Redistribution

[undertheice]

Faith, Hope and CHARITY! Imagine if everyone did do their part to help out a fellow human being instead of being so selfish, we sure would be a great country that takes care of its own on our own. People got too used to making money at someone else's expense and that changed the way people looked at each other. Charity is a good thing, unless your selfish.

It blows me away that people with, have been refusing to help people without.

you live in the single most charitable nation on earth and have the audacity to claim we are selfish for not wanting to fund the wasteful, self-indulgent, easily corrupted programs of the socialistically inclined liberal establishment? maybe you should think about the meaning of the term "charity" before making such asinine accusations and nearly damning the profit motive entirely. giving by choice is charity, being compelled to give by threat of force is larceny. profit gives us the freedom to choose charity, the state's larceny disinclines us to choose that virtue and creates the very selfishness it claims to be combating. the welfare state has been in existence and growing for decades and it has done nothing to alleviate poverty, instead creating an underclass that is dependent on government. each time this fact is brought up, we are merely asked to give more, as if throwing good money after bad will solve the problem. it is only by allowing the individual to profit and give freely of that wealth that charity has any chance of easing poverty.

 

[vh13]

The reason I continue to harp on it, is I hope to get people to realize that the best person to determine how you will live, what you will and will not contribute to, is you.

When others make your decisions for you and leave you no choice but to comply, how is that not at the point of a gun? Really I'd like to hear you explain that.

In all honesty, I've yet to come up with a proper defense to this point. I do believe in the rights of the individual, but I have an obvious bias and am a willing participant to a system in which you are not. I know of no ideal remedy for both of our sakes, but the nearest alternative I can imagine is to do away with Federal income tax and leave it up to the states, but even this is fraught with complications.

Beyond that, I tell you this: we are a democratic republic, and that means every voter has a role to play in determining the policy of our government. It is OUR government, after all, and you can play a role in exacting the changes you desire by doing any number of things:

1) Vote
2) Call/write/email your elected representatives. You can contact representatives from other districts as well!
3) Form or participate in rallies and protests.
4) Write your own propaganda, distribute it yourself.
5) Discuss the issues with other voters, hope you change their minds and they don't change your mind.

You are far from powerless, we're just a bunch of people trying to work together and find a common solution, there is no literal gun. Don't let any figurative guns be an obstacle to action, because then you really are powerless.

 

[CrackerJax]

Yes....the ones in charge think the piggy bank can be broken into.... psst....there is NO piggy bank.

Just piling on misery for the future generations.....anyone under 40 is now completely SCREWED.

Did Reaganomics work? Just ask the Soviet Union.... DA!!! It sure did!!

 

[Rob Roy]

In all honesty, I've yet to come up with a proper defense to this point. I do believe in the rights of the individual, but I have an obvious bias and am a willing participant to a system in which you are not. I know of no ideal remedy for both of our sakes, but the nearest alternative I can imagine is to do away with Federal income tax and leave it up to the states, but even this is fraught with complications.

Beyond that, I tell you this: we are a democratic republic, and that means every voter has a role to play in determining the policy of our government. It is OUR government, after all, and you can play a role in exacting the changes you desire by doing any number of things:

1) Vote
2) Call/write/email your elected representatives. You can contact representatives from other districts as well!
3) Form or participate in rallies and protests.
4) Write your own propaganda, distribute it yourself.
5) Discuss the issues with other voters, hope you change their minds and they don't change your mind.

You are far from powerless, we're just a bunch of people trying to work together and find a common solution, there is no literal gun. Don't let any figurative guns be an obstacle to action, because then you really are powerless.

Thanks for your civil response. There IS a literal gun though, trust me.


http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/02/05/the-irs-shotgun/


Also when you say it is OUR government, I'm not sure who "our" is.
Did everybody agree to this form of government? Even when a "majority" vote, it often isn't a majority anyway as many people do not vote.

Also how many times is the "will of the people" subverted when an unelected person makes "law" through regulation having the same effect as law? Hint...the DEA is not elected, they aren't even a part of the legislative branch they are part of the Executive branch. Clearly their making and enforcing law is a violation of the separation of powers isn't it?

 

[tinyTURTLE]

the DEA doesn't make law, gomer.

 

[Rob Roy]

the DEA doesn't make law, gomer.

Who schedules and unschedules drugs Forrest?

 

[tinyTURTLE]

Who schedules and unschedules drugs Forrest?

the AG makes recomendations to congress.
http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/csa/811.htm#b

 

[Rob Roy]

the AG makes recomendations to congress.
http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/csa/811.htm#b

http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2010-02-01-2010-1967

The Attorney General "redelegated" to the DEA.

My original comment was the DEA should not be involved in the making of law and the enforcing of law. It IS a conflict of interest.

Even if the Attorney General "made the law" by suggesting to Congress what should be schedued and so forth it is a conflict of interest. The Attorney General is part of the Executive branch.
Congress rubber stamping the "suggestions" of the DEA is not making law. Congress should not be delegating that authority to another branch of government.

Also in many states the drug laws are administered and "made" by the executive branch. I've researched this and found case law where cases have been thrown out upon appeal due to the separation of powers being violated. I have a vested interest in researching this. A "friend's" liberty may depend upon it.

 

[tinyTURTLE]

http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2010-02-01-2010-1967

The Attorney General "redelegated" to the DEA.

My original comment was the DEA should not be involved in the making of law and the enforcing of law. It IS a conflict of interest.

Even if the Attorney General "made the law" by suggesting to Congress what should be schedued and so forth it is a conflict of interest. The Attorney General is part of the Executive branch.
Congress rubber stamping the "suggestions" of the DEA is not making law. Congress should not be delegating that authority to another branch of government.

Also in many states the drug laws are administered and "made" by the executive branch. I've researched this and found case law where cases have been thrown out upon appeal due to the separation of powers being violated. I have a vested interest in researching this. A "friend's" liberty may depend upon it.

the DEA still doesn't make law, gomer. He makes recomendations to congress in leiu of the AG. Then it goes to the senate and back to congress, etc. etc.

 

[CrackerJax]

TT is correct.....DEA is ENFORCEMENT.

If Congress decided tomorrow to legalize weed... the DEA would simply take it off their "to do" list

 

[Rob Roy]

the DEA still doesn't make law, gomer. He makes recomendations to congress in leiu of the AG. Then it goes to the senate and back to congress, etc. etc.

I think you miss my point Forrest.
You are stating the obvious, that is what is SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN. It's not what always DOES happen though.

There are many "regulations" that have the effect of law. Have you ever sat in on a "law making" session? I have.

As a matter of fact, there is an old statute in NH from 1947 that pretty much says "whatever the President of the United States thinks is a narcotic" goes.
That was clearly an illegal delegation of power, but nobody ever called them on it.

I've done alot of research, pulled that one right out of the State Supreme Court's law library last month while researching the history of drug laws in the State.

This law was replaced when NH like many states went along with the Drug laws
"recommended" by the FEDS AROUND 1969-70.

Like I said earlier, I am working on a case where I've found some States Supreme Courts have reversed decisions, because there was an illegal delegation of power from the Legislative body to the Executive branches. Pretty good for a Gomer eh?

 

[CrackerJax]

If Congress made weed LEGAL.... the DEA would instantly back off of it.

 

[Rob Roy]

If Congress made weed LEGAL.... the DEA would instantly back off of it.

That may be true. Congress could certainly UNDO what the DEA has wrought or made "illegal". When you make something "illegal" you are in effect, making law.

If the DEA has scheduled something, thus making it illegal, the legislative body, be it Congress or a State's legislators, would and HAVE promptly endorsed it and then rubber stamped it into "law".
Congress didn't "make" the law, they allowed another branch, the DEA to do it. The fact that Congress endorsed the action of the DEA isn't the same as them fully enacting the law.


That type of "law making", by the DEA declaring a substance illegal, has been ruled a violation of the separation of powers at the State level. I have the legal briefs and the case law for some States where this has happened. There doesn't appear to be any case law at the FEDERAL level...yet. It's not something "they" advertise for obvious reasons, it would collapse their whole scheme.

Anyhow my original post was bithcing about unelected bureaucrats "making law". This happens. I stand by that statement.

 

[CrackerJax]

Everything the DEA does is with a nod of approval from Congress. If there is flexibility.... it is because they WANT that flexibility.....

They aren't a rogue unit. Politicians are simply slippery eels which must be buried in the ground no less than 3 times before they are dead.

 

[vh13]

Politicians are simply slippery eels which must be buried in the ground no less than 3 times before they are dead.

I'm making this my quote of the day.

 

[CrackerJax]

Because it rings so true.... Bastards!!