Does anyone besides me remember HR 1586 and S 651, also known as "The Compensation Fairness Act of 2009" from last year? This was Congress's attempt to recoup the bonuses paid to the evil Wall Street folks via taxation. The House version passed, the Senate version never made it to a vote.
Evidently, that wasn't the outcome the folks in Congress were looking for. The Senate is currently working its way through HR 4213 the "Tax Extenders Act of 2009". This bill extends certain types of tax cuts, credits, relief, incentives, etc. Senators Baucus, Webb, and Boxer decided the best way to achieve what they couldn't last year was to slip language into a bill that no one was actually crazy enough to read. They have jointly proposed and sponsored Amendment 3342 to HR 4213. Side note, how in the hell can one bill have three thousand three hundred forty-two freakin amendments?! Anyway, Amendment 3342 seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose an excise tax on excessive 2009 bonuses received from certain major recipients of Federal emergency economic assistance, to limit the deduction allowable for such bonuses.
Is this not a Bill of Attainder as defined by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution? They're not even saying the want to go after all major recipients of Federal emergency economic assistance. They only want to go after certain major recipients. Who defines which recipients are the certain ones? Does no one understand why the Constitution forbids Bills of Attainder?
I know I'm going to start a lot of hate and discontent with this one, but for the sake of illustration, let me define the "certain major recipients" for a moment. What would happen if I defined the "certain major recipients" as being only those recipients who are Black, Hispanic, or Asian that received bonuses? I would be labeled a racist, every news outlet in America would have my picture and home address plastered everywhere, I'd be (rightfully) forced to resign, and this Amendment wouldn't even make it to a vote, let alone becoming law. Why wouldn't it make it to a vote? Because it's freakin unconstitutional!!!
Do most people feel that if it doesn't directly apply to or effect them, it doesn't really matter? EVERY AMERICAN DESERVES AND IS ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTIONS THAT ARE GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
I welcome your comments.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
McDonald v City of Chicago 2nd Amendment Case
Today, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments in the case of McDonald v Chicago to determine if it's constitutional for state and/or local governments to place restrictions on the ownership of guns.
This is a somewhat interesting case due to the fact that 3 different amendments will/should come into play in this decision.
1. The Second Amendment states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
A recent Supreme Court decision ruled that this is an individual right for every citizens, not the narrow interpretation that some have believing that it is only for police etc. The question is, does the Second Amendment only apply to the federal government? The court throughout most of the 20th century has ruled inconsistently at best on whether or not individual Amendments apply only to the federal government, or do they also apply to state governments. This brings us to our next Amendment, one of my favorites.
2. The Tenth Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This Amendment was put in place for the express purpose of preventing the federal government from becoming too over-reaching and authoritarian. Unfortunately over the last century, with great examples such as: The New Deal, Bail-outs, Stimulus, Social Security, etc; we have lost sight of the fact that Article 1 and the Tenth Amendment were put in place to protect a bottom-up style of government. You know, a democratic republic. For those who don't know, that is our form of government, we are NOT a democracy. What's odd is that the same folks who advocate a top down style of government are trying to play the Tenth Amendment card. Another case of utilizing parts of the Constitution to their benefit and discarding the rest. The only problem with that is the final Amendment that plays into this whole scenario.
3. The Fourteenth Amendment states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Long and short, the Fourteenth Amendment prevents the states from making any law that takes away people's rights to keep and bear arms, or any other constitutionally protected right or freedom for that matter.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of McDonald, and state and local gun laws are repealed, it will be completely CONSTITUTIONAL.
This is a somewhat interesting case due to the fact that 3 different amendments will/should come into play in this decision.
1. The Second Amendment states: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
A recent Supreme Court decision ruled that this is an individual right for every citizens, not the narrow interpretation that some have believing that it is only for police etc. The question is, does the Second Amendment only apply to the federal government? The court throughout most of the 20th century has ruled inconsistently at best on whether or not individual Amendments apply only to the federal government, or do they also apply to state governments. This brings us to our next Amendment, one of my favorites.
2. The Tenth Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This Amendment was put in place for the express purpose of preventing the federal government from becoming too over-reaching and authoritarian. Unfortunately over the last century, with great examples such as: The New Deal, Bail-outs, Stimulus, Social Security, etc; we have lost sight of the fact that Article 1 and the Tenth Amendment were put in place to protect a bottom-up style of government. You know, a democratic republic. For those who don't know, that is our form of government, we are NOT a democracy. What's odd is that the same folks who advocate a top down style of government are trying to play the Tenth Amendment card. Another case of utilizing parts of the Constitution to their benefit and discarding the rest. The only problem with that is the final Amendment that plays into this whole scenario.
3. The Fourteenth Amendment states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Long and short, the Fourteenth Amendment prevents the states from making any law that takes away people's rights to keep and bear arms, or any other constitutionally protected right or freedom for that matter.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of McDonald, and state and local gun laws are repealed, it will be completely CONSTITUTIONAL.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)