ExpertLaw.com Forums

Legal theory and politics: The HSA

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst Previous 1 2
  • 08-22-2007, 07:41 PM
    danielpalos
    Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
    Quote:

    Quoting Mr. Knowitall
    View Post
    :confused: Er... Acid trip?

    Just asking.
  • 08-22-2007, 07:44 PM
    danielpalos
    Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
    Quote:

    Quoting deadlock
    View Post
    Daniel,
    This is the United States of American. The land of opportunity (opportunity=make alot of money). It is not about providing for the Common Welfare. You are misinterpreting some of the terminology.

    Like Welfare state public policy. And an at-will unemployment? We go to work to pay our bills. We pay taxes because we don't want to pay the Queen. We try to get ahead and we don't want to pay for someone NOT to go to work. ;)

    Which terminology am I misinterpreting when citing Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution?

    "Section 8
    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;"
  • 08-23-2007, 07:47 AM
    seniorjudge
    Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
    http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa699b23882.htm

    An interesting article on what "general welfare" means.
  • 08-23-2007, 02:26 PM
    danielpalos
    Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
    Quoted from the link posted above.

    Quote:

    To the House of Representatives of the United States: Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.
    Madison may have been dealing with the internal politics of the time, and perhaps, less concerned with the general Welfare of the United States.

    Quote:

    The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce with a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress."
    I noticed no mention of the specifically enumerated power to construct post roads (and by extension post canals; that may result in post freeways that reach every state in the Union), and post offices.

    I also find Madison's concern for the powers of the judiciary to be somewhat disingenuous, since the judiciary is usually concerned with law and legalities, not the day to day administration of the executive or congressional branches of government. It seems, Madison may have been more concerned with the actual wording of the bill, as it did not seem to him, to embody the same care that went into the work at the constitution convention.

    Quote:

    I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.
    I am of the opinion, that Madison felt more constrained by the bill than the actual provisions of the bill that would have resulted in providing for the general Welfare of commerce of the United States, and the market participants that would have benefited from that commerce.
  • 08-23-2007, 03:03 PM
    deadlock
    Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
    Quote DanielPalos:
    Quote:

    I am of the opinion, that Madison felt more constrained by the bill than the actual provisions of the bill that would have resulted in providing for the general Welfare of commerce of the United States, and the market participants that would have benefited from that commerce.
    Do you mean you are of the opinion? do you mean you conclude after reading the entire article? or do you mean your cognition of the content in the above link leads you to believe Madison had some other reason- other than he clearly delineated in his letter, WHY he vetoed the Public Works Bill, that originated in Congress, in 1817?

    I think it is very clear. What is not clear is why you don't seem to understand the Constitution. And every time I have asked you that you won't answer. You provide no information about why you have difficulty understanding what is being written in the forum or about the referernces given to you. You don't explain what your background is and how we might HELP you understand.

    Obviously, we are interested and obviously we have painfully tried to help you and explain.
  • 08-23-2007, 03:23 PM
    danielpalos
    Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
    Being patronizing is not more conducive to an open exchange of ideas and opinions, than simply trying to understand opposing viewpoints.

    Yes, Madison explained it very well, why he was vetoing that bill.

    It can be difficult to respond in a more cogent manner, if I am only receiving feedback via non sequiturs and other fallacies.
  • 08-23-2007, 03:33 PM
    deadlock
    Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
    Quote:

    Quoting danielpalos
    View Post
    Being patronizing is not more conducive to an open exchange of ideas and opinions, than simply trying to understand opposing viewpoints.

    Yes, Madison explained it very well, why he was vetoing that bill.

    It can be difficult to respond in a more cogent manner, if I am only receiving feedback via non sequiturs and other fallacies.

    Me? Patronizing?

    Def: Adj. 1. patronizing - (used of behavior or attitude) characteristic of those who treat others with condescension
    arch, condescending, patronising
    superior - of or characteristic of high rank or importance; "a superior ruler"

    I don't think I am patronizing of you. I think I am attempting to figure out why you don't GET IT. You keep coming back with smug responses that are cut and paste of your arrogant use of theoretical terms that are hard to understand and certainly don't show any gratefulness to those who are trying to HELP YOU understand what you clearly don't understand.

    I suggest that rather than making us suffer further, you write your paper and let your professor critique it.
  • 08-23-2007, 03:42 PM
    danielpalos
    Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
    Quote:

    Quoting deadlock
    View Post
    Me? Patronizing?

    Def: Adj. 1. patronizing - (used of behavior or attitude) characteristic of those who treat others with condescension
    arch, condescending, patronising
    superior - of or characteristic of high rank or importance; "a superior ruler"

    I don't think I am patronizing of you. I think I am attempting to figure out why you don't GET IT. You keep coming back with smug responses that are cut and paste of your arrogant use of theoretical terms that are hard to understand and certainly don't show any gratefulness to those who are trying to HELP YOU understand what you clearly don't understand.

    I suggest that rather than making us suffer further, you write your paper and let your professor critique it.

    It would help your position more, if you didn't resort to fallacies when claiming you are not being condescending or patronizing.
  • 08-23-2007, 04:10 PM
    danielpalos
    Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
    Why do you disagree with my opinion of Madison's rationale for vetoing a bill that may have had more to do with political precedence, than providing for the general Welfare of the United States?
  • 08-23-2007, 06:34 PM
    aaron
    Re: Legal theory and politics: The HSA
    And we're no longer discussing HSA's.
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst Previous 1 2
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:41 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved