Your question was absurd. And it was a an allegation. Strict construction simply means that the federal government has only the powers set forth in the Constitution. And it does give the feds broad powers especially after the 14th Amendment was passed. Under the plain text of the Constitution the states are free to do what ever they want as long as they do not violate the few things that states are prohibited from doing. Now how does such an an arrangement impede, much less prohibit, progress? The answer is it doesn't.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Apr 20, 2005 at 10:42am.]
"Strict construction simply means that the federal government has only the powers set forth in the Constitution. Under the plain text of the Constitution the states are free to do what ever they want as long as they do not violate the few things that states are prohibited from doing."
That I knew. I also get a clear idea that a strict-constructionist America is no country I'd want to live in.
And I wouldn't want to be around for the bloody revolution that threw the strict constructionists' collective asses out of power
I also get a clear idea that a strict-constructionist America is no country I'd want to live in.
you just won't admit that strict construction simply means that the people control the laws they live under. The people ratified the Cconstitution and it was what they agreed to. You apparently prefer to let others decide what those laws should be. But of course that isn't true or you wouldn't be active in the democratt party. The truth is, which you want to hide, is that the Court tends to enforce ideas on the public that you like but can't get enacted through the political process. You are anti democratic.
I don't know. I might be saying that. Depends on how a strict-constructionist America would shake out. What are we talking about here, in terms of change? I can tell you I didn't care much for that Constitution in Exile movement I read about last weekend.
No one has yet told my why a strict-constructionist America would be better than what we have now.
[Edited 7 times. Most recently by on Apr 20, 2005 at 04:38pm.]
The Constitution must be strictly interpreted...."
Rick: How would American society be improved if it [the Constitution must be strictly interpreted[ happened?
This isn't a baseless question or an accusation.
It's a question. Just answer it already. You are the one claiming America is so bad off because it isn't a strictly interpreted as you would like it. Just explain how America would be improved if it was. It's a simple, reasonable question, nothing more.
Just explain how America would be improved if it was.
For one thing, the federal gov't would not be digging into my paycheck every week.
One of the nice things about the constitution was that it limited things that the federal gov't could do. Things like controlling interstate commerce, settling interstate disputes, dealing with other countries on behalf of the states, defending the states, etc. It gave the rest of the powers to the states. Setting up and controlling schools for example is a states responsibility.
Why is this a good idea? Because we have control over our representatives by using our votes and they are more willing to listen to us because of this. I dislike what Ted Kennedy does for the country and some of you dislike what Tom Delay does, but there is nothing at all we can do about these people because we do not have the power to vote them out of office.
That power alone is why I have met some politicians at local fairs and the state fair as well as our governor when he toured the place that I work. They all listened to me courteously (dems and reps) as they know what power we have come election time. Ted Kennedy is someone who I have never met and probably never will. He does not care what I think since I have no power over him whatsoever.
That is the reason for limited federal gov't and that is why we were set-up as a Republic and not a democracy.
Do you think the current administration has something to do with all that?
If the economy were in depression, I think we'd know it. Your examples don't seem like indicators to me. Panic triggers economic depression, and I don't see much panic.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Apr 21, 2005 at 06:07am.]
the coming UPSWING in interests rates of at least .5 percent and then more
Wall Street Reporter:
"Economist Bill Fold predicted today an increase if future interest rates of .5%".
"Mr Bill Fold, could you explain this prediction considering both the ten year treasury and the 30 year mortgage rates have dropped the past few weeks?".
Perhapsif you would just put LINKS to the language in your posts, and ascribe them to the people who wrote them...?
Read the book. It has pages of citations. It's called giving credit where credit is due, and since you don't put the links in your posts, there is only 1 conslusion...you totally agree.
I give Levin credit for what he wrote. The book contains his sources. If you want to know what the sources are, read it.
...and I hope he gets squashed.
Coming from you that is a compliment. Not that he cares one way or the other what you think. YOU are the only person who seems to like the guy. He is obviously an ethnically-challenged bigot
(which you seem to like by pointing out that you agree with him)and shouting-out his viewpoint in here,without giving him credit, unless pushed to do so, is funny but scarey too, and sad. The intolerant left has a strong voice in you, fold. I not only do not have any intention of reading his extremely insulting viewpoints/reviews of anything the Court does, I wouldn't waste my time by reading an entire'book'by the man.
As I always knew, you have a closed mind sealed by a Yale lock.
But you go right ahead and keep reading his religiously inflamitory JUNK
bodine, you take hypocricy to levels previously unheard of. the way you accuse of intolerance and close-mindedness while your entire post reeks of it is really amazing.
Well you see, this happens very often when people post shit without also posting LINKS to their insinuations, more Jethroism.
Why would I need to post a link? You're the one ranting about interest rates, so I assume you see yourself an expert and would know these things.
FYI: You can get those numbers at any financial web-site.
I posted numbers for the 10 year treasury and the 30 year mortgage. They're both virtually where they were in Jan 2003. I figured that was good enough.
BTW: The 10 year treasury is down 5bp from yesterday, and the 30 year mortgage is down 11bp from last week!
I agree that rates will eventually go up, but it's not because of your doom and gloom reasoning. It's because they don't really have anywhere else to go but up.
Clause 1: 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;
'Bill - Fold' 4/21/05 5:50am
In Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=158&invol=601) it was decided that "The power to lay direct taxes, apportioned among the several states in proportion to their representation in the popular branch of congress,- representation based on population as ascertained by the census,-was plenary and absolute, but to lay direct taxes without apportionment was forbidden."
In otherwords, the federal gov't cannot directly tax us. They have to tax the statesevenly according to the population of each state and the states then tax us to raise the money. Again, this gives us more control over our situation. The founder's feared a large central gov't. If as a state we want to tax income, we can. If we do not, we don't. Much easier to accomplish than trying to get the entire U.S. to decide on something. Especially from states that get more money than they pay in.
YOU are the one that demanded that interest rates were going DOWN
I did? Where did I demand that? They've gone down recently, but I'm not claiming as fact that this will continue, I've actually said the opposite. I just don't see it as a doom and gloom situation.
All I did was SAY that they were going up, and for a long time now,
What are you talking about? They've gone up and down a little but they're virtually unchanged from over two years ago.
and I was talking about Mortgage Rates anyway, which HAVE gone up.
From when? They went down 10bp in the last week. They've gone down the past three weeks.
Nothing has changed either ... you still haven't posted any link to where you got that data
For historical, you can download a spreadsheet at the bottom of the page:
That's just moronic. The information is the same as any financial web-site. I used it because you could actually download a history of the 10 year treasury.
Freddie Mack is where I got my data from, in the beginning of this stupid diatribe, which you now seem to agree with. Geez man...
You mean Freddie Mac?
No, I don't agree with you. I don't believe the sky is falling. I agreed that interest rates would eventually go up. That's really the only place they have to go.
We're in much deeper trouble if interest rates fall.
Did you play ring-around-the-rosie a lot when you were a kid?
I don't recall. How is this relevant?
Gotta Laugh...
Yeah, mentally ill people do that quite often for no reason at all.
I ain't no "expert" and IÂ never said I was. YOU are the one that demanded that interest rates were going DOWN ... All I did was SAY that they were going up, and for a long time now, and I was talking about Mortgage Rates anyway, which HAVE gone up.
Show us where the rate has been as low as it is now.
Yes Dan, well that wasthe IDEA, wasn't it.
I am glad you agree with me on that.
The facts though are quite different, and the Supreme Court, includingScalia, have said through their actions and judgementsÂ
ever since 1920 and before , that the income-tax is JUSTand NOTgoing to change, any time soon.
All the 16th ammendment did was classify income tax in such a way that it does not have to be apportioned to the states depending on their population. It did not change the constitution in anyway.
And yes, it has been upheld in court so do not try to evade those taxes. However, I think that you would agree with me that income tax is a direct tax on a person and not an indirect tax as the 16th ammendment declares.
Theseare the REAL tax burdens to Americans, and these are the ones that we should be concerned about.
These are controlable and voluntary taxes though. Walk instead of drive or get a car that is better on gas and you won't pay as much gas tax, buy a smaller house and you won't pay as much property tax, get rid of your phone and you pay no phone taxes, don't buy so much extra crap and you will pay less sales taxes.
That is what is behind the push for a Federal sales tax.
I'm interested in what your point is about interest rates, or gas prices, then, and now. Does it have something to do with the Bush Administration? Do you think he should "do something" about them?
If gas is too expensive, here's my advice -- be frugal with your driving if it becomes a hardship.
Levin titled Chapter Two of his book, Men in Black, “The Counter Revolution of 1803.” This refers to the Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madisonthat announced the principle that the Court is somehow an unbiased guardian of the Constitution and that the Court could declare acts of Congress illegitimate. This idea was unique, as there were few examples of any state courts overturning the actions of state legislatures.
Â
The Constitutional Convention, however, had carefully considered the scope of federal judicial power. The convention had considered giving the judiciary the power to review legislation prior to it being enacted. The idea was rejected, as it would involve the judiciary to closely with politics. Without this type of power it was feared that the judiciary would be weak and subject to influence by the other branches of government. Based on this fear, the convention agreed to have judges serve for life to protect them from coercion.
Â
Some of the opponents of the Constitution, such as Patrick Henry, recognized the potential danger posed by the independent judiciary. Robert Yates, a delegate from New York wrote: Â
Â
It is, moreover, of great importance, to examine with care the nature and extent of the judicial power, because those who are to be vested with it, are to be placed in a situation altogether unprecedented in a free country. They are to be rendered totally independent, both of the people and the legislature, both with respect to their offices and salaries. No errors they may commit can be corrected by any power above them, if any such power there be, nor can they be removed from office for making ever so many erroneous adjudications.
Â
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Â
They will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time, come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or controul their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal.
Â
To see Yate’s entire objection on the judicial power read Article XI and XII:
The first step toward the Court’s unmitigated power began with Marbury.  In Marbury the Court was asked to force the Secretary of State to issue commissions for judgeships that were approved prior to the change in administration in 1801. Chief Justice Marshall realized that the Court had no power to force Madison to issue the commissions. If the Court tried it would simply be ignored. Instead, Marshall, a Federalist, in a power play to overcome the opposition party, set forth the idea that the Court had the power to review Congressional actions and rule them unconstitutional. While it is possible that Marshall may have intended to limit that power to the plain language of the Constitution, subsequent Courts have not bound themselves to any limitations including the limitations placed on the federal government contained in the Constitution.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Apr 26, 2005 at 10:07am.]
It was feared that the judiciary would be weak and subject to influence by the other branches of government. Based on this fear, the convention agreed to have judges serve for life to protect them from coercion.
It is precisely the freedom from coercion that Levin and the theocons object to; thanks for proving that the Founding Fathers intended the judiciary branch to be independent and sheltered from political pressures.
Yates made his objections (written under the pseudonym of "Brutus"), the Constitutional Convention listened, and essentially decided he was full of crap; they wanted a strong and independent judiciary. He was a leader of the Antifederalists; considering the reverence with which conservatives refer to the Federalist Papers (when they agree with them), quoting an Antifederalist in support of an agenda that likes to label itself "conservative" seems a bit disingenuous.
You, jethro, rant about sticking to the Constitution, and the intent of the Founding Fathers, but you're so devoid of historical intellectual support that you're quoting a man who objected to the whole idea of establishing a federal government by means of a Constitution. Have you no shame?
Calling an independent Judiciary "one of the crown jewels of our system of government," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquistin a speech last month said that it is important for the Judiciary to possess a degree of flexibility while also maintaining its independence.
But not independence from the Constitution. fold, it is a pity you can't grasp what is being said.
It is precisely the freedom from coercion that Levin and the theocons object to; So what is to be done when the Court ignores the Constitution? It certainly did in Roe v. Wade. it also has rendered certain provisions meaningless by applying an "evolving standards of decency" test. Are you such a simpleton that you believe whatever the Court says comports with the Constitution at all times?thanks for proving that the Founding Fathers intended the judiciary branch to be independent and sheltered from political pressures. They sheltered the judiciary bbecause they thought it would be weak. It was just not widely recognized just how much power the Court could obtainÂ
Yates made his objections (written under the pseudonym of "Brutus"), the Constitutional Convention listened, and essentially decided he was full of crap; No, they didn't. They simply were not as prescient.they wanted a strong and independent judiciary. He was a leader of the Antifederalists; considering the reverence with which conservatives refer to the Federalist Papers (when they agree with them), quoting an Antifederalist in support of an agenda that likes to label itself "conservative" seems a bit disingenuous. It was to make a point that the issue was recognized and that the problems that were foreseen have came true. There were many patriots that were anti-Federalists. Jefferson was one. Madision became one.
You, jethro, rant about sticking to the Constitution, and the intent of the Founding Fathers, but you're so devoid of historical intellectual support that you're quoting a man who objected to the whole idea of establishing a federal government by means of a Constitution. Have you no shame? Devoid of historical intellectual support? How do you figure? All the support you could possibly need is there in the book. I can't copy the whole book here for you. I simply distill it so that an easily distracted mind, such as yours, can grasp the concepts.
Do you realize that there was a huge number of people that objected? Some of
them decided that the situation at the time could not go on much longer and while they didn't approve, ratified the Constitution anyway. There were concerns about it, even Washington recognized it. It was questionable, when it was delivered to the states, that it would ever be ratified. Many that did vote for it simply felt there was no alternative. Yates was just one of many that objected
to that particular form and how particular issues were addressed. The fact remains that there is a serious problem. The Courts have taken too much power. Do you think the Constitution is perfect? It is evident that you simply agree with most of the results the Court reaches. It is apparent that you would rather live under a dictatorship you agree with rather than a democracy you don't. While you are not quite as simple as fold, you are still simple.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Apr 26, 2005 at 03:26pm.]
gays have the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else. And if no one has the right to marry someone of the same sex there is no discrimination. Only a person incapable of rational thought can claim discrimination in the matter.
This is not about two people being nominated to be federal judges. It is about the whole role of judges in a self-governing republic. The voters' votes mean less and less as time goes by, when judges take more and more decisions out of the hands of elected officials and substitute their own policy preferences, all under the guise of "interpreting" laws.
When California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown faced a retention vote in 1998, 76 percent of Californians voted to keep her on their state's highest court. In San Francisco, perhaps America's most liberal city, she won 79.4 percent. Â Brown won more votes statewide than any of the other three justices up for retention that year -- even though she had cast a (dissenting) vote in favor of upholding the state's parental-consent law.
 But when President Bush nominated Brown to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2003, her demonstrated support in places like San Francisco did not matter to Senate Democrats.
Justice Brown has to stand for re-election occasionally in California; if she's put on the Federal bench, she serves for life. This raises the bar a bit.
Justices are on the ballot unopposed; unless there's a significant opposition campaign, the average voter looks at a ballot which says "Shall Justice Blahblahblah be reaffirmed to the Supreme Court of California?" says "Why the fuck not?" and votes "yes." Hardly surprising to get three-quarters of the vote under those circumstances.
if she's put on the Federal bench, she serves for life. This raises the bar a bit. That is why Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens and Souter should have never been placewd on the bench.
Justices are on the ballot unopposed; unless there's a significant opposition campaign, the average voter looks at a ballot which says "Shall Justice Blahblahblah be reaffirmed to the Supreme Court of California?" says "Why the fuck not?" and votes "yes." Hardly surprising to get three-quarters of the vote under those circumstances. So you and your ilk think you know better. You have no respect for democratic rule.
So, it would seemthat it is a truly harmful thing to accuse judges of being "Activist", because they themselves have a strict level of hierarchy which would eventually make any "Activist" or "Purely Political" decisions temporaryat best. Temporary? Hardly.
(
And, given
the factÂ
that they are indeed Lawyers and are qualified to sit in judgment over others, and perhaps even(satire)members of their respectiveÂ
Bar, of course.
Lawyers are predominately more liberal than is the general public.
"You made a baseless allegation. And I am supposed to disprove it?"
I would think a lawyer, if anyone, could recognize an allegation when they saw it. I asked a question.
Your question was absurd. And it was a an allegation. Strict construction simply means that the federal government has only the powers set forth in the Constitution. And it does give the feds broad powers especially after the 14th Amendment was passed. Under the plain text of the Constitution the states are free to do what ever they want as long as they do not violate the few things that states are prohibited from doing. Now how does such an an arrangement impede, much less prohibit, progress? The answer is it doesn't.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Apr 20, 2005 at 10:42am.]
"Strict construction simply means that the federal government has only the powers set forth in the Constitution. Under the plain text of the Constitution the states are free to do what ever they want as long as they do not violate the few things that states are prohibited from doing."
That I knew. I also get a clear idea that a strict-constructionist America is no country I'd want to live in.
And I wouldn't want to be around for the bloody revolution that threw the strict constructionists' collective asses out of power
I also get a clear idea that a strict-constructionist America is no country I'd want to live in.
you just won't admit that strict construction simply means that the people control the laws they live under. The people ratified the Cconstitution and it was what they agreed to. You apparently prefer to let others decide what those laws should be. But of course that isn't true or you wouldn't be active in the democratt party. The truth is, which you want to hide, is that the Court tends to enforce ideas on the public that you like but can't get enacted through the political process. You are anti democratic.
[Edited by on Apr 20, 2005 at 11:08am.]
That I knew. I also get a clear idea that a strict-constructionist America is no country I'd want to live in.
Are you saying that you disagree with our country's constitution and would not want to live here if we followed it?
I don't know. I might be saying that. Depends on how a strict-constructionist America would shake out. What are we talking about here, in terms of change? I can tell you I didn't care much for that Constitution in Exile movement I read about last weekend.
No one has yet told my why a strict-constructionist America would be better than what we have now.
[Edited 7 times. Most recently by on Apr 20, 2005 at 04:38pm.]
This isn't a baseless question or an accusation.
It's a question. Just answer it already. You are the one claiming America is so bad off because it isn't a strictly interpreted as you would like it. Just explain how America would be improved if it was. It's a simple, reasonable question, nothing more.
Just explain how America would be improved if it was.
For one thing, the federal gov't would not be digging into my paycheck every week.
One of the nice things about the constitution was that it limited things that the federal gov't could do. Things like controlling interstate commerce, settling interstate disputes, dealing with other countries on behalf of the states, defending the states, etc. It gave the rest of the powers to the states. Setting up and controlling schools for example is a states responsibility.
Why is this a good idea? Because we have control over our representatives by using our votes and they are more willing to listen to us because of this. I dislike what Ted Kennedy does for the country and some of you dislike what Tom Delay does, but there is nothing at all we can do about these people because we do not have the power to vote them out of office.
That power alone is why I have met some politicians at local fairs and the state fair as well as our governor when he toured the place that I work. They all listened to me courteously (dems and reps) as they know what power we have come election time. Ted Kennedy is someone who I have never met and probably never will. He does not care what I think since I have no power over him whatsoever.
That is the reason for limited federal gov't and that is why we were set-up as a Republic and not a democracy.
[Edited by on Apr 20, 2005 at 08:32pm.]
what does that have to do with the SC interpeting the Constitution, bodineDan?
Do you think the current administration has something to do with all that?
If the economy were in depression, I think we'd know it. Your examples don't seem like indicators to me. Panic triggers economic depression, and I don't see much panic.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Apr 21, 2005 at 06:07am.]
"That is interesting. So, which came first, the panic, or the stocks that tumbled to worthelessness, in 1929?"
The stocks that dropped in value and then the panic would be my guess..
You think it's time to panic?
[Edited by on Apr 21, 2005 at 06:28am.]
the coming UPSWING in interests rates of at least .5 percent and then more
Wall Street Reporter:
[Edited by on Apr 21, 2005 at 06:37am.]
"The general "panic" (RUN) happened days and even weeks and months afterwards, and the depression deepened as those days and weeks passed."
Maybe, as a nation, we've learned that the panic is as bad, or worse, than the actual event that triggered it.
Interest Rates have been climbing steadily for MONTHS.
HA!
30 Year Today 2005 - 5.91%
10 Year Jan 2003 4.00%
10 Year Today 2005 4.27%
Perhapsif you would just put LINKS to the language in your posts, and ascribe them to the people who wrote them...?
Read the book. It has pages of citations.
It's called giving credit where credit is due, and since you don't put the links in your posts, there is only 1 conslusion...you totally agree.
I give Levin credit for what he wrote. The book contains his sources. If you want to know what the sources are, read it.
I think a weak dollar helps tourism in a positive way. The U,S. is seen as a bargain and a euro, pound or Canadian dollar has more buying power.
THX, wherever you got those figures I don't know, nor do I know just what they refer to.
You're kidding, right?
First of all... It does NOT take into account LONG-TERM interest rates for Home Mortgages
You're kidding, right?
And you're telling me not to go into investment banking?
He is a
bug
...and I hope he gets squashed.
Coming from you that is a compliment. Not that he cares one way or the other what you think. YOU are the only person who seems to like the guy. He is obviously an ethnically-challenged
bigot
(which you seem to like by pointing out that you agree with him)and shouting-out his viewpoint in here,without giving him credit, unless pushed to do so, is funny but scarey too, and sad. The intolerant left has a strong voice in you, fold.
I not only do not have any intention of reading his extremely insulting viewpoints/reviews of anything the Court does, I wouldn't waste my time by reading an entire'book'by the man.
As I always knew, you have a closed mind sealed by a Yale lock.
But you go right ahead and keep reading his religiously inflamitory
JUNK
all you want. K?
religiously? What are you on?
Â
bodine, you take hypocricy to levels previously unheard of. the way you accuse of intolerance and close-mindedness while your entire post reeks of it is really amazing.
Well you see, this happens very often when people post shit without also posting LINKS to their insinuations, more Jethroism.
Why would I need to post a link? You're the one ranting about interest rates, so I assume you see yourself an expert and would know these things.
I posted numbers for the 10 year treasury and the 30 year mortgage. They're both virtually where they were in Jan 2003. I figured that was good enough.
BTW: The 10 year treasury is down 5bp from yesterday, and the 30 year mortgage is down 11bp from last week!
I agree that rates will eventually go up, but it's not because of your doom and gloom reasoning. It's because they don't really have anywhere else to go but up.
[Edited by on Apr 22, 2005 at 12:16pm.]
Clause 1: 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;
'Bill - Fold' 4/21/05 5:50am
In Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=158&invol=601) it was decided that "The power to lay direct taxes, apportioned among the several states in proportion to their representation in the popular branch of congress,- representation based on population as ascertained by the census,-was plenary and absolute, but to lay direct taxes without apportionment was forbidden."
In otherwords, the federal gov't cannot directly tax us. They have to tax the statesevenly according to the population of each state and the states then tax us to raise the money. Again, this gives us more control over our situation. The founder's feared a large central gov't. If as a state we want to tax income, we can. If we do not, we don't. Much easier to accomplish than trying to get the entire U.S. to decide on something. Especially from states that get more money than they pay in.
YOU are the one that demanded that interest rates were going DOWN
I did? Where did I demand that? They've gone down recently, but I'm not claiming as fact that this will continue, I've actually said the opposite. I just don't see it as a doom and gloom situation.
All I did was SAY that they were going up, and for a long time now,
What are you talking about? They've gone up and down a little but they're virtually unchanged from over two years ago.
and I was talking about Mortgage Rates anyway, which HAVE gone up.
From when? They went down 10bp in the last week. They've gone down the past three weeks.
Nothing has changed either ... you still haven't posted any link to where you got that data
For historical, you can download a spreadsheet at the bottom of the page:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5ETNX
For historical, you can download a spreadsheet at the bottom of the page:
http://www.freddiemac.com/dlink/html/PMMS/display/PMMSOutputYr.jsp
[Edited by on Apr 23, 2005 at 07:05am.]
http://www.freddiemac.com/dlink/html/PMMS/display/PMMSOutputYr.jsp
Jan. 6, 2005-5.77%
Jan. 20, 2005- 5.61%
Feb. 24, 2005- 5.69%
March 24, 2005- 6.01%
April 21, 2005- 5.80%
A raise of .03% since Jan. 6, 2005 does not indicate a depression by any exageration of the term.
Â
Yah... I think I said that, days ago.
You did?
Where?
And screw Yahoo.
That's just moronic. The information is the same as any financial web-site. I used it because you could actually download a history of the 10 year treasury.
Freddie Mack is where I got my data from, in the beginning of this stupid diatribe, which you now seem to agree with. Geez man...
You mean Freddie Mac?
No, I don't agree with you. I don't believe the sky is falling. I agreed that interest rates would eventually go up. That's really the only place they have to go.
We're in much deeper trouble if interest rates fall.
Did you play ring-around-the-rosie a lot when you were a kid?
I don't recall. How is this relevant?
Gotta Laugh...
Yeah, mentally ill people do that quite often for no reason at all.
[Edited by on Apr 24, 2005 at 08:01am.]
I ain't no "expert" and IÂ never said I was. YOU are the one that demanded that interest rates were going DOWN ... All I did was SAY that they were going up, and for a long time now, and I was talking about Mortgage Rates anyway, which HAVE gone up.
Here is a chart for you concerning historic 30 year rates. http://www.pnwtsno.com/pdf-docs/interest-rates.pdf
Show us where the rate has been as low as it is now.
Yes Dan, well that wasthe IDEA, wasn't it.
I am glad you agree with me on that.
The facts though are quite different, and the Supreme Court, includingScalia, have said through their actions and judgementsÂ
ever since 1920 and before
, that the income-tax is JUSTand NOTgoing to change, any time soon.
All the 16th ammendment did was classify income tax in such a way that it does not have to be apportioned to the states depending on their population. It did not change the constitution in anyway.
And yes, it has been upheld in court so do not try to evade those taxes. However, I think that you would agree with me that income tax is a direct tax on a person and not an indirect tax as the 16th ammendment declares.
Theseare the REAL tax burdens to Americans, and these are the ones that we should be concerned about.
These are controlable and voluntary taxes though. Walk instead of drive or get a car that is better on gas and you won't pay as much gas tax, buy a smaller house and you won't pay as much property tax, get rid of your phone and you pay no phone taxes, don't buy so much extra crap and you will pay less sales taxes.
That is what is behind the push for a Federal sales tax.
Bill:
I'm interested in what your point is about interest rates, or gas prices, then, and now. Does it have something to do with the Bush Administration? Do you think he should "do something" about them?
If gas is too expensive, here's my advice -- be frugal with your driving if it becomes a hardship.
Don't worry Bill.
I think I'm gonna take another couple months off from this place.
What do you think Bush should do about high interest rates and gas prices, Bill?
What do you think Bush should do about high interest rates and gas prices, Bill?
First show us that the interest rates are higher and then that gas prices are higher in todays dollars, ie-take into account inflation.
What high interest rates?
Review of Men in Black continued:
Â
Levin titled Chapter Two of his book, Men in Black, “The Counter Revolution of 1803.” This refers to the Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madisonthat announced the principle that the Court is somehow an unbiased guardian of the Constitution and that the Court could declare acts of Congress illegitimate. This idea was unique, as there were few examples of any state courts overturning the actions of state legislatures.
Â
The Constitutional Convention, however, had carefully considered the scope of federal judicial power. The convention had considered giving the judiciary the power to review legislation prior to it being enacted. The idea was rejected, as it would involve the judiciary to closely with politics. Without this type of power it was feared that the judiciary would be weak and subject to influence by the other branches of government. Based on this fear, the convention agreed to have judges serve for life to protect them from coercion.
Â
Some of the opponents of the Constitution, such as Patrick Henry, recognized the potential danger posed by the independent judiciary. Robert Yates, a delegate from New York wrote: Â
Â
The first step toward the Court’s unmitigated power began with Marbury.
 In Marbury the Court was asked to force the Secretary of State to issue commissions for judgeships that were approved prior to the change in administration in 1801. Chief Justice Marshall realized that the Court had no power to force Madison to issue the commissions. If the Court tried it would simply be ignored. Instead, Marshall, a Federalist, in a power play to overcome the opposition party, set forth the idea that the Court had the power to review Congressional actions and rule them unconstitutional. While it is possible that Marshall may have intended to limit that power to the plain language of the Constitution, subsequent Courts have not bound themselves to any limitations including the limitations placed on the federal government contained in the Constitution.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Apr 26, 2005 at 10:07am.]
It is precisely the freedom from coercion that Levin and the theocons object to; thanks for proving that the Founding Fathers intended the judiciary branch to be independent and sheltered from political pressures.
Yates made his objections (written under the pseudonym of "Brutus"), the Constitutional Convention listened, and essentially decided he was full of crap; they wanted a strong and independent judiciary. He was a leader of the Antifederalists; considering the reverence with which conservatives refer to the Federalist Papers (when they agree with them), quoting an Antifederalist in support of an agenda that likes to label itself "conservative" seems a bit disingenuous.
You, jethro, rant about sticking to the Constitution, and the intent of the Founding Fathers, but you're so devoid of historical intellectual support that you're quoting a man who objected to the whole idea of establishing a federal government by means of a Constitution. Have you no shame?
[Edited by on Apr 26, 2005 at 11:10am.]
Calling an independent Judiciary "one of the crown jewels of our system of government," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquistin a speech last month said that it is important for the Judiciary to possess a degree of flexibility while also maintaining its independence.
But not independence from the Constitution. fold, it is a pity you can't grasp what is being said.
It is precisely the freedom from coercion that Levin and the theocons object to; So what is to be done when the Court ignores the Constitution? It certainly did in Roe v. Wade. it also has rendered certain provisions meaningless by applying an "evolving standards of decency" test. Are you such a simpleton that you believe whatever the Court says comports with the Constitution at all times?thanks for proving that the Founding Fathers intended the judiciary branch to be independent and sheltered from political pressures. They sheltered the judiciary bbecause they thought it would be weak. It was just not widely recognized just how much power the Court could obtainÂ
Yates made his objections (written under the pseudonym of "Brutus"), the Constitutional Convention listened, and essentially decided he was full of crap; No, they didn't. They simply were not as prescient.they wanted a strong and independent judiciary. He was a leader of the Antifederalists; considering the reverence with which conservatives refer to the Federalist Papers (when they agree with them), quoting an Antifederalist in support of an agenda that likes to label itself "conservative" seems a bit disingenuous. It was to make a point that the issue was recognized and that the problems that were foreseen have came true. There were many patriots that were anti-Federalists. Jefferson was one. Madision became one.
You, jethro, rant about sticking to the Constitution, and the intent of the Founding Fathers, but you're so devoid of historical intellectual support that you're quoting a man who objected to the whole idea of establishing a federal government by means of a Constitution. Have you no shame? Devoid of historical intellectual support? How do you figure? All the support you could possibly need is there in the book. I can't copy the whole book here for you. I simply distill it so that an easily distracted mind, such as yours, can grasp the concepts.
Do you realize that there was a huge number of people that objected? Some of
them decided that the situation at the time could not go on much longer and while they didn't approve, ratified the Constitution anyway. There were concerns about it, even Washington recognized it. It was questionable, when it was delivered to the states, that it would ever be ratified. Many that did vote for it simply felt there was no alternative. Yates was just one of many that objected
to that particular form and how particular issues were addressed. The fact remains that there is a serious problem. The Courts have taken too much power. Do you think the Constitution is perfect? It is evident that you simply agree with most of the results the Court reaches. It is apparent that you would rather live under a dictatorship you agree with rather than a democracy you don't. While you are not quite as simple as fold, you are still simple.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Apr 26, 2005 at 03:26pm.]
Not by a long shot, especially in the last few decades.
Drama queen.
You have fallen for all those stories and conspiracy theories that you read at Democratic Underground haven't you?
Dan sees that the Emperor has no clothes on, but his religion keeps to telling him it's just because it's the garden of eden.
gays have the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else. And if no one has the right to marry someone of the same sex there is no discrimination. Only a person incapable of rational thought can claim discrimination in the matter.
This is not about two people being nominated to be federal judges. It is about the whole role of judges in a self-governing republic. The voters' votes mean less and less as time goes by, when judges take more and more decisions out of the hands of elected officials and substitute their own policy preferences, all under the guise of "interpreting" laws.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050426.shtml
When California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown faced a retention vote in 1998, 76 percent of Californians voted to keep her on their state's highest court. In San Francisco, perhaps America's most liberal city, she won 79.4 percent.
Â
Brown won more votes statewide than any of the other three justices up for retention that year -- even though she had cast a (dissenting) vote in favor of upholding the state's parental-consent law.
 But when President Bush nominated Brown to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2003, her demonstrated support in places like San Francisco did not matter to Senate Democrats.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/tj20050427.shtml
so, to be equal, hetrosexuals should have the same right to marry someone of the same sex, right?
crabhole loves to tear down the moral fabric of America.
"Quit talking to me crabgrass" - Torpedo-8
Justice Brown has to stand for re-election occasionally in California; if she's put on the Federal bench, she serves for life. This raises the bar a bit.
Justices are on the ballot unopposed; unless there's a significant opposition campaign, the average voter looks at a ballot which says "Shall Justice Blahblahblah be reaffirmed to the Supreme Court of California?" says "Why the fuck not?" and votes "yes." Hardly surprising to get three-quarters of the vote under those circumstances.
if she's put on the Federal bench, she serves for life. This raises the bar a bit. That is why Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens and Souter should have never been placewd on the bench.
Justices are on the ballot unopposed; unless there's a significant opposition campaign, the average voter looks at a ballot which says "Shall Justice Blahblahblah be reaffirmed to the Supreme Court of California?" says "Why the fuck not?" and votes "yes." Hardly surprising to get three-quarters of the vote under those circumstances. So you and your ilk think you know better. You have no respect for democratic rule.
So, it would seemthat it is a truly harmful thing to accuse judges of being "Activist", because they themselves have a strict level of hierarchy which would eventually make any "Activist" or "Purely Political" decisions temporaryat best. Temporary? Hardly.
(
And,
given
the factÂ
that they are indeed Lawyers and are qualified to sit in judgment over others, and perhaps even(satire)members of their respectiveÂ
Bar, of course.
Lawyers are predominately more liberal than is the general public.
Â
I just posted the "Democratic Rules" for the governance of Judgeships in this nation. What don't you like about that?
ANYJudge can be removed from office via
impeachment
or election(in most cases), and a LOT easier than a President.
How often is a judge impeached?
Nice meltdown, Fold.