Maggie's Farm

What a boring life to listen only to those whom with we agree.

The Constitution is under continuous attack - mostly from the left, but also from what claims to be from the right. The idea of that it's institutions are "entrenched" and "habits of thought" is weaker every year.

It is apparently more important that everybody pay for some women's contraceptives than to respect people's religious prohibitions to it. But it's not such a big step from not allowing self directed prayer before a graduation or ball game much less a "quiet period (instead of prayer)". So much for freedom of religion.

When I was a kid, States Rights (10th Amendment) was something that was actually discussed and promoted. Now nobody seems to care if the entire country is run by the Feds.

How you can square an IRS audit with the 4th and 5th Amendments is beyond me, but there is not a chance that a Federal Court would entertain a challenge much less the Supreme Court. In fact, it was the Supreme Court that eviscerated the 5th Amendment in the Al Capone case.

Interstate commerce is at risk if you grow your own food? That is still the law of the land. There have been opportunities to overturn that idiocy from the '30s but it's never been done.

The 5th Amendment also enshrines private property. How does that square with a government that decides how much of your money to take and give to somebody else. I guess it was never really yours in the first place, right? I guess that fits in with the Kelso decision. My bad...

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport, but everything to do with defending the country from aggressors and defending the people from tyranny. Yet we hear that restrictions on gun ownership or the style, color, look, etc. of a gun is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Of course, some don't even bother to square their agenda with the 2nd.

About the only Amendment that is actually respected is the 3rd. Thankfully, nobody is suggesting that the army quarter our soldiers in people's houses. I guess we should be thankful.

It took a war to start the decline of States Rights. That was one of the casualties of the Civil War. The obvious benefit was the end of slavery. A worthy goal paid for with a high price.


This is a straw man. The Catholic's principle of not supporting birth control and abortion is as old as the religion - older than the Constitution. The government has no power under the Constitution to force somebody else to pay for a person's birth control.

As for my example about the income tax, you completely miss my point. I don't argue that the tax is unconstitutional (though there may be some grounds for that). My argument was that an IRS audit is unconstitutional. Here, I'll help you out:

Because (until the Capone case) the government could not compel you to testify against yourself (5th Amendment), it would have no basis (barring other evidence) to suspect you of defrauding the government. The 4th Amendment says:

That means the government has to have probable cause (and a warrant) in order to go through your papers (note that the amendment specifically says "papers". When the IRS audits you, it gets no warrant and compels you to bring all your financial papers for them to examine.


You sure are willing to be led around by a bunch of guys wearing robes. Growing your own food to eat does not involve commerce much less interstate commerce. But you're willing to go by whatever they say. If they said that where the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ... or abridging the freedom of speech" what it really mean is that Congress can make laws that require people to say or not say something or when they can talk about something if they want? If the entire intent of the Constitution was redefined by a five judges, that would be all right with you? If they said everybody must become a member of a new religion, would that be all right, too?

Admittedly, self government is inherently a conflict for the very reasons I've pointed out. The people indirectly choose the judges who tell us what the law means, but the Constitution was written down so that there would be a plain definition of the government's powers. However, there is apparently no requirement that they be able to read. Terms like "Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" don't seem to make sense to them.

Not sure if spending 40% more money than we take in year after year is a reasonable strategy for Democrats.

I agree with Fred. Why do you assume that some sort of deal to address the deficit will happen in the next Congress (are you saying it will be another two years!) or even this Congress? One side has no interest in reforming our entitlements or reducing any spending at all and that side controls the Senate and the White House.

Entitlements is where the action is. Do you realize that entitlements and the interest on the debt add up to more money than the govt. takes in? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW5IdwltaAc)

However Fred is too optimistic about our debt. It is larger than our GDP already.

Not raising the debt limit without actual reforms doesn't hold our creditors hostage (interesting that you are so concerned about them, but not when they may decide to take us hostage). By forcing some fiscal discipline from this administration does not at all mean that the interest on our bonds won't be paid. Other than Obummer (the guy who when he was a Senator thought it was unpatriotic to raise the debt limit when Bush was in the White House), where would you get such an idea?