(Tea Party) Constitutional fundamentalists are wackos

They'll just fire people and downsize their payroll. NICE!

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ"]‪EAT THE RICH!‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

Nothing like advertising your biases in the thread title.

The jury is still out on the Tea Party movement. It remains to be seen whether they are a one-trick pony (no new taxes) or if they can expand their philosophy into broader areas of governance.

We have a messy form of government and gridlock is the norm. Once in a while, though, a sea change takes effect and things can move quickly. The Tea Party owes its success so far to a simmering unrest in the majority of America about the direction our country has taken. If that popular unrest can be harnessed, the Tea Party could really explode and dominate the national discourse.

Parties have come to power very quickly in the past. The Republican party was founded in 1854 and elected its first president by 1860. Discounting the Tea Party movement may be a gross miscalculation. The country is fed up and I wouldn't be surprised if a radical shift occurred.

 

What, all the RED parrots have to fly home to their T-Stands and cages so their masters can teach them new words? I ask again... "How do tariffs, income taxes, and payroll taxes equate to LESS than tariffs alone (only charged on importing and exporting goods). Prove your LIE!"

 

So far they seem to be exclusively a one-trick pony. One thing they certainly are not a group that supports the Constitution except on limited agenda items.

As we have seen by some of their more vocal supporters such as Michelle Bachmann they are absolutely opposed to equal protection under the law when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage.

 

What a LIE! the equal protection under the law provision of the Fourteenth Amendment was included because former black slaves were being murdered, and the law refused to investigate, and other such violations.

Marriage is a licensed activity (one must get a marriage license to get married) making it a privilege.

How are people not being "protected" by the government enforcing a "privilege" just like always?

 

Tax rates for the wealthiest are now at 35%; considering gains in income, the tax rate is right back to 1925 levels. When in the country's greatest period; from 1941 to 1982, taxes rates were from 94% in 1945 to 50% in 1982. So when we consider income gains for the wealthiest, today's rates are the lowest in our history.

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

So, mine is not a fractured understanding. It is a clear and concise understanding of gains by the rich since Ronald Reagan. So, nice try.

 

Considering gains in income? What does that mean? Did Dave make this case in his claim? The Tax Rate of 35% "for the wealthiest" now affects a far larger percentage of Americans than the top tax rate of 1925 levels.

Or virtually any top tax rate up to 1970!

Are you glossing over that?

1982? Reagan created explosive economic growth from 1982, which continued nearly unabated for 20 years! That period of growth rivals any period in our country's history, dependent upon specific metric.

What percentage of Americans did 94% in 1945 impact? What percentage of Americans were impacted by the 50% rate in 1982?

These are important considerations for those who are going to claim "lowest rates", because for most Americans, that isn't so.

Montoya's claim wasn't for the wealthiest. His claim was thrown out as a generalization. Regardless: it is very well known that 'the wealthiest" didn't pay that level of taxes. That should be obvious to anyone regardless their bias.

Your own chart belies how much people had to earn in order to be subject to that 94%, and I provided you a calculator so you could figure it out in inflation adjusted dollars. The number of people it affected could fit in my house - and those people never paid that rate. Not even close.

Yours is an incomplete - or purposefully obtuse - understanding.

 

You're avoiding. Rethink your post, re-read my proofs and then try again.

 

You're deflecting. Re-read my answers, and then try again.

 

First, I’m not glossing over anything. You can’t take two people at 70% and then take then take two people at 35% percent and say that the revenue is the same 70%. Every year n this country’s history there have been more and more people representing the rich 2% in this country, and as I pointed out, and then drop the tax rate from 94% to 35% and say it’s the same; it doesn’t work like that. AGI wasn’t the same in 1945 as it is today. (And you’re quite right; the very wealthy do not pay their fair share and never have). Now, in 1945, if there were more of the wealthiest 2%; they would all have paid 94%: they would pay 94% today if it was mandated.

Ronald Reagan created “paper growth”; not real growth. The tax rates dropped exponentially, he “bore” a path for capital and everyone else got screwed in the long run. From 1937 to 1982, this country had real growth in GDP and the middle class created and held their ground: everyone could now buy a home. Under Reagan all that began to shift toward “the markets”, and the rest is history isn’t it.

Now, Montoya was arguing against the 1 or 2% in this country, and as I have shown, the rates for them are at 1930 levels. (That’s what this argument is about). Moreover, your “calculator” is a run-around; the rates are what they are because the financial right-wing wants it that way – and you know that. And again, mine is an understanding of black white and what that communicates as fact in argumentation. You are speculating.

Now: your turn.

 

So, marriage is a "privlage" is it? So, you're saying that black people; or gay people?, should be able to drive cars.

 

How about some common sense first? Lower spending then look at taxes.

If you want to raise them, raise them on EVERYONE. Share the burden.

The rich pay more than you ever will in your life, so take it on the chin.

 

By definition any licensed activity is a "privilege," and not a right.

li•cense   /ˈlaɪsəns/ Show Spelled [lahy-suhns] noun, verb, -censed, -cens•ing.
noun
1. formal permission from a governmental or other constituted authority to do something, as to carry on some business or profession.
2. a certificate, tag, plate, etc., giving proof of such permission; official permit: a driver's license.
3. permission to do or not to do something.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/license​

Any Leftist who argues against acceptable dictionary definitions are delusional as they argue against accepted reality.

If you properly submit a cognisant question I would be glad to further post snippets of realty.

 

The US Supreme Court disagreed in Loving v Virginia when it established that marriage was a funamental Right for all individuals and not a privilege. Equal protections under the law requires that all individuals be treated equally and, has been also established by both the California State Supreme Court in it's decision on Proposition 22, by the 9th District Court related to California Proposition 8, and by the 2nd District Court related to DOMA individuals involved in same sex marriages are being denied government benefits that they are paying taxes for. There is unconstitutional discrimination under the law in the prohibition of same-sex marriage.

This is one of the problems with many "tea party" followers. They simply ignore the decisions of the court when issues of Constitutionality are addressed by the courts which have the Constitutionally delegated responsibility to interprete and apply the laws and Constitution of the United States. On a philisophical note the Constitution should not be used to abridge the Rights of the People but instead to expand them. Many in the "tea party" would choose to support a Constitutional amendment that's sole purpose is to impose discrimination and that runs against the very ideals upon which America was founded.

 

Sorry but you are fundamentally misreading Loving v Virginia. The case was not about same sex marriage, but about racial marriage. The institution of “marriage” is a licensed “privilege” as I pointed out. Name another “right” (your word not mine) that you need a license to exercise. The word “marriage” even has a definition which same sex marriage proponents like to ignore since it refutes the validity of their positions.

mar•riage   /ˈmærɪdʒ/ Show Spelled[mar-ij] noun
1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. (* “a similar institution” is not THE institution. Dictionary definitions update themselves to reflect usage, legal definition do not until properly changed by law)
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.​

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage+?o=100084&qsrc=2871&l=dir

Now as you can clearly see a same sex “marriage” is not a “marriage” at all, yet I’m sure you will still argue against reality.

The Ninth Circus Court is well known for unconstitutional decisions even though they all swear to rule "under the Constitution." Actually that term was changed in 1990 by a heavily Democrat Congress. The term justices used to have to swear included “according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution." I guess the Democrat Congress at the time did not like that wording. Any idea why?

“Government benefits” are also a privilege. The Supreme Court ruled in Helvering v. Davis that Social Security “… tax moneys are not earmarked, and that Congress is at liberty to spend them as it will” meaning there is no “right” to Social Security either. The program may be expanded, contracted, or ended on whim of the government without any financial settlement to the public whatsoever. When you start arguing government provided privileges are “rights,” and those mislabeled “rights” qualify for “equal protection under the law” you lose the argument. Privileges are not rights. Everyone has the right to justice if murdered. Again that was one of the primarily reasons for the “equal protection under the law” clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. Former black slaves were being murdered while local law enforcement refused to investigate, not to extend the same sex “privilege” of what some miss characterize as “marriage.”

Sorry, but wrong again. As I pointed out I believe it is YOU and other Anti-Constitutionalists who “simply ignore the decisions of the court.” Nowhere in Loving v Virginia was the term “same sex marriage” discussed. Wonder why? Gee, could it be that by definition “same sex marriage” is NOT marriage? The Anti-Constitutionalist Left simply wishes to add things to the Constitution that are NOT there while otherwise “seeing” things that do not exist in the document. There is a word for that!

hal•lu•ci•na•tion   /həˌlusəˈneɪʃən/ [huh-loo-suh-ney-shuhn]
noun
1. a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visual or auditory images.
2. the sensation caused by a hallucinatory condition or the object or scene visualized.
3. a false notion, belief, or impression; illusion; delusion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hallucinations​

The Constitution should not be used to do either. The Constitution was made to secure individual unalienable rights bestowed upon their creation by God, the Creator. Rights do not come from the Constitution. They come from God, so no expansion of “rights” from man is appropriate. Any man made “rights” violate the balance of Natural Law, and will therefore infringe on true God given rights to mankind. The Constitution should not be used to expand artificial “man made” rights like “entitlements” no one has a right to receive, but it should also not be used to take away legitimate rights either (like the right for people to make their own economic decision for their own health care). Democrats are the ones using the Constitution (really just big unconstitutional federal government) to take away real rights.

 

From Loving v Virginia:

All Rights are reserved to the individual and all individuals have a Right to Marry and their choice of who they want to marry resides exclusively with the individual. They are entitled to exercise their Right to Marry in any manner they choose so long as it is by mutual consent with another adult.

While Loving v Virginia did specifically address the prohibition of inter-racial marriage it also addressed that to infringe upon the Right of the Individual to marry was a violation of the Liberty of the Individual.

The United States Constitution only mentions "privileges" one place and that is in the 14th Amendment where it acknowledges that citizens have certain privileges not afforded to all residents of the United States. Since "marriage" is not a privilege afforded based upon citizenship there is no Constitutional foundation for "privileges" to be denied to a same-sex couple.

If memory serves me correctly there were no legal prohibitions against same-sex marriage in the United States prior to 1971.

We can also note that same-sex marriage is completely legal in several States and the District of Columbia. Since it is a legal institution arguments that it is "different" than opposite-sex marriage become moot.

There is no evidence that the 9th District Court misintepretes the Constitution per se any more than the California Supreme Court misinterpreted the identical "equal protection" clause in the California State Constitution. The Court renders it's decision based upon the evidence presented before it by council. In the cases of Prop 22 (California State Supreme Court) and Prop 8 (9th Curcuit Court) the evidence presented was overwhelming that unconsitutional discrimination violating the equal protection clause was being imposed on individuals engages in same-sex relationships.

The government can establish "benefit" but in doing so it cannot be discriminatory in the establishment of those benefits. Two identical individuals in identical situations must both be afforded or denied benefits based upon the same non-discriminatory criteria.

No, same-sex marriage was not addressed because the case was not about same-sex marriage but the decision would still remain perfectly sound had it been about same-sex marriage. By way of example I will "modify" that decision to reflect what it would have been had the case been about same-sex marriage:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

Ah, the "GOD" argument. I actually have it on good authority that the Flying Spaghetti Monster endowed gays and lesbians with the same Right to marry the person of their choice based upon mutual consent just as he endowed hetersexuals to do the same.

Note: Neither the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence uses the word God anywhere. The word "creator" can also mean mother nature which is why "unalienable" Rights are also referred to as "natural" Rights. They are based upon natural existance and not supernatural existance.

What is truly sad is that those oppose same-sex marriage really have no grounds for doing so. The Rights of those that believe in heterosexual marriage are not infringed, they are not denied any benefits or "privileges" and are not adversely effected in any manner by the existance of same-sex marriage. If they even had the most remote argument that their Rights were being infringed upon then they would have a case but the fact it that they can't say that. All they can say is that they believe someone elses Rights should be denied and that benefits and "privileges" should be denied without any reason.

This could easily be compared to "Freedom of Speech" where only those that say what a person believes in are afforded this "Right" and if they say something that is opposed to then that "Right" is to be denied. In such a case there is no Right at all. The fact is that those with the greatest personal opposition to same-sex marriage should also be the greatest supporters under the law for it. It is the legal institution supporting the Freedom to Marry that is at issue and if it cannot be afforded to all individuals then it should be denied to all.

Of course then I'm an advocate for abolishing the legal institution of marriage completely and allowing these personal partnerships to be addressed under contract law which is completely nondiscriminatory.

 

Simply put.

Whether a traditional, historic liberal in the vein of Jefferson or even Kennedy.

Or a conservative like Reagan or myself.

If you believe in our government adhering too our Constitution.

If you believe that you are endowed with certain rights by your creator at the moment of your conception or birth. (whichever you prefer) And that these rights do not stem from the authority of government.

If you believe in a republican form of government, wherein the people have the final say through their votes, and their representative's votes in the Congress.

If you believe in the principals of all free men, as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

If you believe in our two founding documents or any part therein whatsoever.

Then you're a tea party individual.

Ut oh....

 

The problem, as pointed out previously, is that "Tea Party" individuals only believe in parts of the Constitution and not all of it.

If they believed in the Declaration of Independence and in all of the US Constitution then they would be Libertarians and the fact that they don't is why the Libertarian Party does not endorse the "Tea Party" movement.

 

Again, you act as if “to marry” is not an institution between a man and a woman. Again, you refute the definition of the very word “marriage” previously posted. Again you reject established reality. The court decision was talking about “marriage” that is traditionally defined as a union between a man and woman. You are talking about something else entirely making your argument wrong.

Ah yea, the Constitution was not written to safeguard “privileges” only rights which is why the word does not appear in the original text. “Marriage,” marriage licensing, or “marriage” definition are not federal issues at all, except national recognition of such status called for in Article 4, Section 1‘s “Full Faith and Credit” clause. That means that if a couple is “marred” in State “A” State “B” also must recognize the union. It does not mean that State “B” gets to radically change the definition of “marriage” and get to impose their will on the entire country through the back door of the Constitution. If a coupe is not “married” according the accepted definition they are not “marred” in all states. That “definition” is the catalyst for a Constitutional Amendment. If State “A” allowed roller skating on expressways and issued “driver’s licenses” for roller skaters, that license would not allow roller skating on expressways in other states.

I’ll just bet there were no legal same sex marriages before 1971 either as marriage was defined as a union between a man and woman. The law is not discriminatory since a gay man can marry a lesbian woman (and visa versa), homosexual people CAN marry as long as what they do is defined as “marriage.”

Good for them! Those states changed the definition of marriage. They have no right to force THEIR definition of “marriage” on states who accept the tradition definition of marriage.

I don’t have time to research it, but it sure seems that a lot of whacky decisions come out of the Ninth Circus Court with their dramatically Left wing activist justices. They have a national reputation for anti Constitutional decisions.

Perhaps on the State level, but on the Federal Level the things the Government is supposed to do are pretty much spelled out in Article 1, Section 8 witch does not list any “benefits.” State matters are wholly different, but that does not mean what State “A” does should automatically be accepted by all other states when State “A” is doing something completely differently.

Go ahead and “modify” all YOU like. YOU were not the judge, and your citation says nothing about what YOU want it to say. The LEFT just loves to “modify” that which they have no authority to “modify” to make their illegitimate and dishonest points. While you are at it why don’t YOU just “modify” the traditional definition of “marriage” previously posted. BTW who gave YOU and YOURS the POWER to just “modify” the laws and culture of the United States?

Glad YOU know this. Too bad you can provide no supporting documentation.

The word “Creator” has a definition which does not include “nature.”

cre•a•tor   /kriˈeɪtər/ Show Spelled[kree-ey-ter] noun
1. a person or thing that creates.
2. the Creator, God.

Word Origin & History

creator
c.1300, "Supreme Being," from Anglo-Fr. creatour, O.Fr. creator (academic and liturgical, alongside popular creere), from L. creatorem, from creatus (see create). Translated in O.E. as scieppend (from verb scieppan; see shape). Meaning "one who creates" is from 1570s.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Creator​

Leftist spin with no substance… Again marriage has always been a licensed activity. Why was that? Remember the AIDS scare like in the early 80s? Had “same sex marriage” been allowed, and insurance companies were FORCED to insure HIV “partners” many companies would have gone bankrupt extending the “privilege” of a redefined “same sex marriage.” There are costs.

BS “same sex marriage” is all about gaining PRIVILEGES not deserved (again by definition “same sex marriage” is not “marriage), and trying to legislate FORCED acceptance. The title “marriage” holds more respect than “civil union,” or even “same sex marriage.”

Why “abolish…the legal institution of marriage completely?” You can do whatever you wish with contract law. Why destroy a cornerstone of society from practically the beginning just because some want to redefine and literally destroy the meaning of the institution?

 

Instead of an endless debate on marriage we will simply leave it with this. The Courts have determined that the denial of marriage to same-sex couples violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment based upon the evidence presented. As we've seen here some "tea party" activists (as well as others based upon their personal religious convictions) basically admit that intentional discrimination exists by excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage. Instead of promoting equal protection under the law for all individuals they would seek to institutionalize discrimination. They seek to afford government benefits to those that engage in personal relationships they agree with but deny those benefits to those that are living in identical relationships with merged financial assets, raising children, and paying taxes simply because they don't personally endorse the relationship.

They support discrimination under the law which is prohibited by the 14th Amendment. As I've noted members of the "Tea Party" movement only support the Constitution when it fits with their personal and/or religious beliefs and oppose it whenever it contradicts those beliefs. They oppose the ideals established by the Declaration of Independence which established that government's primary purpose was to protect the Rights of the Individual. They oppose treating individuals equally under the law and protecting their Right to engage in personal relationships of their own choosing without suffering discrimination under the law. Instead of opposing discrimination under the law they endorse it.

This is why they are not Libertarians and why the Libertarian Party rejects them.

 

Again what courts? Again, that was not the decision in LOVING v. VIRGINIA. You literally had to RE write that decision to say what you wanted it to say.

Again, marriage is a “privilege” as it is licensed activity, and has a definition. I suppose you think if Utah suddenly made polygamy legal “those marriages” should be recognized all through the country as well.

Again, no discrimination is taking place. “Same sex marriages” are by definition not marriages.

Is a man being barred from a public woman’s restroom “sexual discrimination?” If not why not? His tax money pays for the facility. If he is not entitled to that “privilege” because of his gender why is that not sexual discrimination? OF course there is no “license” to use a restroom but there are rules. You must follow the rules to participate making such participation not a right. A man that goes into a woman’s restroom can be arrested. Oh the unfairness of it all! Oh the Constitutional rights that are being violated!

Wrong again. Anyone can have any relationship they like. There is no discrimination. There is no law prohibiting such relationships. The “same sex marriage” push is simply a way to legislate and FORCE recognition of a nonexistent institution. Same sex “marriage.”

The Tea Party consists of Constitutional Conservatives. The Founders would be Constitutional Conservatives if alive today seeking to preserve that which they created. You think homosexuality didn’t exist back in 1789? Think it was not heard of? The Founders saw no reason to extend the THEN privilege of marriage to “same sex couples.” Libertarians believe in open borders, and no defense outside of the United States. Libertarians are just to the left of Anarchists. We could not have a successful and prosperous country under Anarchist or Libertarian rule. Both Anarchy and Libertarianism if fully practiced, would destroy this country which is why the Tea Party rejects them both.

 

California State Supreme Court decision that Prop 22 which prohibited same-sex marraige was unconstitutional.

9th US District Court that ruled California Prop 8 that changed the California State Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage was unconstitutional

9th US District Court that ruled DADT was unconstitutional.

2nd US District Court that ruled the DOMA was unconstitutional.

This matter should and probably will be determined by the US Supreme Court and based upon all of the evidence presented so far in the lower courts it will also rule that DOMA and prohibitions against same-sex marriage are unconstitutional as it did related to inter-racial marriages in Loving v Virginia which was a unanimous court decision.

This is where the Tea Party fails because it wants to continue the discrimination under the law against same sex couples. It's greatest fear seems to be that the Supreme Court will rule that the prohibition against same-sex marriages is a violation of the 14th Amendments equal protection clause. They are justified in that fear because that is exactly how the Supreme Court will rule.

The only wording that was changed was to address same-sex marriage as opposed to inter-racial marriage. It was a very minor revision and the decision makes absolute sense when such a revision is made.

The US Constitution only provides for special privileges based upon citizenship and for no other reason.

I have no problem with polygamy so long as it is between consenting adults. Why would anyone have a problem with it? It is a personal relationship entered into willingly by consenting adults and the government should not be intervening in the private relationships of the People.

A person cannot claim to be a "Constitutionalist" and oppose the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Of note, yes, homosexuality did exist back in 1789 and there wasn't a single law on the books that prohibited same-sex marriage at that time nor would the founders of America endorsed such a law as they didn't believe that government should be intervening in the private affairs of individuals. They actually supported the Right of Liberty for the People which the Tea Party opposes today.

The last is pure political nonsense as the Libertarian Party endorses the roles and responsibilities delegated to the US government by the Constitution.

Of note there isn't a single word in the US Constitution which delegates any authority to the federal government to control immigration. The Congress can control naturalization but immigration and naturalization are two completely different issues. "Tea Party" followers that support restrictive immigration laws are no better than liberals that support Social Security as neither are delegated powers of the federal government enumerated in the US Constitution.

 

Many of the members of the Tea Party are still mired in 19th century discredited mercantilism, and they tacitly support the Federal Reserve. It is the policies of the warmongering right and the welfare pimping left that have led this nation down the path toward economic collapse. Much of the tea party is inherently authoritarian, it just wants to be ruled by conservative authorities rather than progressive.

 

I believe this is a very accurate observation and well presented.