debate) with a friend regarding the question of the federal income tax. He was whooped but refused to admit it. The question was on the fairness/constitutionality of the ‘progressive’ federal income tax where the more income one makes the higher percentage tax is paid on it. My point is that the 16th Amendment authorizing the federal income tax does not speak to tax brackets or percentages. Given that, the next place to look for instruction is the 14th Amendment which guarantees that all citizens will be treated equally under the law. Anyone with passing knowledge of logical deduction would conclude that within those constraints all citizens taxed on their income would be taxed at the same percentage rate. Right? But, he replied if you make more you should pay more! Eureka, he just discovered the mother-lode. Egad, how many times have I heard that tired bromide? From each according to his ability, to each according to his need…ooops, wrong country wrong constitution. I desperately tried to explain the scenario that 10% of a million dollars is substantially more than 10% of fifty-thousand dollars. Not enough, he snapped. Says who, says I? Well, the Congress. So is 20% of a million enough, compared with 10% of fifty-thousand I ask? Maybe. Again I remind him of the 14th Amendment and the equal protection concept. He is not moved to enlightenment. So rather than obey the actual letter of the Constitution we should let the Congress arbitrarily set the tax brackets based upon the prevailing political winds of the day. And change them constantly. How’s that for equal treatment? Now the 10th Amendment becomes relevant. If the Constitution does not specifically empower the Congress, it cannot act; but rather must defer to the States acting as agents of the People. So, in carrying out its 16th Amendment power to levy income taxes on the citizens, the Congress must also be guided by the equal protection concepts of the 14th Amendment. To do otherwise would be acting extra-constitutionally or even un-constitutionally. Passing legislation to set progressive tax rates does not and cannot amend the Constitution. Gotcha, I cry! He is unfazed. Ah well, pearls before swine.
The rub is that he really knows that I am technically correct, but that to admit so would begin unraveling a huge quilt leading to the undoing of 50 years of progressive chinks (chunks) in the Constitution. The result would be a federal government about 10% of its current size and power. The States’ power would thus grow proportionally. And it’s much easier to control one capital than it is fifty. Also, under this scenario the importance of Presidential, Congressional and Senatorial races would be greatly diminished. The importance of which party controls the federal government is likewise less critical. There would be very little mischief for them to meddle in and much less damage that they could do to our pocketbooks and our freedoms.
What we are rapidly approaching is a return to simple democratic majority rule, which is of course tyranny of the majority over the minority. Since we have strayed so far from the actual text of the Constitution it has become almost meaningless to many politicians. Why not just take out a lighter and finish the job? Without our constitutional moorings the federal government is free to do anything it pleases without repercussion. That is why it does matter so much these days which party is in power and why these national elections matter so much. Conservatives tend to meddle less than liberals in our pocketbooks and freedoms, but it would be far better to remove the ability and temptation altogether.
Let’s return to the actual Constitution as it is written. And at the same time return to the constitutionally required flat-tax rate for all citizens equally under the law; or just pass a Constitutional amendment to institute a national sales tax (not a V.A.T.).
The rub is that he really knows that I am technically correct, but that to admit so would begin unraveling a huge quilt leading to the undoing of 50 years of progressive chinks (chunks) in the Constitution. The result would be a federal government about 10% of its current size and power. The States’ power would thus grow proportionally. And it’s much easier to control one capital than it is fifty. Also, under this scenario the importance of Presidential, Congressional and Senatorial races would be greatly diminished. The importance of which party controls the federal government is likewise less critical. There would be very little mischief for them to meddle in and much less damage that they could do to our pocketbooks and our freedoms.
What we are rapidly approaching is a return to simple democratic majority rule, which is of course tyranny of the majority over the minority. Since we have strayed so far from the actual text of the Constitution it has become almost meaningless to many politicians. Why not just take out a lighter and finish the job? Without our constitutional moorings the federal government is free to do anything it pleases without repercussion. That is why it does matter so much these days which party is in power and why these national elections matter so much. Conservatives tend to meddle less than liberals in our pocketbooks and freedoms, but it would be far better to remove the ability and temptation altogether.
Let’s return to the actual Constitution as it is written. And at the same time return to the constitutionally required flat-tax rate for all citizens equally under the law; or just pass a Constitutional amendment to institute a national sales tax (not a V.A.T.).
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Goose that Laid the Golden Egg
A bill under consideration in Colorado would compel religious non-profit organizations that accept State funds to comply with State non-discriminatory hiring practices. This would of course conflict with the tenets of many religious organizations on matters such as homosexuality and couples living together in sin, to name a few. With regard to the specific question in this bill, organizations must realize that the Golden Rule applies; whoever provides the gold makes the rules. No government largess comes without strings attached. Since any government financial gift is really the accumulated tax dollars of all of the citizens of the State, some money given to say a Catholic charity is coming from die hard atheists.
The solution is two-pronged. First, why should governments be in the business of giving tax dollar subsidies to such private organizations? These governments lament that they are chronically short of funds and many run regular deficits. Why not cut out these gifts? Secondly, I believe that private organizations should seriously consider refusing any government handouts. They should live within the means provided privately by citizens who truly support their causes, not those coerced into 'donating' their tax dollars by the government. Furthermore, why should non-profit organizations operate in a tax-free status with regard to say property and sales taxes? Again, along with such gifts can come undesirable constraints imposed by those bestowing the gifts. If we did away with the tax breaks and government subsidies perhaps taxes could be lowered for all thus giving people more money in their wallets to then donate to the charities that they personally support. It would also be a much simpler and more direct system, providing more net funds to the receiving organizations. When government collects taxes and then doles out gifts there is a steep administrative cost that reduces the amount that is ultimately handed out. Cut out the middleman!
The principle at issue here is a launching pad for a much broader discussion of how and why governments treat people and organizations differently. In a nation founded on the idea that all men are created equal, we have certainly come to a place where some men are treated more equally than others. We have government dictated hiring practices that require special consideration be given to certain sexes and ethnic groups. People with different income levels are taxed at different rates. Some businesses and industries are given government subsidies, tax breaks and protection from imports. People who commit 'hate crimes' are treated more harshly than people who merely commit what I suppose are 'love crimes.' And the list goes on. Doesn't the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee all U.S. citizens the equal protection of the laws? Apparently not.
The solution is two-pronged. First, why should governments be in the business of giving tax dollar subsidies to such private organizations? These governments lament that they are chronically short of funds and many run regular deficits. Why not cut out these gifts? Secondly, I believe that private organizations should seriously consider refusing any government handouts. They should live within the means provided privately by citizens who truly support their causes, not those coerced into 'donating' their tax dollars by the government. Furthermore, why should non-profit organizations operate in a tax-free status with regard to say property and sales taxes? Again, along with such gifts can come undesirable constraints imposed by those bestowing the gifts. If we did away with the tax breaks and government subsidies perhaps taxes could be lowered for all thus giving people more money in their wallets to then donate to the charities that they personally support. It would also be a much simpler and more direct system, providing more net funds to the receiving organizations. When government collects taxes and then doles out gifts there is a steep administrative cost that reduces the amount that is ultimately handed out. Cut out the middleman!
The principle at issue here is a launching pad for a much broader discussion of how and why governments treat people and organizations differently. In a nation founded on the idea that all men are created equal, we have certainly come to a place where some men are treated more equally than others. We have government dictated hiring practices that require special consideration be given to certain sexes and ethnic groups. People with different income levels are taxed at different rates. Some businesses and industries are given government subsidies, tax breaks and protection from imports. People who commit 'hate crimes' are treated more harshly than people who merely commit what I suppose are 'love crimes.' And the list goes on. Doesn't the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee all U.S. citizens the equal protection of the laws? Apparently not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
