Texas Republican party releases 2012 platform...you gotta see this to believe it

[HYHYBT]

technically, an income tax is unconstitutional

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

How do you reconcile these statements? (and, just to keep things rational, *without* resorting to the old cheat of claiming Ohio doesn't count as a state)

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

How do you reconcile these statements? (and, just to keep things rational, *without* resorting to the old cheat of claiming Ohio doesn't count as a state)

As I understand it, there's a controversy that a certain state failed to ratify that amendment, so it didn't technically pass and shouldn't be in the constitution. Therefore there should be no income tax.

[Duelist925]

As I understand it, there's a controversy that a certain state failed to ratify that amendment, so it didn't technically pass and shouldn't be in the constitution. Therefore there should be no income tax.

It should be pointed out, though, that this argument is considered "Legally frivolous"

[draco664]

Yes, there is a lot of money owned by the top 20%. But you're dreaming if you think the fiscal problems can be solved just by getting the rich to pay more. If you *confiscated* and liquidated the combined wealth of the rich, you'd be lucky to get a year to two of current spending out of it. Not to mention that such an action would shatter the economy back to something resembling neolithic times.

How do you figure?

Which part?

Lot of money at the top? Self evident.

Fiscal problems solved by getting the rich to pay more? Despite how much they have at the top, the gov's spending is so far out of control that it would be like a band-aid on a severed artery.

That liquidating the wealth would get far less than its current valuation? If you sell, someone has to buy. For someone to buy, they need money. If you take the top 20%'s stuff and sell it, who the hell is still wealthy enough to buy it? We're talking cents in the dollar return.

That such an action would destroy the economy? Have a look at the current economy, brought about by banks basically performing all sorts of accounting tricks on hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, consider what would happen when the gov performed those same tricks on trillions of dollars...

[draco664]

As I understand it, there's a controversy that a certain state failed to ratify that amendment, so it didn't technically pass and shouldn't be in the constitution. Therefore there should be no income tax.

Doesn't it only take 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment? Why would one not doing so matter?

[Panacea]

As I understand it, there's a controversy that a certain state failed to ratify that amendment, so it didn't technically pass and shouldn't be in the constitution. Therefore there should be no income tax.

Constitutional amendments don't have to be ratified by every state, just two thirds of them, in order to become effective. Even if the issue with Ohio were true, other states beyond the 36 required at the time ratified the 16th Amendment.

And Ohio was a state, in 1803. Claims that it was not are specious; Ohio elected many famous Senators, including Henry Clay.

Every so often some idiot tests this and gets slapped with a $5000 penalty by the IRS.

[HYHYBT]

...and that, combined with knowing from other posts that Andara has good sense, is why I added the part about not using that argument

I'd still like to know, though, how an income tax is unconstitutional when the Constitution currently states very plainly it's permitted.

[smileyeagle1021]

The republicans are right when they say we can't tax our way out of our problems... but they are equally delusional if they think we can do it with cuts alone, especially if the military is off the table.
I heard someone complaining that democrats wanted to cut our military to the smallest it's been since the end of World War 2... why exactly are people afraid of only having a military large enough to win a war on two fronts against what were at the time two of the most powerful militaries on the planet? I mean, we beat an enemy who was fighting on their home ground who would have no problem setting off grenades to take out the Americans around them if it became apparent that they were going to be captured on one front, and on the other we fought an army that had some of the world's most brilliant scientists developing weapons for (Germany had the first jet fighter after all). If that isn't enough for our modern world with the help of our allies... then this world just may not be worth living on anyway.

[crashhelmet]

The republicans are right when they say we can't tax our way out of our problems... but they are equally delusional if they think we can do it with cuts alone, especially if the military is off the table.
I heard someone complaining that democrats wanted to cut our military to the smallest it's been since the end of World War 2... why exactly are people afraid of only having a military large enough to win a war on two fronts against what were at the time two of the most powerful militaries on the planet? I mean, we beat an enemy who was fighting on their home ground who would have no problem setting off grenades to take out the Americans around them if it became apparent that they were going to be captured on one front, and on the other we fought an army that had some of the world's most brilliant scientists developing weapons for (Germany had the first jet fighter after all). If that isn't enough for our modern world with the help of our allies... then this world just may not be worth living on anyway.

Republicans suffer from "Small Dick Syndrome." But instead of driving around in muscle cars or trucks lifted high enough off the ground to walk under, they want to boost our military might.

[HYHYBT]

Republicans suffer from "Small Dick Syndrome." But instead of driving around in muscle cars or trucks lifted high enough off the ground to walk under, they want to boost our military might.

Oh, they do the truck thing too.

Now that I think about it.... around here, it's not that uncommon to see a truck with it's back window covered with a Confederate flag design. Guess which party such people vote for, if they vote at all, and tell me that doesn't qualify as irony.

[Seifer]

Let me break these down:

The sanctity of human life, created in the image of God, which should be protected from fertilization to natural death.

i.e. We will use religion to oppose a current social and political issue even though it goes against the constitution.

Having an educated population, with parents having the freedom of choice for the education of their children.

i.e. Religious parents can send their children to religious schools that teach their own misguided curriculum and pressure children into believing that the Bible is true and science is a bunch of shit.

A free enterprise society unencumbered by government interference or subsidies.

i.e. Say goodbye to government funded (i.e. SOCIALIZED /hisssss) programs. Those lazy bums who want to get paid for sitting at home and watching t.v. can finally die quietly in a ditch and stop wasting our tax money.

Voter Rights Act – We urge that the Voter Rights Act of 1965 codified and updated in 1973 be repealed and not reauthorized.

i.e. s are too stupid to vote and therefore shouldn't have the right to do so.

Immunizations ― All adult citizens should have the legal right to conscientiously choose which vaccines are administered to themselves or their minor children without penalty for refusing a vaccine. We oppose any effort by any authority to mandate such vaccines or any medical database that would contain personal records of citizens without their consent.

i.e. Parents shouldn't be held responsible for possibly causing an epidemic. If they want to refuse their children life saving vaccinations, then that's their business.

Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind.

i.e. Creationism should be taught in classrooms. "Science" can be taught, too, but we all know which one is correct. /hint hint wink wink

Limited Federal Powers –We strongly support state sovereignty reserved under the Tenth Amendment and oppose mandates beyond the scope of federal authority, as defined in the U.S. Constitution. We further support abolition of federal agencies involved in activities not originally delegated to the federal government under a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

i.e. State representatives should have the right to take away the rights of their citizens whenever they see fit. It's not the federal government's job to watch their every movement - the government should take them at their word that everyone is being treated fairly.

Law Enforcement - We support limitation of criminal jurisdiction of federal law-enforcement agencies into state and local jurisdictions and encourage them to enforce the laws under federal jurisdiction. The states have the right to protect their citizens if the federal government fails to enforce their applicable laws.

i.e. The government can't step in and stop our police forces from enforcing unconstitutional laws. They're laws issued by the state, so they should be upheld by the state without question.

Elimination of Executive Orders - We reject the unconstitutional use of Executive Orders and other mandates lacking congressional approval.

i.e. Republican representatives should be able to pass any unconstitutional law they wish without worrying that the president will have common sense and veto the law.

Protection from Extreme Environmentalists – We strongly oppose all efforts of the extreme environmental groups that stymie legitimate business interests. We strongly oppose those efforts that attempt to use the environmental causes to purposefully disrupt and stop those interests within the oil and gas industry. We strongly support the immediate repeal of the Endangered Species Act. We strongly oppose the listing of the dune sage brush lizard either as a threatened or an endangered species. We believe the Environmental Protection Agency should be abolished.

i.e. Corporations should be able to dump their garbage and waste wherever they wish as long as it cuts costs for those corporations.

Free Speech for the Clergy - We urge amendment of the Internal Revenue Code to allow a religious organization to address issues without fear of losing its tax-exempt status. We call for repeal of requirements that religious organizations send the government any personal information about their contributors.

i.e. Religious figures should be allowed to say whatever they want without consequence. They should also not have to disclose what they're doing with their funds or where it's coming from.

Homosexuality ― We affirm that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society and contributes to the breakdown of the family unit. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle, in public policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin.

Additionally, we oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction or
belief in traditional values.

i.e. Homos are disgusting and should be ostracized from the great state of Texas. We'd create a law that made it legal to shoot them in the streets, but that might be going too far. (We will allow people to discriminate against them, because the people have a right to do so. Homos have no rights - everyone knows that.)

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

i.e. Parents have the right to brainwash their children with their own religious views and opinions. Schools shouldn't teach children to think for themselves - they have their parents and the government to think for them.

[SkullKing]

Sorry, if this is a stupid question.

But does the reapealling of the Voting rights act means things like "white-only votes"?

Does it have any other justification at all?(e.g.: denying votes to criminals and things like that?)

[crashhelmet]

Sorry, if this is a stupid question.

But does the reapealling of the Voting rights act means things like "white-only votes"?

Does it have any other justification at all?(e.g.: denying votes to criminals and things like that?)

The 15th Amendment to the US Constitution made it so that it wasn't just "whites only."

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 made it so that states couldn't issue "literacy tests" to keep the minorities from voting. It was later amended to eliminate any possible way of discriminating against voters, and then again to state that intentional discrimination didn't need to be proven to enforce it.

The 2 ways that they're trying to sidestep the act now is through required ID and rezoning districts to reduce the number of minority voters in one area. Thus making them a minority again. At the same time, the Democrats had tried to "gerrymander" the voting by attemping to redistrict to creat zones where the minorities had the majority of the votes.

Texas vs Holder is currently on-going

[rockinricky]

This is the kind of stuff that makes me wish that the US Constitution had a provision for kicking states out of the Union, or at lest putting them on some kind of 'probation' until they shape up and get their shit together.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

This is the kind of stuff that makes me wish that the US Constitution had a provision for kicking states out of the Union, or at lest putting them on some kind of 'probation' until they shape up and get their shit together.

Subjective. Exactly what person or entity gets to decide exactly what kind of "shit" they need to get together?

For example, A Democrat might mandate all states must raise cigarette taxes, have a minimum number of abortion clinics and commit to cover XX XXX people on their medicaid roles and must provide X amount of funding for public education.

A Republican on the other hand might require a state to put in restrictive abortion laws, try to get prayer back into public schools, lower tax rates on businesses and make significant cuts to Food Stamp programs.

Either example could be considered "the right way of doing things" depending on where you sit politically.

I don't see a way out on that one. You could say, well ok we'll appoint a bipartisan committee to draw up a list of requirements for the states to maintain membership in the Union but I would think that would just lead to more gridlock and wasted tax dollars.