On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Leland F. Jackson, CPA <[email protected]> wrote: > Of course, if social security, medicare, health insurance > and a progressive income tax were added to the constitution > as an amendment by passage in a election in the majority of > the states, it would make it much more difficult to change, > whether legislatively by congress, or by Federal, State, or > Local law, just like a constitutal admendment to define > marriage as between a man and a women would have solved many > such problems like Federal, State or local laws allowing > same sex marriage. > > Once such things are written into the constitution, it take > a vote from the American people to change the constitution.
Or a bunch of unaccountable czars who simply interpret the law however they want, with the goal of robbing peter to pay paul in mind, knowing the Congress cannot oversee them, and in any case can be fended off long enough to "fundamentally transform America".... - Publius > > Regards, > > LelandJ > > > On 11/22/2009 03:44 PM, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote: >> I'm still not clear about what is meant by President Obama, >> when he is referring to a redistribution of wealth, or how >> the constitution could be used to actively guarantee >> political and economic justice. >> >> 1) President Obama could be talking about a progressive >> income tax, which results in redistribution of wealth, but >> legislatively, this is already a done deal. >> >> 2) He could be talking about a constitution that provides a >> safety net in the form of guaranteed retire and medical >> benefits to the elderly, like is provided by social security >> and medicare, but this also is already legislative law. >> >> 3) Perhaps he is talking about a constitution that >> guarantees each individual has a chance to compete on equal >> term economically, (eg equal pay to ensure some minimum >> standard of living). >> >> 4) I'm not sure how the constitution could be used to >> redistribute wealth and provide political and economic >> justice. How would you assess a minimum value to be >> received by the various groups, for example? How would you >> comply with the economic law of a free laze fair >> capitalistic economy, which laws are almost as fundamental >> as the laws of physics? >> >> Regards, >> >> LelandJ >> >> >> On 11/22/2009 02:51 PM, Publius Maximus wrote: >>>> >>>> Here's a longer version that leaves no doubt: >>>> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOinedzuoh4&feature=related >>> >>> BTW, what's funny about this version of the video is that it's >>> actually more damning than the first, but the person who uploaded it >>> thinks it in some way counters Republican lies about what he said. >>> >>> - Publius >>> >>>> >>>> And an extra bonus: >>>> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&feature=related >>>> >>>>> I'm not familiar with Obama thinking on the Copenhagen >>>>> treaty, so I'll have to do some research on that. >>>> >>>> You're not familiar with a lot about Obama. >>> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
