Wednesday, October 24, 2007

A Quick Constitutional Lesson

Whenever people get together to talk about politics, sooner or later the topic will have a connection to the U. S. Constitution. (Wonder why. I guess it's because it's only one of the most important documents in our history...) Unfortunately, too few people have taken the time to read and understand what the Constitution actually says. Granted, some of it is tough to get the first couple of times through, but for the most part it's pretty easy to understand if you're willing to put in the effort to do it.

Unfortunately, some of the people who don't want to put in any work on it happen to be in the media. David Lightman of the McClatchy Newspapers wrote an article/opinion piece titled "Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ." This sentiment matches what the faux left says about President George W. Bush and how he's "spending us into debt." Nice rhetoric, but there's a teensy little snag in it.

Yep, you guessed it. The Constitution.

I quote from Article I, Section 8, first clause:

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imports and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imports and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States... [emphasis mine]

There are other clauses from Article I, Section 8, that mention Congress paying for something, but you get the picture from the first clause. When looking at Article II, which deals with the powers of the Executive Branch, you find...nothing relating to the spending of money. In other words, the President doesn't spend the money; Congress does. Blaming Bush for the rising debt is like blaming your boss for you spending your paycheck on sloe gin and fast women.

Got it? Good.

Class dismissed.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

' SAMARRA - The U.S. military said six Iraqi civilians were among 11 people killed in an air strike by an attack helicopter near Samarra, 100 km (60 miles) north of Baghdad, after five men were seen planting a roadside bomb. Iraqi police said 16 civilians, including women and children, were killed and 14 wounded.

NEAR BAQUBA - A roadside bomb exploded near a minibus, killing three people, including one woman, and wounding 10, including five women, on the main road near the city of Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

NEAR FALLUJA - Police found 15 men shot, bound and blindfolded, in a deserted building on Monday in a town near Falluja, 50 km (35 miles) west of Baghdad, police Lieutenant Colonel Jubair al-Dulaimi said.

BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb wounded two people in the eastern Zayouna district of Baghdad, police said. .

BAGHDAD - U.S. forces killed one insurgent and detained 10 suspected insurgents during military operations on Oct. 20-22 in the areas of Baghdad, Mosul, Thar Thar and Rabiae, the U.S. military said. . .

BAGHDAD - U.S. forces killed one insurgent and wounded five in an air strike on Monday in northern Baghdad on men planting a roadside bomb, the U.S. military said.'

THE One said...

First, I wonder how you know that the Constitution is "pretty easy to understand if you're willing to put in the effort to do it." I guess somebody told you this, as it is obvious you have not expended any effort that bore the fruit of understanding. Let us try to bring you up to speed. This is mildly complicated, so we'll not hold any expectations of comprehension, but the other three people who read this might have more ability.

Article 2, Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.

Article 1, Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated

Thus enlightened to the authority by which a President can submit a budget to Congress, and why the President's budget request has great influence (The Veto), let's fast forward to - The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which sets the specific process for establishing a budget. The budget begins in February with the submission of the President's budget request. According to the act, the budget request is submitted to the Congress on the first Monday in February. At this stage, the budget request is not binding but merely constitutes an extensive proposal of the administration's intended spending for the following fiscal year.

Thus, this "David Lightman" (Who does get published) makes a valid point when he declares Bush to be a more profligate spender than LBJ. These debt building deficits originated with Bush, and were passed by a Congress under control of the Party Bush led. Your truncated reading of the "relevant" Constitutional citations led your tiny mind to deceive you into thinking you were making an important point. A point based on what most people already know, that being Congress cuts the checks. However, by ignoring that the President is singularly holds the most influence as to budget matters you leave the impression that Congress is entirely the responsible party for the massive increases in deficits. The President is driving the car, and owns half of it, but he's not responsible for the wreck Nice "Rhantoric," but there's a teensy snag in it.

Yep, you guessed it - Reality.

By the way, if you'll notice that, in Article 2, Section 3, the Constitution refers to the President as "He."
Perhaps you can type up a screed about how this denies Hillary the right to become President--Ya big ol' Constitutional Expert ya!

TLindaman said...

THE One Liar said...

First, I wonder how you know that the Constitution is "pretty easy to understand if you're willing to put in the effort to do it." I guess somebody told you this, as it is obvious you have not expended any effort that bore the fruit of understanding. Let us try to bring you up to speed. This is mildly complicated, so we'll not hold any expectations of comprehension, but the other three people who read this might have more ability.

Article 2, Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.

Article 1, Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated

Thus enlightened to the authority by which a President can submit a budget to Congress, and why the President's budget request has great influence (The Veto), let's fast forward to - The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which sets the specific process for establishing a budget. The budget begins in February with the submission of the President's budget request. According to the act, the budget request is submitted to the Congress on the first Monday in February. At this stage, the budget request is not binding but merely constitutes an extensive proposal of the administration's intended spending for the following fiscal year.

Thus, this "David Lightman" (Who does get published) makes a valid point when he declares Bush to be a more profligate spender than LBJ. These debt building deficits originated with Bush, and were passed by a Congress under control of the Party Bush led. Your truncated reading of the "relevant" Constitutional citations led your tiny mind to deceive you into thinking you were making an important point. A point based on what most people already know, that being Congress cuts the checks. However, by ignoring that the President is singularly holds the most influence as to budget matters you leave the impression that Congress is entirely the responsible party for the massive increases in deficits. The President is driving the car, and owns half of it, but he's not responsible for the wreck Nice "Rhantoric," but there's a teensy snag in it.

Yep, you guessed it - Reality.

By the way, if you'll notice that, in Article 2, Section 3, the Constitution refers to the President as "He."
Perhaps you can type up a screed about how this denies Hillary the right to become President--Ya big ol' Constitutional Expert ya!

October 25, 2007 12:47:00 AM CST

Thank you for proving me right about you being a liar.

Of course, none of what you posted contradicts what I said about Article I, Section 8. Let me explain a couple of things to you.

Article 2, Section 3 - requires the President to give a report to Congress about the state of the Union. Doesn't have anything to do with who spends the money.

Article 1, Section 7. - talks about the appropriation process. Supports my statements 100%.

So, in other words, One, you've presented something that has nothing to do with spending and something that supports my contention as "proof" that I'm wrong.

And, once again, you've inadvertently proven me right. And on more than one level.

Oh, and I love the little dig about Lightman being published. It shows just how mad you are that I have been published...and you haven't been. Funny how I can point to specific places where I've been quoted in major publications...and you can't.

Thanks for the laughs, One. You've brightened my day with your obvious jealousy of me. :-)

Your Ol' Buddy said...

Yes. You have been quoted in a "Major Publication's" online Blog. You first claimed to have been published in "Human Events." So, I looked it up, and, sure enough, there's your quote. From "Human Events" online, 9/20/05

"Columnist Thomas Lindaman rails against those who claim to support the troops but who criticize the war or even the president. The job of each citizen, he explains, is "to get your fellow citizens behind the efforts in Iraq, even if you disagree with the reasons for the war." {End}
"So much for principled dissent in a democracy. If the conflict in Iraq worsens, it is the fault of those who oppose it, not those who foolishly inaugurated it."

There ya have it, a claim to glory few have - Being called a Jackass in Human Events.

Anyway, enjoyed your weak response to having your empty head handed to you. I'd take it point by point, but you're the only one pretending you successfully rebutted my response. However, you may chalk up another accomplishment- you have been called a jackass on two blogs!

TLindaman said...

Your Ol' Buddy Who Happens to be Oneuron and, Thus, a Jealous Liar said...

Yes. You have been quoted in a "Major Publication's" online Blog. You first claimed to have been published in "Human Events." So, I looked it up, and, sure enough, there's your quote. From "Human Events" online, 9/20/05

"Columnist Thomas Lindaman rails against those who claim to support the troops but who criticize the war or even the president. The job of each citizen, he explains, is "to get your fellow citizens behind the efforts in Iraq, even if you disagree with the reasons for the war." {End}
"So much for principled dissent in a democracy. If the conflict in Iraq worsens, it is the fault of those who oppose it, not those who foolishly inaugurated it."

There ya have it, a claim to glory few have - Being called a Jackass in Human Events.


I'm still waiting on your writing samples to show me how a "good writer" writes. Why is that, One?

And furthermore, it should be pointed out that the Humans Events quote was unsolicited. Apparently someone thought it was worthy to be repeated.

And that's what burns you the most, isn't it? The fact that other writers feel my work is good enough to quote, while you're stuck writing nothing more than lame insults on a blog while denying you do it...in a chatroom. LOL


Anyway, enjoyed your weak response to having your empty head handed to you. I'd take it point by point, but you're the only one pretending you successfully rebutted my response. However, you may chalk up another accomplishment- you have been called a jackass on two blogs!


Yeah. Having to point out how your "proof" either didn't apply (as in the State of the Union clause from Article II) or supported my position (as in the appropriations process clause from Article I and the law you cited) really makes me look dumb, doesn't it? Doesn't make you look foolish at all, does it, One? LOL

By the way, I've been sharing your "proof" with people with no stake in the debate and they've all shared a good laugh at your Constitutional knowledge (or more precisely, your lack thereof).

Furthermore, I have a question for you that you'll dodge and use a wall of lame insults to hide from. If the President has the power to spend money, as is your belief, why would he have to propose a budget to Congress?

I'll await your lame, insult-laden, hateful, and seething with jealousy response. And then I'll laugh. :-)

ONE more time said...

Furthermore, I have a question for you that you'll dodge and use a wall of lame insults to hide from. If the President has the power to spend money, as is your belief, why would he have to propose a budget to Congress?

Most people who get caught looking like a drooling dumbass would try to create a new argument instead of denying what is obvious, but then, you are an exceptional drooling dumbass.

"A point based on what most people already know, that being Congress cuts the checks. However, by ignoring that the President singularly holds the most influence as to budget matters you leave the impression that Congress is entirely the responsible party for the massive increases in deficits. The President is driving the car, and owns half of it, but he's not responsible for the wreck."

If you had a mind worthy of doing something besides keeping your ears seperated you would, as I said, try to change the subject. Anyone who has seen you in action knows this intentional ignorance of what was clearly stated is your stock in trade.

But I must claim some responsibility for your pretense of confusion, since I did list the entire sentence in Art 2,Sec 3, and counted on you to understand the meaning of the applicable portion, that being : and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.

Besides initiating the budget process, a President can and does often recommend other legislation.

More fun from Oblivious Man:

"And furthermore, it should be pointed out that the Humans Events quote was unsolicited. Apparently someone thought it was worthy to be repeated."

Repeated - then ridiculed. Why aren't you as proud of my derision as you are of this guy's? We both have done the same thing - thump a braying jackass.

"By the way, I've been sharing your "proof" with people with no stake in the debate and they've all shared a good laugh at your Constitutional knowledge (or more precisely, your lack thereof)."

I'd like to hear from this "Brain Trust," that is, if they existed. It is obvious they do not, and are just another fabricated and lame attempt to bolster your fantasies of being worthy of debate.

If you had not decided to engage the Imaginary Oneuron as a replacement for your inability to effectively argue against the real One, I would have left you alone to post your preposterous puffoonery sans comment. I invite you to, once again, come into the chat and sit quietly while others with far more ability discuss the issues of the day. You can do what you always do, interject some platitude occaisionally to "prove" you're really part of the discourse, then proclaim yourself a "winner." But for now, back to your cubicle, office boy.

TLindaman said...

It doesn't matter what you say, One. The fact that you're spitting your usual lame venom at me for pointing out your multiple failures only underscores how badly you've been whupped by me yet again. You should be used to it by now, even with your "online buddies" willing to agree with whatever ignorant thing you say merely because you're going after me.

But at the end of the day, you'll still be alone, and I'll still be right. :-)