My Platform: If I Run

Didymus · Nov 28, 2010

David said:
You're derailing your own thread. start a constitution topic. Kind of hard to keep the line of conversation going when people aren't even talking about the same thing in a thread.

How I am derailing my own thread by discussing the Constitution? The President takes an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constituion of the United States." How can a discussion about the Constitution be inappropriate in a thread designed to determine if one is able or willing to keep that oath?

The most important thing to know about one considering a run for the White House is how he/she understands the Constitution.

:smoke: - smilie Obama, what brand do you smoke?

David · Nov 28, 2010

Didymus said:
How I am derailing my own thread by discussing the Constitution? The President takes an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constituion of the United States." How can a discussion about the Constitution be inappropriate in a thread designed to determine if one is able or willing to keep that oath?

The most important thing to know about one considering a run for the White House is how he/she understands the Constitution.

:smoke: - smilie Obama, what brand do you smoke?

Sure but we went from talking about your platform to debating the finer points of the Constitution. We're not even talking about you're hypothetical anymore! :giggle:

It might be related but due to how deep we're getting an independent thread would be justified.

Didymus · Nov 28, 2010

JooseBox said:
I believe Slick Willy is correct. As admirable as I find that agenda it could never be accomplished in anything less than a few decades (kinda like Barry's Healthcare agenda). It would simply be political suicide just to mention those things out loud bro. Perhaps when we REALLY hit rock bottom enough folks will be awake and subsequently onboard with the federal government gettin-back-to-basics that even the media wouldn't dare spin or demonize your platform.

Oh I am not sure. You might be right. It all depends how good of a communicator I am, wouldn't it? With my background in radio and in publishing, I have a fair idea of how to communicate. Ron Paul's problem two years ago was he gave intelligent answers to all the questions asked him, and he came across like an angry old man. He had the right message, but did not communicate it well. But, I think his candidacy woke some people up, and that spurred on the tea party movement, and of that, Ron should be proud of what he accomplished.

You can't load the average voter down with a bunch of facts and figures. You will lose them. What needs to be done is gear your mesage to elicit an emotional response. You will go a lot further that way.

And, always let people know youu care about what they think. So.....

What do you think?

Didymus · Nov 28, 2010

David said:
Sure but we went from talking about your platform to debating the finer points of the Constitution. We're not even talking about you're hypothetical anymore! :giggle:

It might be related but due to how deep we're getting an independent thread would be justified.

Well, where would we put a Constitution discussion?

obtuseobserver · Nov 28, 2010

Didymus said:
I understand what your saying Ob, but here is my problem.

The originalist would probably say that what the Constitution neither authorizes nor prohibits is left to the States, based on the 10th Amendment. That would have to include air traffic control. Imagine air traffic control having 50 sets of rules to follow. Pennsylvania could have Jet A flying at 5000 feet, and Ohio having the same Jet A flying at 4000 feet. Meanwhile, Pennsylvania has Jet B at 4000 feet, while Ohio has Jet B at 5000 feet. Do you see what a mess that would be? This is one case where one size is better fitting all.

- 4000 feet in Pa, 5000 feet in Ohio, 4500 feet in Indiana, and I'm drunk.

I'm too lazy to do the research but my gut reaction here is that these issues do not offend the constitution.

For one thing.... airports accepting international flights are legally regarded as border crossings which greatly enhances federal authority and reduces individual liberty

obtuseobserver · Nov 28, 2010

David said:
Sure but we went from talking about your platform to debating the finer points of the Constitution. We're not even talking about you're hypothetical anymore!

It might be related but due to how deep we're getting an independent thread would be justified.

well, after your objections were quickly swept away the thread moved onto other things. :giggle:

Keep up, join in, or dont.

WillypHD · Nov 29, 2010

Very nice break-down ObtuseObserver, you knowledge of constitutional law is impresive.

WillypHD · Nov 29, 2010

Didymus said:
You might be right. It all depends how good of a communicator I am, wouldn't it?

What needs to be done is gear your mesage to elicit an emotional response. You will go a lot further that way.

What do you think?

This is good, as long as when you communicate you are not hiding the truths and facts to suite you goals, it is a fine line that you must be careful not to cross, no matter how close you get.

Didymus · Nov 29, 2010

Folks, my platform has evolved. Changes were made largely because of questions and comments in this forum.
-----------------------------------------

I'm an independent-minded Republican, and I sure wouldn't mind sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office. If I were to run for President, this would be my platform.

SOLVING THIS COUNTRY'S PROBLEMS WITH SIMPLE SOLUTIONS

We simply must get the Federal Government back within Constitutional boundaries. However, I realize, while the solution is simple, implementation of the solution may not be.

1. Eliminate unnecessary and unconstitutional Federal agencies and departments. One that is unnecessary is the Department of Education. The nation's children would best be served by an education system that is primarily controlled by parents, then the States.

The IRS and the Federal Reserve are unconstitutional. The Constitution states that Congress shall "lay and collect" taxes. The Constitution gives the Congress the responsibility to "coin money, regulate the value thereoff."

Other examples of agencies and departments that are unnecessary or unconstitutional are the FDA, ATF, and Homeland Security. The Department of Commerce can take up the slack left by elimination of the FDA and the ATF.

As far as Homeland Security is concerned, as President I would not jeopardize security for a mere political whim. But, we have the CIA, FBI, and military intelligence. All we need is for these agencies to communicate with one another, and then report to the President. Only the government control aspects of Homeland Security will be totally eliminated. There will be no more spying on the American people, such as listening to phone conversation without due process of law. No more TSA groping sessions at airports.

I believe it is possible to protect the American people from terrorist attacks without violating their Constitutionally protected rights and privacy.

2. We need to establish a Constitution committee in both houses of Congress. Every bill must go through these committees to determine a bill's Constitutionality. If the bill is determined unconstitutional, the bill dies there. Also, they will audit all current laws. When determining a law is unconstitutional, they will write a bill to repeal such law.

3. I will do whatever is in the power of the President to end abortion. I will start with a Presidential Proclamation that the unborn are persons and have rights under the 14th Amendment.

4. I will do whatever I can to reaffirm the 10th Amendment, and encourge the States to repeal laws that are the result of strong-arm tactics by the Federal Government.

I do not believe it is Constitutional for the Executive Branch of the Federal government to extort States into passing legislation. Such as what Elizabeth Dole did while Secretary of Transportation when she told the States to change the drinking age to 21, or not receive their Transportation dollars. She did the same thing to get States to pass seat belt legislation.

5. While I am opposed to unnecessary and unconstitutional agencies and departments, I do have a proposal for the establishment of a Department of Constitutional Services. The purpose for this department would be two-fold. 1. To assure that the actions of the Executive Branch of Government are constitutional. 2. To assure that the Constitutional rights and privileges of the citizens of the United States are not infginged or otherwise violated.

That's the main body of my platform. Other issues will be addressed as needed.

:smoke:

Didymus · Nov 29, 2010

Entitlements

My understanding of Entitlements you could say is the difference between "now and then."

Does anyone remember what this nation was like before entitlements? Parents took care of their children, and when the parents got old, the children took care of their parents. Parents were not shoved into a home and forgotten about, paid for by some entitlement. In times of trouble, communities helped one another, and churches helped people as well.

Even during the "great depression," THERE WAS NOT ONE ENTITLEMENT THAT HELPED ANYONE. I wanted to make that point plain. If you can find one entitlement that helped one person through the great deperession, I would like to know about it. There was no cash assistance, no food stamps, and no Social Security. By the time any governemnt program started, the depression was pretty much over.

You might wonder where I get my facts. I talked to people who lived through those years, like my dad, my mother, aunts and uncles, and older people when I volunteered at a nursing home. One lady was very specific. While the government would have us believe that if it weren't for the government people would not have made it though the great depression. But, older folks that lived through those days had a different story. That one lady at the nursing home pretty much hated the government for their lies. She was upset with her children for putting her in a home. "This didn't happen when I was younger," she said. "We took care of our parents." She had a lot to say about those days. I will never forget her.

If you want to see what life was like in this country before entitlements, simply read or watch "Little House on the Prairie." When the Ingalls suffered through a tornado that destroyed the entire crop, and killed their cow, there was not one government program to apply for aid. It was the people of Walnut Grove that helped the Ingalls family. And that is what life was like in this country before entitlements. "People helping people" was more than than a slogan, it was a reality. Of course, to make things interesting, Walnut Grove had Mrs. Oleson, their resident capitalist. If redistribution of the wealth is evil, it seems the people of Walnut Grove were very evil. Because, to help the Ingals family, they, at times had to redistribute the wealth. And that is the way it was. People helping people by distributing to anyone who had need. And it was all done without some Government Control Program.

This country survived very well without Federal Entitlement/Government Control Programs for about 150 years.

That was then. What about now? For that part of this discussion, I will draw on personal experience. And I hope I do not lose any respect from those who hate Entitlements, because I hate them too. And I wouldn't be on any if I didn't have to be.

In 1977 I developed something in my left ring finger that was very painful. Bumping that finger felt like being hit by a sledge hammer. I had to really protect that finger or suffer excruciating pain every time I bumped it. It is really hard to work with your hands when you only have one hand that you can use. So, I went to see a doctor. He said I needed surgery. Well, I didn't have the money, neither did my family. So I went to the church I was a member of. The preacher told me to go to the government for help. I had no choice. About 15 hospitalizations later I am still on Government Control Programs. And that is what they are.

I hate it. Federal Entitlements have ripped the heart and soul out of the nation. My church telling me to go to the government for help is just plain wrong. But, that is a symptom of a greater problem. People don't help people anymore, not like they did. Why should they when the government does it? But these goverment programs are not about helping people, they are about government control.

Becuase of my situation, I understand both sides of the Entitlement issue.
The reason there are so many people on entitlement programs is because Government has created and atmosphere where they have to be. Overtaxation, overregulation, free trade agreements that do nothing but send jobs overseas, have all created this atmosphere. The economy is being destroyed by the Government, as a result, people are losing good paying jobs, being forced to to get jobs that do not pay as well, if they are fortunate enough to get a job at all. My conservative friends know these things to be true, but fail to see the connection between the government destruction of the economy and the need for people to collect from the government. It seems to me that everytime we have economic problems in this country we place blame on poor people, instead of blaming those that have created these economic problems in the first place, which is Congress. Congress has been whittling away at our economy and our freedom for at least the last 50 years, and it's time for that to change.

If we want to do something about Entitlements, we must first change the direction of our Government. Therefore, I propose we end all business taxes, end all OSHA regulations, create a minimum wage system that is based on the cost of living. No one should be denied a living wage. I further propose that we end our participation is job stealing treaties, such as NAFTA. I further propose that we once again collect tariffs. These steps would once again allow businesses to earn a decent profit, while at the same time hire American workers, and pay them a living wage.

In the 60s and early 70s, there were all kinds of factories. Shirt factories, undergarment factories, etc. But, today, even the "Great American Chocolate Bar" is made in Mexico. We need to bring those jobs back to America. When we do that, then we can do something about Entitlements.

I use to be a radio announcer, but because of national shows like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, etc., and radio stations being controlled by computers, or satallite hook up, people like me are no longer needed. So we can't just simply say we need to get rid of Entitlements. It would be inhumane to all of a sudden take people off Entitlements when they are dependent on them.

I hate what Entitlements have done to this country, and if we could just end them without hurting anyone, that would be great. But that is not reality.

By the way, I don't remember this country having a homeless problem before Entitlements. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Thanks for your time.

Didymus · Nov 29, 2010

Foreign policy statement

I am still formulating my foreign policy. And, I can only speak in generalities anyway since I am not privy to all the information a President needs to be to have a specific foreign policy.

I will say this. By the time I would take the oath of office in January 2013, Amanda Knox better be back in the United States. I believe it is the duty of the President, and indeed, the government of the United States, to protect the citizens of the United States where ever they are in the world. What has happened to Amanda Knox is unreasonable and unjustified. Every legal expert I have heard discuss this case says that there was not one shred of evidence linking Miss Knox to the crime she was convicted of. As a U.S. citizen, it should be expected that the U.S. Goverment would work on her behalf. If they have been, I certainly don't see any progress.

So, here's a message to the Italian Government. Send Miss Knox home, and I won't have to consider punitive measures should I become the President of the United States in 2013.

You might want to consider what sanctions might mean. Closing off our borders to all Italian imports.

For those who would wonder why. I believe U.S. Citizens are unfairly targetted by foreign court systems. Some years ago, there was a young man convicted of a crime there was no way he committed. This happened in a South American country. As President, I would work with these other nations to end this practice. When American citizens travel abroad, they should be able to do so with a reasonable expectation of not being unfairly targetted by the legal system of whatever country they travel to.

There is no reason why this policy has to wait till 2013 to be implimented. I call upon Congress to pass a bill dealing with this problem and send to President Obama for his signiture. I am confident he would sign such a bill.

I am still formulating my foreign policy. And, I can only speak in generalities anyway since I am not privy to all the information a President needs to be to have a specific foreign policy.

I will say this. By the time I would take the oath of office in January 2013, Amanda Knox better be back in the United States. I believe it is the duty of the President, and indeed, the government of the United States, to protect the citizens of the United States where ever they are in the world. What has happened to Amanda Knox is unreasonable and unjustified. Every legal expert I have heard discuss this case says that there was not one shred of evidence linking Miss Knox to the crime she was convicted of. As a U.S. citizen, it should be expected that the U.S. Goverment would work on her behalf. If they have been, I certainly don't see any progress.

So, here's a message to the Italian Government. Send Miss Knox home, and I won't have to consider punitive measures should I become the President of the United States in 2013.

You might want to consider what sanctions might mean. Closing off our borders to all Italian imports.

For those who would wonder why. I believe U.S. Citizens are unfairly targetted by foreign court systems. Some years ago, there was a young man convicted of a crime there was no way he committed. This happened in a South American country. As President, I would work with these other nations to end this practice. When American citizens travel abroad, they should be able to do so with a reasonable expectation of not being unfairly targetted by the legal system of whatever country they travel to.

There is no reason why this policy has to wait till 2013 to be implimented. I call upon Congress to pass a bill dealing with this problem and send to President Obama for his signiture. I am confident he would sign such a bill.

I am still formulating my foreign policy. And, I can only speak in generalities anyway since I am not privy to all the information a President needs to be to have a specific foreign policy.

I will say this. By the time I would take the oath of office in January 2013, Amanda Knox better be back in the United States. I believe it is the duty of the President, and indeed, the government of the United States, to protect the citizens of the United States where ever they are in the world. What has happened to Amanda Knox is unreasonable and unjustified. Every legal expert I have heard discuss this case says that there was not one shred of evidence linking Miss Knox to the crime she was convicted of. As a U.S. citizen, it should be expected that the U.S. Goverment would work on her behalf. If they have been, I certainly don't see any progress.

So, here's a message to the Italian Government. Send Miss Knox home, and I won't have to consider punitive measures should I become the President of the United States in 2013.

You might want to consider what sanctions might mean. Closing off our borders to all Italian imports.

For those who would wonder why. I believe U.S. Citizens are unfairly targetted by foreign court systems. Some years ago, there was a young man convicted of a crime there was no way he committed. This happened in a South American country. As President, I would work with these other nations to end this practice. When American citizens travel abroad, they should be able to do so with a reasonable expectation of not being unfairly targetted by the legal system of whatever country they travel to.

There is no reason why this policy has to wait till 2013 to be implimented. I call upon Congress to pass a bill dealing with this problem and send to President Obama for his signiture. I am confident he would sign such a bill.

I believe defense spending should be the top priority in our budget, and we should have the best national defense possible especially now. Since 9/11, and the build up to 9/11, what's to say foreign soldiers are not getting past the INS? The 9/11 hijackers were allowed to come and go, in and out of this country at will without the proper visas. I would hope the Bush Administration had strengthened the INS, and the President Obama is continuing that program. But, with all the illegal aliens in this country, can we be 100% certain of that?

As far as military bases abroad. There is only one reason for them, and that is if we have a treaty or agreement with the host country to have a base there. Otherwise, I believe we should bring our military home to defend this country. I would want as many troops as possible here at home, in case war breaks out on our soil.

Some might think that can't happen. But, after 9/11, can we be 100% certain of that?

I believe defense spending should be the top priority in our budget, and we should have the best national defense possible especially now. Since 9/11, and the build up to 9/11, what's to say foreign soldiers are not getting past the INS? The 9/11 hijackers were allowed to come and go, in and out of this country at will without the proper visas. I would hope the Bush Administration had strengthened the INS, and the President Obama is continuing that program. But, with all the illegal aliens in this country, can we be 100% certain of that?

As far as military bases abroad. There is only one reason for them, and that is if we have a treaty or agreement with the host country to have a base there. Otherwise, I believe we should bring our military home to defend this country. I would want as many troops as possible here at home, in case war breaks out on our soil.

Some might think that can't happen. But, after 9/11, can we be 100% certain of that?

David · Nov 29, 2010

Didymus said:
Folks, my platform has evolved. Changes were made largely because of questions and comments in this forum.
-----------------------------------------

I'm an independent-minded Republican, and I sure wouldn't mind sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office. If I were to run for President, this would be my platform.

SOLVING THIS COUNTRY'S PROBLEMS WITH SIMPLE SOLUTIONS

We simply must get the Federal Government back within Constitutional boundaries. However, I realize, while the solution is simple, implementation of the solution may not be.

1. Eliminate unnecessary and unconstitutional Federal agencies and departments. One that is unnecessary is the Department of Education. The nation's children would best be served by an education system that is primarily controlled by parents, then the States.

The IRS and the Federal Reserve are unconstitutional. The Constitution states that Congress shall "lay and collect" taxes. The Constitution gives the Congress the responsibility to "coin money, regulate the value thereoff."

I've already stated my position on your public education position but let's agree to disagree. The IRS is legal as it's Congress' legal arm. I fully agree with he rest.

Other examples of agencies and departments that are unnecessary or unconstitutional are the FDA, ATF, and Homeland Security. The Department of Commerce can take up the slack left by elimination of the FDA and the ATF.

As far as Homeland Security is concerned, as President I would not jeopardize security for a mere political whim. But, we have the CIA, FBI, and military intelligence. All we need is for these agencies to communicate with one another, and then report to the President. Only the government control aspects of Homeland Security will be totally eliminated. There will be no more spying on the American people, such as listening to phone conversation without due process of law. No more TSA groping sessions at airports.

I believe it is possible to protect the American people from terrorist attacks without violating their Constitutionally protected rights and privacy.

Add the NSA to your list of agencies to be abolished and I can support this.

2. We need to establish a Constitution committee in both houses of Congress. Every bill must go through these committees to determine a bill's Constitutionality. If the bill is determined unconstitutional, the bill dies there. Also, they will audit all current laws. When determining a law is unconstitutional, they will write a bill to repeal such law.

Only the SC can determine Constitutionality. I actually supportwhat you're saying here but unless you want to be labeled a hypocrite, you'll need a Constitutional Amendment 1st.

3. I will do whatever is in the power of the President to end abortion. I will start with a Presidential Proclamation that the unborn are persons and have rights under the 14th Amendment.

Agree 100%!

4. I will do whatever I can to reaffirm the 10th Amendment, and encourge the States to repeal laws that are the result of strong-arm tactics by the Federal Government.

I do not believe it is Constitutional for the Executive Branch of the Federal government to extort States into passing legislation. Such as what Elizabeth Dole did while Secretary of Transportation when she told the States to change the drinking age to 21, or not receive their Transportation dollars. She did the same thing to get States to pass seat belt legislation.

5. While I am opposed to unnecessary and unconstitutional agencies and departments, I do have a proposal for the establishment of a Department of Constitutional Services. The purpose for this department would be two-fold. 1. To assure that the actions of the Executive Branch of Government are constitutional. 2. To assure that the Constitutional rights and privileges of the citizens of the United States are not infginged or otherwise violated.

That's the main body of my platform. Other issues will be addressed as needed.

Ether make it part of the Judicial Branch or pass the amendment I mentioned. So long as you do 1 of these 2 things, I support this.

:smoke:

Keep up the refining and I may vote for you.

Didymus · Dec 5, 2010

1. Eliminate unnecessary and unconstitutional Federal agencies and departments. One that is unnecessary is the Department of Education. The nation's children would best be served by an education system that is primarily controlled by parents, then the States.

The IRS and the Federal Reserve are unconstitutional. The Constitution states that Congress shall "lay and collect" taxes. The Constitution gives the Congress the responsibility to "coin money, regulate the value thereoff."

I've already stated my position on your public education position but let's agree to disagree. The IRS is legal as it's Congress' legal arm. I fully agree with he rest.

What is your basis for saying the IRS is legal?

2. We need to establish a Constitution committee in both houses of Congress. Every bill must go through these committees to determine a bill's Constitutionality. If the bill is determined unconstitutional, the bill dies there. Also, they will audit all current laws. When determining a law is unconstitutional, they will write a bill to repeal such law.

Only the SC can determine Constitutionality. I actually supportwhat you're saying here but unless you want to be labeled a hypocrite, you'll need a Constitutional Amendment 1st.

I thought the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial are equal branches of government, and that there is suppose to be a system of checks and balances? And, all elected officials of the three branches all take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution"? Congress certainly can overrule the SCOTUS by appropriate legislation. I just don't believe the Supreme Court is the end of the process.

Besides, this plank does not not deal with SCOTUS decisions. It is dealing with bills that they might be considering, or laws they passed by past Congresses and signed into law by past Presidents.

5. While I am opposed to unnecessary and unconstitutional agencies and departments, I do have a proposal for the establishment of a Department of Constitutional Services. The purpose for this department would be two-fold. 1. To assure that the actions of the Executive Branch of Government are constitutional. 2. To assure that the Constitutional rights and privileges of the citizens of the United States are not infginged or otherwise violated.

That's the main body of my platform. Other issues will be addressed as needed.

Either make it part of the Judicial Branch or pass the amendment I mentioned. So long as you do 1 of these 2 things, I support this.

I don't believe a Department belongs in the Judicial Branch. By definition, Departments belong in the Executive Branch.

:throwball: - the ball is in your court

David · Dec 6, 2010

Didymus said:
What is your basis for saying the IRS is legal?

It's congress' legal arm. I thought that was quite clear. Congress levees taxes and sends the IRS to collect or do you expect Congress to actally collect taxes personally? :giggle:

I thought the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial are equal branches of government, and that there is suppose to be a system of checks and balances? And, all elected officials of the three branches all take an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution"? Congress certainly can overrule the SCOTUS by appropriate legislation. I just don't believe the Supreme Court is the end of the process.

Besides, this plank does not not deal with SCOTUS decisions. It is dealing with bills that they might be considering, or laws they passed by past Congresses and signed into law by past Presidents.

It is the Court's duty to interpret the laws and uphold law and order. It's Congress' duty to form new laws and adapt old laws to the times. It's the Executive's duty to rule in accordance with the laws. So no, Congress can't declare anything Constitutional or unconstitutional (though they can check the Court's power by changing the Constitution). What they can do is cite their Constitutional authority when proposing a bill, which I support. So basically I agree, I'm just trying to clarify that 1 legal issue.

I don't believe a Department belongs in the Judicial Branch. By definition, Departments belong in the Executive Branch.

:throwball: - the ball is in your court

No, but an agency can.

Didymus · Dec 7, 2010

David said:
It's congress' legal arm. I thought that was quite clear. Congress levees taxes and sends the IRS to collect or do you expect Congress to actally collect taxes personally? :giggle:

I still would like to know what your basis is for saying the IRS is Congress' legal arm. It's certainly not the Constitution.

It is the Court's duty to interpret the laws and uphold law and order. It's Congress' duty to form new laws and adapt old laws to the times. It's the Executive's duty to rule in accordance with the laws. So no, Congress can't declare anything Constitutional or unconstitutional (though they can check the Court's power by changing the Constitution). What they can do is cite their Constitutional authority when proposing a bill, which I support. So basically I agree, I'm just trying to clarify that 1 legal issue.

The Courts duty is to apply the law, not interpret the law. Congress takes an oath to uphild the Constitution. When they are considering a new bill (proposed law), it is their duty to consider the constitutionality of the bill, which they rarely do. The Executives role is to "carry out" the law, not rule.

David · Dec 7, 2010

Didymus said:
I still would like to know what your basis is for saying the IRS is Congress' legal arm. It's certainly not the Constitution.

Again, do you expect everyone in congress to personally go out and collect the taxes they levee? No? Then how? Create an agency to do so in their name? That's the IRS.

obtuseobserver · Dec 8, 2010

David said:
It's congress' legal arm. I thought that was quite clear. Congress levees taxes and sends the IRS to collect or do you expect Congress to actally collect taxes personally? :giggle:

Actually it's part of the executive branch :giggle:

Congress passes laws. It has essentially no authority to enforce them; by design. That's the job of the executive branch. To execute the laws. The IRS is part of the Department of the Treasury.

obtuseobserver · Dec 8, 2010

Didymus said:
I still would like to know what your basis is for saying the IRS is Congress' legal arm. It's certainly not the Constitution.

See above. It isn't Congress's legal arm it's the President's and the authority is in the 16th Amendment.

And yes, it was properly ratified. You can argue this point until the cows come home and you'll never win.

obtuseobserver · Dec 8, 2010

David said:
No, but an agency can.

There are many "Departments" in the executive branch. Treasury being one.

Each federal court system may be considered an "agency" or "department" if you will.

Congress has one agency

Executive has shit tons of them

Didymus · Dec 9, 2010

obtuseobserver said:
See above. It isn't Congress's legal arm it's the President's and the authority is in the 16th Amendment.

And yes, it was properly ratified. You can argue this point until the cows come home and you'll never win.

The 16th Amendment says nothing about the IRS, or any other "agency" or "department" collecting taxes. It reaffirms that Congress should collect taxes.

My Platform: If I Run

Similar threads