Peaceful Secession - Walter Williams

[classhandicapper]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/walter-e-williams/peaceful-secession/

[mostpost]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/walter-e-williams/peaceful-secession/
Let's begin with this statement by Mr. Williams.

Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution lists the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. Nowhere on that list is there authority for Congress to tax and spend for: Medicare, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank and business bailouts, food stamps and thousands of other activities that account for roughly two-thirds of the federal budget.

Mr. Williams exhibits a misunderstanding of Constitutions sadly common to those on the right. A constitution is not meant to address every possibility or every situation. The Constitution does not address Medicare, Social Security, food stamps etc. because those were unknown concepts at the time. It also does not address funding for the Air Force. Should we take that to mean that our Air Force is unconstitutional?

There are three clauses in Article one section eight which give Congress broad powers to pass laws.

. 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Medicare, Social Security, food stamps and the like fall under the umbrella of providing for the General Welfare. Farm subsides, business bailouts and bank bailouts are permitted under the clause to regulate Commerce. These principles have been established over and over again in numerous court cases.

[reckless]

Let's begin with this statement by Mr. Williams.

Mr. Williams exhibits a misunderstanding of Constitutions sadly common to those on the right.

Don't you just love it when left wing nitwits claim that economic and Constitutional experts such as Dr. Walter Williams 'exhibits a misunderstanding of the Constitution'?

I do, and that's why liberals have zero credibility when discussing the US Constitution or when they comment on patriots such as Walter Williams.

[Clocker]

Mr. Williams exhibits a misunderstanding of Constitutions sadly common to those on the right. A constitution is not meant to address every possibility or every situation. The Constitution does not address Medicare, Social Security, food stamps etc. because those were unknown concepts at the time. It also does not address funding for the Air Force. Should we take that to mean that our Air Force is unconstitutional?

You don't like what he has to say, so you set up a straw man, attribute statements and beliefs to him, put him in an ideological pigeon hole, and accuse him of being limited by his political theology. Just because your political views are defined by the party line does not mean that others are not capable of independent thought.

Dr. Williams' positions on various political issues range widely, and many are contrary to conventional "right wing" dogma. You present no evidence that he takes the Constitution literally. While I will not go so far as to put my words in his mouth, I would guess that he would agree that the Air Force falls under the common defense power of the government.

Medicare, Social Security, food stamps and the like fall under the umbrella of providing for the General Welfare. Farm subsides, business bailouts and bank bailouts are permitted under the clause to regulate Commerce. These principles have been established over and over again in numerous court cases.

So we have you on record as agreeing with all court decisions as to what is and is not Constitutional? Can you really logically defend the idea that a farm subsidy is "regulation" of interstate commerce? Or that funding a company like Solyndra is regulation of commerce? Clue: engaging in commerce is not the same as regulating commerce.

Bonus clue: the Constitution says the federal government shall provide for general Welfare of the United State, not for the specific welfare of the citizens. As the president is fond of pointing out, the Constitution is a document of negatives. It says what the federal government cannot do to you, not what it has to do for you.

Other than the Bill of Rights and some other amendments, the Constitution deals with the relation between the federal government and the states. Dealing with individuals is left to the states.

[woodtoo]

[QUOTE=mostpost]


Mr.Hillory Mostpost exhibits a misunderstanding of Constitutions sadly common to those on the left.


FTFY

[mostpost]

You don't like what he has to say, so you set up a straw man, attribute statements and beliefs to him, put him in an ideological pigeon hole, and accuse him of being limited by his political theology. Just because your political views are defined by the party line does not mean that others are not capable of independent thought.

Dr. Williams' positions on various political issues range widely, and many are contrary to conventional "right wing" dogma. You present no evidence that he takes the Constitution literally. While I will not go so far as to put my words in his mouth, I would guess that he would agree that the Air Force falls under the common defense power of the government.
When Dr.Williams (I did not mean to slight him by calling him Mr.) tells me that programs such as Medicare are not legal because they are not specifically called for in the Constitution, I have no choice but to believe that he takes the Constitution literally. If he subscribed to the theory that the Constitution is a living document which evolves to suit the times, he would be in favor of Medicare, Social Security and such.



So we have you on record as agreeing with all court decisions as to what is and is not Constitutional? Can you really logically defend the idea that a farm subsidy is "regulation" of interstate commerce? Or that funding a company like Solyndra is regulation of commerce? Clue: engaging in commerce is not the same as regulating commerce.
Nice try. I do not agree with every court decision made, but I have to accept some until a more sensible court comes along. As long as farmers ship their product across state lines farm subsidies are a regulation of interstate commerce. As is loaning money to companies and industries which are engaged in activities that will benefit the nation. Your use of the word funding is incorrect and prejudicial.

Bonus clue: the Constitution says the federal government shall provide for general Welfare of the United State, not for the specific welfare of the citizens. As the president is fond of pointing out, the Constitution is a document of negatives. It says what the federal government cannot do to you, not what it has to do for you.
Herein lies your major problem. You perceive the government as an entity totally outside your existence. If "The General Welfare" does not refer to the welfare of the specific citizens, what does it refer to? The welfare of the states? The welfare of the corporations?

It's nice that you agree with Barack Obama about something. So, according to you, the Constitution tells us what the Constitution cannot do. Please point out to me where in the Constitution it says that the federal government cannot establish a system of retirement insurance; or where it says it cannot establish a system to pay for the health care of senior citizens. Or where it says it cannot pay subsidies to farmers.

Other than the Bill of Rights and some other amendments, the Constitution deals with the relation between the federal government and the states. Dealing with individuals is left to the states.
This is just silly. individuals deal with the Federal government every day.

[Clocker]

As long as farmers ship their product across state lines farm subsidies are a regulation of interstate commerce.

In what universe is subsidizing something the same as regulating it? In a further example of judicial insanity, in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), SCOTUS ruled that a farmer growing wheat used exclusively for feed for his chickens was engaged in interstate commerce.The twisted logic here was that if the farmer didn't grow his own wheat, he would have to buy it on the open market. Since the open market for wheat is a national market, his non-participation in that market affected that market, and therefore was subject to regulation. Please don't disappoint me, tell me that you agree with the decision. Please.

As is loaning money to companies and industries which are engaged in activities that will benefit the nation. Your use of the word funding is incorrect and prejudicial.

Lending money to a company is not funding that company? Are you being purposefully obtuse? How is it prejudicial to point out the obvious?

If "The General Welfare" does not refer to the welfare of the specific citizens, what does it refer to? The welfare of the states?

Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while. You need to study some history. From the time of the founding up until post Civil War, the term "United States" was plural in usage. The government talked about "The United States are...", not "The United States is...". The phrase here obviously refers to the State individually, or to the States as a united entity, and not to the citizens of those states.

[Ocala Mike]

Why is there so much talk of secession, anyway? Whatever happened to "forming a more perfect union"?

Here's an interesting take on the secession fad (and that's all it is, because it's not going anywhere): http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/12/31/the-124-states-of-america/

[redshift1]

2016 election post-mortem.

Intransigence
Secession
Zimmerman
Benghazi
Duck Dynasty
Obamacare
Guns
Government Shutdown
Abortion

.

[Ocala Mike]

redshift1, if that is a list of possible issues for the 2016 election, I think you should include:

IMMIGRATION REFORM
INCOME INEQUALITY/MINIMUM WAGE
NSA SPYING/PRIVACY
DRONE WARFARE

The Dems are going to push the top two hard, and try to sweep the bottom two under the rug.

[Clocker]

Why is there so much talk of secession, anyway? Whatever happened to "forming a more perfect union"?



There is talk about it because the country is on a path that will lead to inevitable financial ruin, and the majority, in terms of people or electoral power, are in denial.

Despite unprecedented debt levels, the Democrats want to continue to expand the size and scope of government. Equally in denial, many Republicans think that the solution is to slow the rate of growth. A slower rate of growth is still growth in spending and debt.

A more perfect union is not possible if all of the Democrats and too many Republicans are focused on nothing further than the next election, and if a majority of the electorate doesn't understand or don't care about the problem. Those who understand the problem see no solution with business as usual.

[Ocala Mike]

So, it's another take on the old saw from years ago, "America; Don't Love it, Leave it!"

[redshift1]

redshift1, if that is a list of possible issues for the 2016 election, I think you should include:

IMMIGRATION REFORM
INCOME INEQUALITY/MINIMUM WAGE
NSA SPYING/PRIVACY
DRONE WARFARE

The Dems are going to push the top two hard, and try to sweep the bottom two under the rug.

Yes but will they be game changers? If the economy continues to improve that in itself should provide the framework for a third consecutive democratic presidency (barring some unforeseen event of national or international importance).

NSA SPYING/PRIVACY
DRONE WARFARE

When it comes to the latter two, well they're here to stay no matter red or blue and whoever wins will probably double down on electronic surveillance and weaponry.


I like the fat guy to upset the aging matron.

.

[Clocker]

barring some unforeseen event of national or international importance

It is foreseen, and inevitable. Before 2016, we still have the 2014 elections. And before that we have the real impact of ObamaCare. We have only seen the tip of the iceberg to date.

The economics of ObamaCare requires enough young and healthy people to sign up to subsidize the older and less healthy. That isn't happening, which means big increases in premiums in 2015 for those buying private insurance through the exchanges. Those rate increases have to be filed with state insurance commissions in mid-2014, and will be public knowledge before the election.

An even bigger train wreck is that the employer mandate takes effect 1/1/15. In October of this year, most people with private health insurance found out they would not be able to keep their current plan or doctor. That represented about 5% of the population. In October of 2014, most people with employer provided insurance will find out that they cannot keep their current plans. They will have to switch to new, more expensive plans, or their employer will be dropping coverage and they will have to go on the exchange. That's about 85% of the population. It won't be pretty.

[BlueShoe]

In October of 2014, most people with employer provided insurance will find out that they cannot keep their current plans. They will have to switch to new, more expensive plans, or their employer will be dropping coverage and they will have to go on the exchange. That's about 85% of the population. It won't be pretty.
Just a few days before the election. Will the voters take it out on the Democrats and repeat 2010 and increase the GOP majority in the House, and perhaps even take control of the Senate?

[JustRalph]

I like the fat guy to upset the aging matron.
.

The fat guy will be hard pressed to get conservative votes, let alone tea party types. Some being the same vote

[Shemp Howard]

The fat guy will be hard pressed to get conservative votes, let alone tea party types. Some being the same vote

The Fat Guy is a fake, phoney fraud.

[Actor]

...economic and Constitutional experts such as Dr. Walter Williams...Dr. Williams is an economist. He is not an expert on the Constitution.

[DJofSD]

Dr. Williams is an economist. He is not an expert on the Constitution.
And neither is any one else in this thread.

But then, why do we need experts on the Constitution? So that we can "read into it" things that weren't there to begin with?

[reckless]

Dr. Williams is an economist. He is not an expert on the Constitution.

How do you know Walter Williams is not an expert on the Constitution ?

I rather hitch my wagon to Williams' positions on Constitutional matters than any and all left wing ideologues both on here on PA and in the punditry world out of Wash DC.

[Actor]

I believe our nation is at a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative.
Given that "those Americans who want to be left alone" = Republicans and "those Americans who want to control other Americans" = Democrats, then a look at a red/blue map of the last two elections, drawn by precinct, not by state, what he is proposing is that the rural areas separate from the urban areas.

[Actor]

How do you know Walter Williams is not an expert on the Constitution ?His resume is online.

[Clocker]

what he is proposing is that the rural areas separate from the urban areas.

He is not proposing it, he is reporting that this is what the people want, and explaining why they want it.

[Tom]

A good idea - it would surely make for a more perfect union.

[Saratoga_Mike]

redshift1, if that is a list of possible issues for the 2016 election, I think you should include:

IMMIGRATION REFORM
INCOME INEQUALITY/MINIMUM WAGE
NSA SPYING/PRIVACY
DRONE WARFARE

The Dems are going to push the top two hard, and try to sweep the bottom two under the rug.

Totally agree, except Dems will attempt to exploit these issues in 2014 as well

[JustRalph]

Given that "those Americans who want to be left alone" = Republicans and "those Americans who want to control other Americans" = Democrats, then a look at a red/blue map of the last two elections, drawn by precinct, not by state, what he is proposing is that the rural areas separate from the urban areas.

Lots of big cities fall into those areas that want to leave. Mostly out west.

We are already divided. Why not let it happen. The big cities like New York, Chicago and LA do nothing but complain about the hicks living in the "rural" states. Our resident professional Libs love to talk about how much money states rake from the government. Let's do it. Why aren't you Libs caterwauling for the right to secede?

[Clocker]

Lots of big cities fall into those areas that want to leave. Mostly out west.



I bet if you drew a line from Canada to Mexico 50 miles in from the Pacific Ocean, everything east of that line would be politically solid red and everything west would be blue.

[Ocala Mike]

Until you get to Chicago, probably so. What do you do about the east coast, though?

[PhantomOnTour]

The term "peaceful secession" is an oxymoron

[Clocker]

Until you get to Chicago, probably so. What do you do about the east coast, though?

That was just talking about the west.

The political map of the country will soon be changed by Mother Nature anyway. After the west coast falls in the ocean from earthquakes and the east coast is under water from global warming, we will have a more perfect union. :cool:

[Actor]

I bet if you drew a line from Canada to Mexico 50 miles in from the Pacific Ocean, everything east of that line would be politically solid red and everything west would be blue.Once you get to southern California turn the line eastward and keep in 50 miles from the border, everything south of the line will be blue and everything north will be red (almost).

Until you get to Chicago, probably so. What do you do about the east coast, though?Try Denver and north central New Mexico. And don't forget Texas's embarrassing blue pimple of Dallas-Ft. Worth.

Most of the east coast is red except for the cities: Miami, Washington, Philly, New York, etc.

[Ocala Mike]

And don't forget Texas's embarrassing blue pimple of Dallas-Ft. Worth.



Huh? I think you mean Austin!

[Actor]

Huh? I think you mean Austin!Could be. It's hard to tell since the map I'm looking at does not label cities. Maybe it's San Antonio. Maybe it's both, or all three.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Lots of big cities fall into those areas that want to leave. Mostly out west.

We are already divided. Why not let it happen. The big cities like New York, Chicago and LA do nothing but complain about the hicks living in the "rural" states. Our resident professional Libs love to talk about how much money states rake from the government. Let's do it. Why aren't you Libs caterwauling for the right to secede?

Odd, I've spent a lot of time in Chicago and not once did anyone refer to those living in rural areas as "hicks." Same thing on NYC, not sure about LA. Where do you get this stuff?

This whole "division" premise is like upstate NYers who think it would be a great idea to split off from NYC, not realizing more money flows into Albany's coffers from NYC than goes back. This idea is no different than the "I'm going to move to Canada" if GWB is re-elected crap.

[RunForTheRoses]

The fat guy will be hard pressed to get conservative votes, let alone tea party types. Some being the same vote

You're right.

http://www.alipac.us/f9/christie-gives-undocumented-students-access-state-tuition-294861/#post1387550