Video: Soldier explains constitutional republic to cheering audience

posted at 8:48 am on July 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Honestly, in almost six years of blogging, rarely have I seen anyone pack as much letter-perfect constitutional instruction as one soldier did at an ObamaCare townhall/protest yesterday in St. Louis. It doesn’t surprise me at all that a young soldier would understand the concepts and the historical context of the Constitution. It surprises me that he has to explain it to the people in Congress:

Actually, since the current generation of Senators and Representatives are too busy to read the legislation in front of them, the need to explain this is sadly, sadly unsurprising. (via lamblock on Twitter)


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

man I’m messing up the [email protected] quote boxes something fierce…sry guys

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 3:26 PM

Cool.. I ll take a Sea Wolf Class Attack Sub, 20 F-22s (since 0bama doesn’t want them), 2 B-2 Spirits, and a couple of dozen MinuteMan IIIs :)

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 3:16 PM

But only if you can carry (bear) them…. /smile

Romeo13 on July 29, 2009 at 3:26 PM

Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Well, what I mean is that there is no specific statute or anything that specifically says, “You can’t tax too much,” but at the same time, you can’t take someone’s property without just compensation. Of course, you could argue that just compensation are the goods and services the government provides, whereas taking your property for a highway is obviously a taking because even though your gain from highway usage is there, your loss of property is far more substantive.

I believe that if you raised certain tax rates high enough (say, 100% of all income after a certain amount earned per year), that would be something the Court would call a taking. But taxation isn’t considered a taking, even though your money is as much your property as your land is.

It’s an inconsistency, but it’s not mine, it’s an inconsistency in the Constitution.

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 3:27 PM

I wonder if that was in the framers intent?

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 3:23 PM

As they included a mechanism for amending the Constitution, it should be clear that they did not believe they had they prescience or clairvoyance to predict very much at all.

That’s why they couched much in terms of abstractions (“arms”), that hopefully expressed a timeless principle – technology, and tools of force in particular, should never be allowed to be monopolized by an assumed superclass.

LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 3:27 PM

you’re just not fagged enough.

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 3:25 PM

LOL I can’t be fagged to do a lot of things.

Actually, I tell a lie…..I once ate about 30 faggots smothered in tomato (toe-mah-toe) sauce. Went through me like greased lightening.

LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 3:30 PM

But only if you can carry (bear) them…. /smile

Romeo13 on July 29, 2009 at 3:26 PM

While it’s fun to play with, bearly, it does make quite a difference because it adds that “sensible” quality to the amendment and defuses the “so my neighbor can have a tank” argument(as much as I do want an M-4…they just look so [email protected] cool)

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 3:33 PM

LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 3:27 PM

sorry Limey I was being a little obtuse. I was referring to the anti-gunners frequent reliance on the argument that we should only have Muskets since that was what they had then, and the never would have envisioned the destructive power of modern weapons otherwise they would have limited them.

I have often used the first amendment comparison of the offset press leaflet vs the rolling TV camera, and wondered if the Framers could have envisioned the vast power of propaganda in today’s world. The argument cuts both ways and was always fun to make.

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 3:39 PM

But taxation isn’t considered a taking, even though your money is as much your property as your land is.

It’s an inconsistency, but it’s not mine, it’s an inconsistency in the Constitution.

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 3:27 PM

5th Amendment:

… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

But it is yours.

WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 3:46 PM

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Ah…gotcha….

It is just as invalid to assert that “bear arms” only applies to those arms that can be physically carried by a man, as it would be to assert that “free speech” only applies to longitudinal waveforms emanating from the mouth.

LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 3:47 PM

It’s an inconsistency, but it’s not mine, it’s an inconsistency in the Constitution.

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 3:27 PM

No.. any inconstancy is in the ‘living document’ idiots. The wording did not change, only the idiots making the decisions.

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Well at least there was a town hall meeting for McCaskill’s constituents. I called my congressman and senators and none of them plan to hold any for us.

It’s time we get in their faces. I’m so fed up with these people.

atheling on July 29, 2009 at 3:48 PM

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 3:27 PM

So you don’t think that taking a persons earnings can be a form of control?

And you don’t think that handing things out can be another form of control?

Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 3:50 PM

No.. any inconstancy is in the ‘living document’ idiots. The wording did not change, only the idiots making the decisions.

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 3:47 PM

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.

v.

… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 3:51 PM

So you don’t think that taking a persons earnings can be a form of control?

Did I say that it wasn’t? Of course it is.

And you don’t think that handing things out can be another form of control?

See above.

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 3:53 PM

I’m betting he gets called to the office for a butt chewing when he gets back to his unit. Someone on our side needs to be watching to see if this guys gets grief from the system for speaking the truth.
MikeA on July 29, 2009

Shouldn’t.

He did not state his Military Title as in “I’m Sergeant Schmuckatelly of the US Army”

He was not wearing his Uniform.

He was not on duty at the time.

And as best I can tell this town hall was not on a military base.

Me think he did this dead nuts perfect within the guild lines of the UCMJ.

DSchoen on July 29, 2009 at 3:58 PM

Actually, I tell a lie…..I once ate about 30 faggots smothered in tomato (toe-mah-toe) sauce. Went through me like greased lightening.

LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 3:30 PM

Sounds like a San Francisco Gay Pride Parade…/s

Romeo13 on July 29, 2009 at 3:59 PM

Fighton3 is thinking clearly. Circa 1787, “bearing arms” meant more than “carrying muskets.” It meant “employing weaponry.” That meant small arms, cavalry, artillery, naval guns … everything.

You don’t have to like the implications, but you do have to accept them. Otherwise you can’t claim to support the rule of law. The only legitimate way to limit the definition of “arms” is by constitutional amendment. Neither legislation, executive order, nor judicial ruling will do.

OhioCoastie on July 29, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 3:51 PM

And your point would be? You quote the 16th and the 5th amendments. The 16th would have never passed the Founding Fathers muster. The 16th amendment (as as well as several others) are part of that Progressive crap. If they would have tried that in 1776, they would be taken out and shot. (read Article I, Sec 8 for all the taxes that the Feds should be allowed to have). The ONLY reason they passed it is because they created more and more social programs instead of leaving everything not in Article 1, Sec. 8 to the states like the Constitution says. But like all Progressives, they got greedy.

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Actually, I tell a lie…..I once ate about 30 faggots smothered in tomato (toe-mah-toe) sauce. Went through me like greased lightening.

LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Sounds like a San Francisco Gay Pride Parade…/s

Romeo13 on July 29, 2009 at 3:59 PM

Click here for LimeyGeek’s experience (SFW).

WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 4:07 PM

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Right, I forgot, the 16th Amendment doesn’t count as part of the Constitution because you don’t like it. OK.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,

v.

… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 4:11 PM

there is no theoretical limit on taxation, thanks to the 16th amendment.
LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 3:16 PM

When the 16th Amendment was first enacted, the highest marginal income tax rate was 2%.

There had been a discussion of setting an upper limit, except in times of war, of 10%. The reason given for rejecting the idea was the fear that Congress would see that as a mandate – and quickly raise taxes to that insane and barbaric level.

logis on July 29, 2009 at 4:11 PM

t is just as invalid to assert that “bear arms” only applies to those arms that can be physically carried by a man, as it would be to assert that “free speech” only applies to longitudinal waveforms emanating from the mouth.

LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Or that only a “printing press” may be used. But it is just as logical to define “Press” as an industry as it is to define “Bear” as carry. I recognize both sides to the weapons debate have merit, but to my way of thinking, the small arms argument is a reasonable interpretation that allows for individual self defense and for armed insurrection if necessary. I think that view of weapons control is much better defended than the stupid “communal right” BS.

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 4:16 PM

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 4:11 PM

Nice to see you have graduated to straw man arguments now, shows some progression. You still have yet to come to a point. You only post part of a couple of amendments and are making no sense. Please state your actual position or go away.
And I never said it was not part of the constitution. I said it never would have been when the founding fathers were around. I said that the only reason it was remotely necessary is because of Congress overstepping their bounds in regards to what they can do in the first place.

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 4:21 PM

What “representation” are we getting for our tax dollars anyway? I’m not being represented whatsoever.

Time to re-enact 1776, without the acting.

Spiritk9 on July 29, 2009 at 4:23 PM

So you don’t think that taking a persons earnings can be a form of control?

Did I say that it wasn’t? Of course it is.
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Well, there are plenty of limits on government power, but there’s nothing in the Constitution that says, “Congress shall only tax up to 36% for the top marginal income tax, but beyond that is just ridiculous,” or “There should be a flat tax and that’s it.”
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 2:42 PM

So are we to infer that you advocate controlling people through taxation?

Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 4:21 PM

You said there were no inconsistencies in the Constitution. I have pointed out two different parts of the Constitution which, to me, are inconsistent. I am asking you to reconcile this apparent inconsistency with your opinion.

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 4:26 PM

But it is just as logical to define “Press” as an industry as it is to define “Bear” as carry.

No it isn’t just as logical at all. You are completely discarding the english meaning of those terms in the 18th century.

Others have mentioned the correct interpretation – “arms” means all forms of arms technology, however they may be borne into use. We The People reserve the right to utilize all forms of arms to rid ourselves of tyrannical government. You’d feel pretty silly attempting to do that with only a Glock.

All restrictions on the types of weapons the people can own is unconstitutional and illegal. We should be at liberty to amass effective private militia equipped with armored vehicles, mounted heavy weapons, grenade/rocket launchers….the whole nine yards.

To the extent that you oppose this, you are the enemy of liberty.

LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 4:27 PM

So are we to infer that you advocate controlling people through taxation?

Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 4:26 PM

I was describing what I understand the law to be. I didn’t say I endorsed that view.

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Please state your (ProudRINO) actual position …

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 4:21 PM

I have been thinking the same thing. What is this person defending? Where does this person want to end up in this debate?

WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 4:26 PM

And I did. I gave you my opinion of the 16th 2 different times. However, the 5th and 16th really do not talk about the same things. So I was asking YOU why you are comparing them? They are apples and oranges.

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM

I have been thinking the same thing. What is this person defending? Where does this person want to end up in this debate?

WashJeff on July 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Of course, it could just be a bit of clever scripting they way it parrots :P

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 4:31 PM

And I did. I gave you my opinion of the 16th 2 different times. However, the 5th and 16th really do not talk about the same things. So I was asking YOU why you are comparing them? They are apples and oranges.

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Someone else earlier correctly pointed out that your money is your private property as much as your land is. I explained my reasoning as to how it was arguably consistent, but I think that person (whoever it was) was basically right – it *is* an inconsistency. Article I Section 8 gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, and it doesn’t say anything about just compensation, but the takings clause says you can’t take private property without just compensation. I think that’s inconsistent, and I’ve asked you to respond and explain why you believe they *are* consistent – you say they’re apples and oranges.

Fine.

Why are your earnings not private property, comrade?

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 4:33 PM

No it isn’t just as logical at all. You are completely discarding the english meaning of those terms in the 18th century.

Others have mentioned the correct interpretation – “arms” means all forms of arms technology, however they may be borne into use. We The People reserve the right to utilize all forms of arms to rid ourselves of tyrannical government. You’d feel pretty silly attempting to do that with only a Glock.

To the extent that you oppose this, you are the enemy of liberty.

LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 4:27 PM

Depends on whose ear I put the Glock in now :).

But I’m unaware of a traditional english definition of “the press” that differs from the industry or trade of printing and disseminating information.

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 4:34 PM

But I’m unaware of a traditional english definition of “the press” that differs from the industry or trade of printing and disseminating information.

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 4:34 PM

Quite right. I was criticizing the analogy you drew between that abstraction and the concept of “bearing” arms. There’s no parallel at all.

A more accurate parallel would be to contrast “press” with “arms”.

LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 4:37 PM

I was describing what I understand the law to be. I didn’t say I endorsed that view.
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Then what DO you endorse?

Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 4:39 PM

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 4:33 PM

I never said that those amendments had anything to do with each other. Taxation and Eminent domain are two separate issues and need to be address as such. Trying to compare them are apples and oranges and is a poor argument at best.

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 4:43 PM

I was describing what I understand the law to be. I didn’t say I endorsed that view.
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Then what DO you endorse?

Clearly from your postings, you’re shilling for higher taxes and thus less freedom, correct?

Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 4:48 PM

LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 4:27 PM

All government is the enemy of True Liberty, but unfortunately to some degree necessary.

“It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that [a society without government, as among our Indians] is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:64

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Taxation and Eminent domain are two separate issues and need to be address as such. Trying to compare them are apples and oranges and is a poor argument at best.

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 4:43 PM

Why?

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Clearly from your postings, you’re shilling for higher taxes and thus less freedom, correct?

Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 4:48 PM

What are you basing that on?

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Back to the argumentum ad ignorantiam, I see. Shame, you were starting to make some real progress. Want me to define apple and orange for you as well?

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 4:53 PM

Back to the argumentum ad ignorantiam, I see. Shame, you were starting to make some real progress. Want me to define apple and orange for you as well?

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 4:53 PM

LOL. Asking you to explain your conclusory argument that eminent domain and taxation are different is not a logical fallacy, it’s just a question. An argument from ignorance (I believe) is when someone says a premise is true because it hasn’t been proven false – e.g. There must be a God because you haven’t proven there isn’t a God.

So here’s my question: Why can you take one kind of private property without just compensation but not another?

BTW I’m not saying I disagree with the Constitution here, just because it’s inconsistent in some respects doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea.

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 5:00 PM

A more accurate parallel would be to contrast “press” with “arms”.

LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 4:37 PM

AHHH, I understand. Because there is no alternate definition of “press” the analogy does fall flat.

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 5:00 PM

All government is the enemy of True Liberty, but unfortunately to some degree necessary.

Not necessarily. It very much depends on the nature of the government.

“It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that [a society without government, as among our Indians] is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:64

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Yes. Jefferson recognized the tension between his inability to envision a society without government, and the philosophical purity of post-enlightenment anarchistic tenets.

LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 5:05 PM

AHHH, I understand. Because there is no alternate definition of “press” the analogy does fall flat.

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 5:00 PM

They might have been talking about the liberty of launderers? ;)

LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 5:06 PM

I was describing what I understand the law to be. I didn’t say I endorsed that view.
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Then what DO you endorse?

Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

So here’s my question: Why can you take one kind of private property without just compensation but not another?

BTW I’m not saying I disagree with the Constitution here, just because it’s inconsistent in some respects doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea.

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 5:00 PM

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”

The question is (and without playing your ignorance game), are the current services provided by government (common defense and general welfare) truly just compensation?

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

They might have been talking about the liberty of launderers? ;)

LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 5:06 PM

Are you sure….I thought they said something about cheese-makers…

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 5:08 PM

Where is Claire?

SouthernGent on July 29, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 5:00 PM

No, you are simply saying that because I didn’t explain why eminent domain and taxation are different, they must be.

That is argumentum ad ignorantiam. I didn’t because I shouldn’t have to explain it any more than I should have to explain why chocolate ice cream is different from the Sears Tower.You are using logical fallacies and straw man arguments to try and link to different things together. Now, if you want to say they are similar, then please go right ahead and explain so. But since you didn’t, and just said the Constitution was inconsistent using 2 separate amendments dealing with 2 separate issues written over 140 years apart, that leads me to conclude that you have no valid argument and can only throw things back like a two year old saying “NO, YOU ARE”…

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Yes. Jefferson recognized the tension between his inability to envision a society without government, and the philosophical purity of post-enlightenment anarchistic tenets.

LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 5:05 PM

reality bites.

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

Interesting you should post that….I always read that as an implicit endorsement of a pay-as-you-go scheme.

In order to pay for something, you need to know what it costs first. Hence the costs come before the taxes, therefore the taxes should match the costs.

What we have now is a scheme whereby they harvest as much cash as they can politically get away with, then decide how to dispense the loot. They also have an unlimited overdraft facility, which we’re also on the hook for.

LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 5:15 PM

reality bites.

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM

Sadly it is too politically easy to warp reality into biting the wrong people.

LimeyGeek on July 29, 2009 at 5:15 PM

Then what DO you endorse?

Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

With regard to…?

The question is (and without playing your ignorance game), are the current services provided by government (common defense and general welfare) truly just compensation?

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

Right, I pointed that out earlier. I still think it’s an inconsistency because a homeowner could be more benefited by the taking than if they kept the property, but we still compensate them with FMV regardless. And an elderly person with a large income living in an area unlikely to be affected by terrorism still has to pay through the nose for defense and social programs that they will never use.

I’m not saying it’s bad, I’m just saying it’s inconsistent.

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 5:16 PM

The question is (and without playing your ignorance game), are the current services provided by government (common defense and general welfare) truly just compensation?

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

I would say no. One, I don’t feel all that safe with the current administration calling the shots (But trust the military, so its not a complete wash). Two, general welfare does not mean what those who use it do defend social programs think it means. In 1776, it meant happiness (in simplest terms). Am I happy when the government takes my money and gives it to a babyfactory who has never worked a day in her life? No.

And what services does the government provide me? I pay for my own food, car, gas, housing, medical, etc all without government assistance(I do something foreign to the libtards… I work). The only think they do is keep the wolves at bay, but since they have failed to keep the borders secure and crime and illegal immigration is running rampant, they are failing on all counts.

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Fine, no 16th Amendment, let’s use Article I Section 8.

The question still stands.

That is argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Nope, just a question that you apparently can’t answer

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 5:20 PM

He is NOT a Soldier – and never was.
He’s U.S. Marine.
There is a difference. Calling a Marine a “Soldier” is akin to calling a cop a “fireman”.
They are different animals.
Hopefully Ed will correct this.
HondaV65 on July 29,

Honda if he used his military title in what could be interpreted as “political
Branch of service
Rank
He would be in violation of the UCMJ.

It is not a sign of disrespect to ID him as a “Soldier”, perhaps “Troop” would have been better.

You can bet if he used his military title the left would be all over that.

DSchoen on July 29, 2009 at 5:20 PM

And an elderly person with a large income living in an area unlikely to be affected by terrorism still has to pay through the nose for defense

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 5:16 PM

So only New York and Washington DC (and a field in PA) was affected by terrorism on Sept 11th? How is NOT a logical fallacy? Just because a plane didn’t fall on him does not mean he was not affected.

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 5:21 PM

are the current services provided by government (common defense and general welfare) truly just compensation?

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

I would say no.

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 5:18 PM

LOL.

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 5:22 PM

So here’s my question: Why can you take one kind of private property without just compensation but not another?
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 5:00 PM

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

Do any of you guys REALLY believe this is an earnest six-year-old you’re talking to here?

Even if he were, don’t you think he would have shown at least a tiny inkling of comprehension after the first three or four times you cut-and-pasted sentences for him?

All moonbats are the same. It’s not that they’re just a little slow; they are perverse – there is an extremely big difference. They eschew rational thought, and instead devote all of their energies to boosting their self-esteem by adopting whichever position is diametrically opposed to common sense and then pretending this magically makes them clever.

Again: It’s OK to make fun of the retard, but DON’T PLAY WITH HIM!

logis on July 29, 2009 at 5:29 PM

I still think it’s an inconsistency because a homeowner could be more benefited by the taking than if they kept the property, but we still compensate them with FMV regardless. And an elderly person with a large income living in an area unlikely to be affected by terrorism still has to pay through the nose for defense and social programs that they will never use.

I’m not saying it’s bad, I’m just saying it’s inconsistent.

First you need to understand the difference between fixed and liquid assets. When a persons house is seized under eminent domain they are not getting a “benefit” they receive only the cash value of the physical asset (maybe). The government forces them to convert from a fixed asset to a liquid asset. Any benefit they receive will still come from how the government operates the seized area. That operation is paid for with the taxes that he will pay going forward. For your taxpayer to get a “benefit” from having his house seized, he would have to receive some form of compensation going forward based on the new use of the land independent of the initial value of the property.

As for paying for services that an individual will never use, that is the foundation of the donkeycrats “tax the rich” philosophy.

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 5:30 PM

Nope, just a question that you apparently can’t answer

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 5:20 PM

I can not tell if you are just playing the fool or are one… ok.. here goes then.

Eminent domain (United States), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia) or expropriation (South Africa and Canada’s common law systems) is the inherent power of the state to seize a citizen’s private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen’s rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner’s consent. The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development. The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are for public utilities, highways, and railroads.

Vs.

To tax (from the latin taxare: to estimate, which in turn is from tangere: to touch) is to impose a financial charge or other levy upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state.

Taxes are also imposed by many subnational entities. Taxes consist of direct tax or indirect tax, and may be paid in money or as its labour equivalent (often but not always unpaid). A tax may be defined as a “pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government […] a payment exacted by legislative authority.”[1] A tax “is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority” and is “any contribution imposed by government […] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name.”[1]

In modern taxation systems, taxes are levied in money, but in-kind and corvée taxation are characteristic of traditional or pre-capitalist states and their functional equivalents.

To sum up, Eminent domain takes all of a PHYSICAL property for the public good in exchange for just MONETARY compensation. Taxation is a percentage levy against a monetary value.

Any argument that the are one and the same is done so from a false position.

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 5:31 PM

Nope, just a question that you apparently can’t answer

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 5:20 PM

IT’SNOTIT’SNOTIT’SNOTIT’SNOT!!!!!!!!!

Again: It’s OK to make fun of the retard, but DON’T PLAY WITH HIM!

logis on July 29, 2009 at 5:29 PM

Better now Logis?

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 5:32 PM

logis on July 29, 2009 at 5:29 PM

But I LIKE feeding the trolls :P Especially the stupid ones…

Ok, that is 99.9% of them :)

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 5:18 PM

agreed, and hence the resistance to these policies is building. I for one see a positive future (maybe 10-15 years from now) when marines and soldiers leave active duty and return to the general populace. I think their children will learn a lot more about civics than many of our children today and we may have a shift back towards Jeffersonian ideals.

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 5:36 PM

DSchoen on July 29, 2009 at 5:20 PM

It’s not a military title thing, it’s a branch pride thing.

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Then what DO you endorse?
Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

With regard to…?

I was describing what I understand the law to be. I didn’t say I endorsed that view.
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Remember that part of the posting?

Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 5:42 PM

What are we to do when the politicians stop listening?
Anyone care to discuss this one?

bluegrass on July 29, 2009 at 5:57 PM

“There should be a law” requiring politicians to pass a test of their knowledge of our Constitution.

maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 9:19 AM

There should be a constitutional amendment that states that no bill proposed by the legislative branch of the United States Government can contain more pages or words than those contained within the Constitution of the United States of America. No more thousand page bills. No more 300 page amendments.

jimmy2shoes on July 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM

What are we to do when the politicians stop listening?
Anyone care to discuss this one?

bluegrass on July 29, 2009 at 5:57 PM

I know what the Founding Fathers would want us to do, but I am sure that if I elaborate further, I would be bumped up higher on a list somewhere… probably more than one :)

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 5:59 PM

“There should be a law”

maverick muse on July 29, 2009 at 9:19 AM

Arguably the 5 most dangerous words in the english language when used together

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 6:12 PM

What are we to do when the politicians stop listening?
Anyone care to discuss this one?

bluegrass on July 29, 2009 at 5:57 PM

Republicans stopped listening way back in Bush’s first term. We had the ‘Gong of 14’, RINO’s trying to install triggers in the tax cuts, etc, etc. What we did was stop voting for them. The party has already purged 90% of the RINO faction and the remaining 10% are ignored as the left does not really need them and Republicans cannot stand them.

Drive them from office and then run candidates who have a clue about the Constitution, civics, and our history.

JIMV on July 29, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Drive them from office and then run candidates who have a clue about the Constitution, civics, and our history.

JIMV on July 29, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Like our soldier/marine in the video?

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 6:21 PM

I was describing what I understand the law to be. I didn’t say I endorsed that view.
Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Then what DO you endorse?

Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 4:39 PM

Preening. My guess is Proud Rino is either a law student or a recent graduate.

ddrintn on July 29, 2009 at 6:28 PM

ddrintn on July 29, 2009 at 6:28 PM

SHHHHH.. he will come back and I will have to explain the difference between air and a 74 pinto….

Wolftech on July 29, 2009 at 6:34 PM

Like our soldier/marine in the video?

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Exactly…we have suffered under the inept and venal for FAR too long. Fire the buggers!

JIMV on July 29, 2009 at 6:39 PM

And then they say our troops are uneducated, losers, and people who can’t find a job.

WHAT A TERRIBLE LIE. This fine soldier proves that our men and women are the best citizens we have.

Richard Romano on July 29, 2009 at 7:07 PM

Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 5:42 PM

What do I think about what our taxes should be? I don’t know. I don’t think a flat tax is a good idea. I don’t like the idea of the national sales tax and an abolition of the income tax.

But you can’t raise taxes so much that you deincentivize people from wanting to be wealthy, obviously, and too high of a tax rate leads to corruption and inefficiency. I also think the tax rate needs to be flexible – higher taxes may be appropriate in times of prosperity even though they may slow economic growth because you want to be able to cut taxes in down cycles. That, or create a federal rainy day fund so that you can provide spending stimuli in times of hardship.

What we do now is totally backwards, to me. We cut taxes when times are good because people want to make more money, and then when times are bad we raise taxes because there is a greater need for social services. As a result we get market bubbles and debt. Not good.

Anyway, that’s what I think.

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 7:29 PM

Anyway, that’s what I think.

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 7:29 PM

Ummmm .. Yeah…. okay…
Glad you cleared that up, now go away.

Chainsaw56 on July 29, 2009 at 7:46 PM

Soldiers are so dumb! /s

Harpoon on July 29, 2009 at 7:50 PM

What a great American.

Cinday Blackburn on July 29, 2009 at 8:27 PM

DSchoen on July 29, 2009 at 5:20 PM
It’s not a military title thing, it’s a branch pride thing.
Fighton03 on July 29,

Well then you know the tight rope he’s walking here.

Being in the military and making a political statement he could end up in the brig if he miss-steps or miss-speak.

Now that I think about it, it should have been obvious he’s a Marine.

DSchoen on July 29, 2009 at 9:42 PM

What we do now is totally backwards, to me. We cut taxes when times are good because people want to make more money, and then when times are bad we raise taxes because there is a greater need for social services. As a result we get market bubbles and debt. Not good.

Anyway, that’s what I think.

Proud Rino on July 29, 2009 at 7:29 PM

LOL…tax policy causes market bubbles?

ddrintn on July 29, 2009 at 10:21 PM

FINALLY! Someone who has actually READ the Constitution! Oh, that’s right, this young man is from MISSOURI, where they require EVERYONE to pass a 100 question Constitution Test to graduate from 8th Grade, High School and any State or Land Grant College.
As for McCaskill, she is a criminal and has been for a LONG TIME, too bad Missourians elected another Criminal for Governor, JAY NIXON.
This does make me want to move back to Missouri.

nelsonknows on July 30, 2009 at 1:52 AM

Fighton03 on July 29, 2009 at 3:39 PM

Actually, in the Federalist Papers, and other writings by Madison, Hamilton and even John Jay, the 2nd Amendment was WELL defined as were also writings by George Mason who co-authored the Bill of Rights.

“arms, being such weapons as the normal infantryman could therefore carry upon his person.” (George Mason)

Maybe we should look at the 2nd Amendment as it was ORIGINALLY written; “The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

“the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone,” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

The 2nd Amendment is clear enough to those who do not intend on destruction of the Constitution.

nelsonknows on July 30, 2009 at 2:03 AM

Under the 10th Amendment, and the Commerce Clauses, the National Healthcare Bill (or whatever anyone would like to call it) is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

nelsonknows on July 30, 2009 at 2:07 AM

It doesn’t surprise me…. I have never seen a real list of qualifications to be a member of Congress or of the Senate. I figure we would get better candidates if we put out an ad on Monster.com. Better than the clueless clowns we have now. Same goes for POTUS, the last rash of candidates was pitiful.

ultracon on July 30, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Soldier for President

entagor on July 30, 2009 at 11:55 AM

The present system for political candidates has resulted in a White House and Congress full of the lowest kinds of Americans, low in intelligence and/or morals. The deadwood reps are slightly preferable to the activists dismantling everything that made the United States the greatest country on earth to substitute another socialist backwater in a world full of them.

Any system would be better, including William Buckley’s preference of being governed “by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than…by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University”. For one thing the people in the telephone directory would not have an overweening sense of their own self importance or all the common sense ironed out of them by marxist propagandists masquerading as professors.

Term limits as for the presidency should be brought in forthwith to limit the damage each politician can do and to discourage the careerists. In the meantime, the only power left for ordinary people to change the system almost immediately for the better is to VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS and keep doing so until you get a keeper, a decent patriotic American. Even then, eight years should be sufficient to make their contribution. Otherwise, the ooze of Washington barnacles starts encrusting even the most pristine hull.

tarkus on July 30, 2009 at 1:03 PM