Time to kill the Bush tax cuts

[Gokul43201]

I think the point being made here is that it is not within Congress' power to determine the Constitutionality of a bill/law; that is entirely the Supreme Court's job. Congress can try to makes its best guess of whether a law is Constitutional, and one hopes, would try to be honest to that guess, but that's about all one can expect. And the SC does routinely rule that laws passed by Congress are unconstitutional.

I think this is coming down to a matter of semantics. Are people allowed to steal? Sure! As long as they are ready to do the time when caught and convicted.

 

[Al68]

I think the point being made here is that it is not within Congress' power to determine the Constitutionality of a bill/law; that is entirely the Supreme Court's job. Congress can try to makes its best guess of whether a law is Constitutional, and one hopes, would try to be honest to that guess, but that's about all one can expect.

It's certainly within congress' power, and their duty, to not pass a bill they determine is unconstitutional. And it's the President's duty to veto any law he determines to be unconstitutional, as even Obama has threatened to do for that very stated reason. (confiscating AIG employee bonuses ex post facto via a "special" tax law).

Of course the Supreme Court might overturn a law passed by congress because they disagree about its constitutionality, but that's a different issue entirely.

I think this is coming down to a matter of semantics. Are people allowed to steal? Sure! As long as they are ready to do the time when caught and convicted.

Now that's a good analogy. Except Congressmen never have to do the time.

 

[mheslep]

I think this is coming down to a matter of semantics. Are people allowed to steal? Sure! As long as they are ready to do the time when caught and convicted.

On a lark, I'll certainly go along with that analogy for the US Congress.

But I'm not willing to tally the matter completely to semantics. I see more and more the view (as per up thread) essentially saying the federal government can do whatever it chooses to do, via some or another rationale like the government evolves the the ability to do so. When I see this view espoused by elected leadership, I find it more crackpot and invidious than anything accredited the Tea Party by its naysayers. Rep Pete Stark, D. California since 1973:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE#t=2m45s

 

[airborne18]

On a lark, I'll certainly go along with that analogy for the US Congress.

But I'm not willing to tally the matter completely to semantics. I see more and more the view (as per up thread) essentially saying the federal government can do whatever it chooses to do, via some or another rationale like the government evolves the the ability to do so. When I see this view espoused by elected leadership, I find it more crackpot and invidious than anything accredited the Tea Party by its naysayers. Rep Pete Stark, D. California since 1973:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE#t=2m45s

I agree it is not a matter of semantics and it goes to the heart of the issue. It is like the tea party and people from outside of my state telling us who will represent my state's best interest. It is my Senator and Delaware's Senator and nobody else's business.

And I am personally tired of the traitor term being thrown around. A local Tea party radio host called me a traitor because I asked a simple question about a tea party position.. It is vulgar and I am tired of hearing it. And the irony is that the people throwing it around have done the least to serve the US Constitution.

Yes Congress is independent of the other two branches and has the power to pass pretty much any law they want, and in the few cases it gets shot down, they can push to amend the constitution.

And the Supreme Court has the final say on what is and is not Constitutional.

It is just the like the far left does not thing Congress had the power to pass the Patriot Act, which seems to trample the bill of rights, but Congress did it.

Just because a high paid talk show host, who is profiting from whole thing, comes up with some notion of what powers Congress should be does not make it so. No matter how many tri-cornered hats people buy, our Constitution today has evolved a lot since the 18th century.

I wish we back to when people did not have the specific right to vote for Senators.

 

[drankin]

Does anyone know if this will apply to the 2010 tax season? If so, I haven't budgeted for it. I imagine it will apply to 2011 if it expires but I don't know for sure.

 

[mheslep]

No matter how many tri-cornered hats people buy, our Constitution today has evolved a lot since the 18th century.

No matter how many times people say the constitution has 'evolved' doesn't make it so. There are another dozen or so amendments since the 18th century. If you want to change it further amend it further.

 

[talk2glenn]

Does anyone know if this will apply to the 2010 tax season? If so, I haven't budgeted for it. I imagine it will apply to 2011 if it expires but I don't know for sure.

The expiration will apply to the 2011 tax year. I wouldn't panic; when the new Congress is seated, they will almost certainly retroactively close the loophole for most of us. Whether it's everyone or most depends on the extent of the Republican gains.

And Senators and Reprentatives are not traitors to the Constitution by passing any bill they want.

Google the "oath of office". The language is a little hyperbolic, but technically, Congressmen are bound by oath to "faithfully execute" their powers and to "support and defend" the Constitution. It is not the Supreme Courts job to decide whether or not a law is unconstitutional; the power of judicial review is not found anywhere in the founding document. Technically, a law cannot be unconstitutional - the only valid laws in the United States are those which pass constitutional muster. This is why judicial review is an implied power; the court is deciding ex post facto that Congress erred when it affirmed unconstitutional statutory language, but because it was unconstitutional, it was never law in the first place.

Congress has to pass any amendment.

Someone slept through high school civics. Google "constitutional convention". Technically, though it has never been attempted, the procedure is in place for the States to amend the constitution or even dissolve the federal government, independent from the Congress or any other federal agent. All of this was very carefully and deliberately designed to protect us from an overreaching federal bureaucracy.

 

[mheslep]

Google the "oath of office". The language is a little hyperbolic, but technically, Congressmen are bound by oath to "faithfully execute" their powers and to "support and defend" the Constitution. It is not the Supreme Courts job to decide whether or not a law is unconstitutional;

Great point.

 

[CAC1001]

Google the "oath of office". The language is a little hyperbolic, but technically, Congressmen are bound by oath to "faithfully execute" their powers and to "support and defend" the Constitution. It is not the Supreme Courts job to decide whether or not a law is unconstitutional; the power of judicial review is not found anywhere in the founding document.

Just a bit confused here, but even though the Constitution doesn't specifically mention the SCOTUS, isn't it still the job of the SCOTUS to make sure that laws passed by the government keep in line with the Constitution? My understanding was that this had been the purpose of courts for many years when the Constitution was written, and thus they didn't feel it was necessary to literally mention the SCOTUS in that sense, that it was implied, because without a SCOTUS, what is the purpose of a constitution? There's no check on the government, so the government could just twist the constitution to justify whatever legislation they want. So it was implied that with a constitution, there'd be a supreme court.

 

[Gokul43201]

Rep Pete Stark, D. California since 1973:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE#t=2m45s

Stark looks (judging only from that clip) like he's going senile. If he's always been this way, that definitely reeks of crackpot. But seeing that he's close to 80 yrs old, I'm going with the senile theory for now.

As for the question raised by the person in that town hall meeting, the exact same question can be raised in the context of the fire service or the national defense. Honestly, I can't say I understand how any of these things are constitutional, but then I'm not very well informed in the law.

 

[Gokul43201]

It is not the Supreme Courts job to decide whether or not a law is unconstitutional; the power of judicial review is not found anywhere in the founding document. Technically, a law cannot be unconstitutional - the only valid laws in the United States are those which pass constitutional muster. This is why judicial review is an implied power; the court is deciding ex post facto that Congress erred when it affirmed unconstitutional statutory language, but because it was unconstitutional, it was never law in the first place.

Making sure I understand. Correct me if I have this wrong.

When it is said that the SC has overturned a law passed by Congress, this is not to be taken literally. The SC does not have a power to actually overturn anything; it only has the job of expressing its opinion on whether something is constitutional or not. It is then up to the Executive and Legislature to respond accordingly, and the traditional response is for them to agree with the SC's decision and make the necessary changes to the law and its execution. But if they colluded to defy the Court nonetheless, there is nothing the SC can do.

Do I have that right? That would be a non-negligible revision of my knowledge - I guess I've pictured the SC as the thing that Hamilton would have liked it to be.

 

[talk2glenn]

Just a bit confused here, but even though the Constitution doesn't specifically mention the SCOTUS, isn't it still the job of the SCOTUS to make sure that laws passed by the government keep in line with the Constitution? My understanding was that this had been the purpose of courts for many years when the Constitution was written, and thus they didn't feel it was necessary to literally mention the SCOTUS in that sense, that it was implied, because without a SCOTUS, what is the purpose of a constitution? There's no check on the government, so the government could just twist the constitution to justify whatever legislation they want. So it was implied that with a constitution, there'd be a supreme court.

The Supreme Court is the only court specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The rest of the Judicial branch is left to the Congress to create and organize (subject to the framework established in the bill of rights - trial by jury, etc), though the lower courts are placed explicitly below the high court in authority, with the high court hearing appeals "as to law and fact". The power of judicial review is inferred from the appeals to law statement, but not explicitly granted.

When it is said that the SC has overturned a law passed by Congress, this is not to be taken literally. The SC does not have a power to actually overturn anything; it only has the job of expressing its opinion on whether something is constitutional or not. It is then up to the Executive and Legislature to respond accordingly, and the traditional response is for them to agree with the SC's decision and make the necessary changes to the law and its execution. But if they colluded to defy the Court nonetheless, there is nothing the SC can do.

Do you mean, could Congress and/or the President simply ignore the direction of the Supreme Court? Technically, yes they could, and it has in fact happened at least once in American history. This is an important check on the power of the court - ultimately Congress controls the purse and the Executive controls the bureacracy.

Without the weight of public opinion, the directives of the Court are pretty hollow. Today, though, it is hard to imagine a case where ignoring a court order would be publicly tolerated.

But yes, in principle the Court just interprets and adjudicates law, it doesn't write it or enforce it, and it cannot force the Executive or Congress to write or enforce differently (there are some modern exceptions, of debtable consequence). In the original judicial review case, Justice Marshall wrote that acts of congress (note the language - he didn't call them laws) that conflicted with the constitution were not law, and the courts were obligated to ignore them when deciding cases.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Anything mandated is a tax.

No, actually. Fees and fines are, by definition, not taxes. Generally, the distinction is that if you get something directly from it, it's a fee not a tax. The price you pay for the right to drive is not a tax.

I don't like FICA, but that doesn't make it a tax either.

The unemployment you can probably say is a mandatory insurance.

I don't know how that works. Are your benefits tied to your payments? Then I'd agree. If not, then it's just a tax.

You can do the comparison, I took a finance course where they did it. But the issue illustrated is that social security is not a defined benefit plan. Even though it was sold that way decades ago, it is not.

I completely agree -- that was the point of my post.

I'd prefer to look at a comparison someone else did. I have no background with finance, and economics is a poor substitute. In a pinch I might, but with something this large and wide-ranging I have to imagine there's something out there already.

 

[Al68]

Just because a high paid talk show host, who is profiting from whole thing, comes up with some notion of what powers Congress should be does not make it so.

I wonder how anyone could come up with the notion that congress has limited, specific powers instead of the power to pass any law it wants? Oh, wait...

Maybe they actually read the constitution, which unambiguously says exactly that: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

 

[SSmills]

FINALLY. The Bush tax cut never provided any boost to the economy at all. Then we got involved in two wars and and incresed spending on all fronts. No wonder the debt is so high. We need to end the cuts because they are not stimulating the economy only sending out spiraling to bankruptcy.

 

[Al68]

Just a bit confused here, but even though the Constitution doesn't specifically mention the SCOTUS, isn't it still the job of the SCOTUS to make sure that laws passed by the government keep in line with the Constitution?

Yes, but that's not their job exclusively. The first barrier to unconstitutional (federal) laws lies with congress. The second barrier is the Senate. The third barrier is the President.

The Supreme Court is the last barrier, but it's problematic to wait for that, since any law they rule is unconstitutional (invalid from conception) has already been enforced. The constitution has already been violated. People have been forced to stand trial for an action that was not actually a crime, just mistakenly considered to be a crime by government. People spending years in jail for an action that government was forbidden to prohibit or restrict.

How can a congressman vote for a law, have it ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, and not at least resign? SCOTUS just declared them to be violators of the constitution for God's sake. How is that not a much bigger deal than it's treated? Their actions result in ruined lives, reduced legitimacy of government, reduced freedom of an entire nation, and they treat it like they just got a speeding ticket.

 

[CAC1001]

The Supreme Court is the last barrier, but it's problematic to wait for that, since any law they rule is constitutional (invalid from conception) has already been enforced..

In the bolded part, did you mean, "...any law they rule is unconstitutional (invalid from conception) has already been enforced...??

 

[Al68]

In the bolded part, did you mean, "...any law they rule is unconstitutional (invalid from conception) has already been enforced...??

Yes, that would make a little more sense.

Corrected, thank you.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Everything should be taxed at 100% with all the proceeds going to me.

I think this is fair.

 

[Al68]

Everything should be taxed at 100% with all the proceeds going to me.

I think this is fair.

You'd be pretty rich based on Democratic Party math. But in reality, you'd be broke.

You'd be much better off if you received "only" 10%.