Finally....A Bill of Non-Rights

that was my favorite one to hahahaahahaha

Article 11 you have the right to realize you lost the election.

joules i agree

Caution: Superman costume does not actually enable flight or super strength. 

Article 11 you have the right to realize you lost the election.

Which includes Prop 8 in California.

Which includes Prop 8 in California.

Does it also include the fact the Supreme Court ruled on Roe VS. Wade?

Which includes Prop 8 in California.

...except that no government (state, local or federal) has the power to subject the rights of a group of people to a vote.  Those rights are guaranteed without exception by the Constitution.

I disagree with the premise of a "non-right."  The Bill of Rights is a designation of exclusions UPON THE STATE (or other governmental actors), i.e. things the state may never do or take away from the people.   Article X (of the Bill of Rights) specifically says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor PROHIBITED by it to the States, are RESERVED to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE." (emphasis added). 

Every element of these proposed "non-rights" is addressed by the existing common or statutory laws.  If it happens that you dont know the laws of your country, dont try your hand at legislation in the alternative--go to law school instead.

clearly, estela2008, you are not familiar with the word "satire". it is not as though someone is trying to enact these laws. they are simply common sense observations made by common sense people about idiotic american practices.

that doesnt mean we lost the right to fight prop 8.. nor do you lose the right to fight obama and his changes. But we all get why this was posted.
we are a center right country right? obama better not shift too far.. right?

wow, now if we could just throw out all the things that have been added and subtracted (amendments) from the original BOR all these years, we might actually understand it like the "non-rights" article. Simple is always better. I make my case by pointing out how the above postS are already trying to complicate it.

You mean those pesky things like racial equality, women's suffrage, and lowering the voting age to 18?

i get what roadlesstraveled is trying to say. sometimes people make a big deal (like they are in this case) about nothing and start branching off into pointless topics that have absolutely nothing to do with anything...

When did marriage become a right??????

Freedom to the pursuit of happiness, maybe? Freedom of religion, perhaps? Hate to break it to some people, but there are churches that allow and sanction gay marriage, christian and otherwise. Even if you disagree with it, it's their right to be able to sanction same sex marriage -- you can't deny them that.

Unfooled:

You did not answer the question. Just because you belive it is a right does not give them those rights. How about reading the constitution, you might learn something.

I love it when people whip out the "How about reading the constitution, you might learn something" and obviously haven't done so themselves.

rpmranch-  Here is the answer to your question.

In 1967 Chief Justice Warren wrote

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. 

and in the same case Loving v. Virginia while concurring, Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Freeman Miller wrote:

Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment.

The Ninth Amendment guarantees the safety of all rights not enumerated, such as the pursuit of happiness.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 

Additionally, the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

has been interpreted by the Earl Warrens's Supreme Court in 1963 to be held against a "Compelling Interest" test and again in 1972 in Wisconsin v. Yoder: 

any law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" must prove a "compelling state interest in the regulation of a subject within the State’s power to regulate."

Justice William Brennan wrote in the 1972 case:

to condition the availability of benefits upon this appellant's willingness to violate a cardinal principle of her religious faith effectively penalizes the free exercise of her constitutional liberties.

The First Amendment must also be held against a "Generally Applicable test." 

The principle that government, in pursuit of legitimate interests, cannot in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief.

So, to sum up, according to the Supreme Court Marriage is a right, it is protected by the Ninth Amendment as a right not enumerated. Also, the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause cannot be restricted by any law that does not pass the Generally Applicable test (which a ban on only gay marriage would fail) and finally, since gay marriage is not hurting anyone the State cannot pass the Compelling Interest test either.

Hey crash

Additionally, the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

since poligamy was a religous tenet of mormanism how could any law prohibiting it be found constitutional?

reddirthippy -- probably not, no. We do have at least some polygamist sects, after all.

reddirthippy- 

You are right that polygamy is a religious freedom that is curtailed by the Supreme Court Ruling dating back to 1878 in the case of  Reynolds v. United States . 

However after the 2003 case Lawrence v. Texas where the Court ruled that an anti-sodomy law passed in texas was unconstitutional. The door was opened for a revisit to that earlier 100+ year old ruling against Polygamy. In 2004, (Jan. 12?) a lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court involving a married couple, identified only as G. Lee Cook and D. Cook, and a woman, J. Bronson, who wanted to enter into a plural marriage but were denied a marriage license by Salt Lake County clerks.

To my knowledge the case has not yet been heard or decided on and therefore it is currently illegal to have multiple spouses. Soon enough there should be a ruling that is appropriate for today's society.

With that in mind, the ruling may not be as simple as the case for gay marriage. It is possible (I am not taking sides) that the state would argue and win based on it's "Compelling Interest" in the legal ramifications of multiple spouses in regards to next of kin, powers of attorney, estate inheritance and other legal decisions where only one answer is possible and the voices of five or six spouses may contradict. The ruling may be absolutely against polygamy, or it may be along the lines of a "first wife" with these privileges and "lesser wives" who do not have them.

I love this article.

It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution." Likewise, Justice Antonin Scalia has expressed the same view, in Troxel v. Granville (2000):

The Declaration of Independence...is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.

rpmranch-

You have done an amazing job misquoting both Mr. Tribe and Justice Scalia.

Firstly, Mr. Tribe was explaining that the Ninth Amendment does not specifically enumerate rights. He was not saying that the Ninth Amendment is useless. "It is simply a rule about how to read the constitution" is him explaining that the constitution is not the "be all-end all" of state and citizen's rights. That there is plenty more to it that simply has not been written down.

As far as Scalia, I would imagine that since you found his opinion from Troxel v.Granville that you read it. 

Some points to know; He was on the loosing side of that case.

The case was about parental rights and the FIRST two lines of the opinion say:

In my view, a right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the "unalienable Rights" with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims "all Men ... are endowed by their Creator." And in my view that right is also among the "othe[r] [rights] retained by the people" which the Ninth Amendment says the Constitution's enumeration of rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage." 

So, it is clear that Justice Scalia also agrees that the Ninth Amendment is in place to protect certain (unalienable) rights from the reaching hands of the Government into citizens private lives. 

Scalia wanted to reverse the decision because (as he explains in the last few lines of his opinion) he did not think that the Federal government had a role in writing family law, that this was a place for state and local governments to act.

Lastly, if arguing over the Ninth Amendment is the best you can come up with for your fight against Gay marriage then I think I have stated my case pretty well. Regardless of your interpretation of the Ninth Amendment and how much that amendment can be enforced by the courts there is no getting around equal rights arguments, free exercise arguments or pursuit of happiness and prosperity arguments.

It has been around. Uplifting to see it again. I'm going to check out this site that published it. Could be interesting.

I looked further (although not mush further) at the website that posted this, and I won't bother going back again. Basically, the typical media trash.

the article didn't say that EVERY person was a couch potato. it just said that americans don't want to subsidize the couch potatoes that exist. and they're right.

I agree wonderwall. people for some reason think that they have this "right" to receive money and housing from the government.

priveleges and amenities are not the same things as rights!! finally somebody hits a nail on the head

like the thing about the jobs. not everyone is a couch potatoe

everyone isn't a couch potatoe. they are talking about not subsidizing lazy people and theres nothing wrong with that

its not that people have "a right" to receive housing from the government. It's that individuals SHOULD, at least in my opinion, be able to help out those who need helping out. Its not about subsidy and whatnot. Its about giving people what they need. And some people legitimately need government programs

at least in my opinion, be able to help out those who need helping out. Its not about subsidy and whatnot. Its about giving people what they need.

in a perfect world maybe but in real life not a chance. this bill of rights is right. you don't have a right to handouts.

lesfleurs, which one of these are you actually arguing?

It's that individuals SHOULD, at least in my opinion, be able to help out those who need helping out. And some people legitimately need government programs

Because those are NOT the same thing.

sure aren't.

well said info360

Hmm. I liked this but there were some things i disagreed with. like the thing about the jobs. not everyone is a couch potatoe

It didn't imply that. 

this whole proposal implicitly advances the idea that everyone was born to a "level playing field" where all it takes is hard work and good efforts to get ahead.  This is far from true.

As an example, the ABA just passed a regulation that says that if law schools dont have a 70% Bar passage rate, i.e. if they admit students with questionable chances of passing the Bar, the school will lose its ABA accreditation.  This creates an artificial barrier for minorities to become lawyers, since they are less likely to have lawyers in their family or connections in legal services that could tutor, assist or finance private tutors.  Moreover, the school has to GUESS which student will pass the Bar and which will not.  If your kid went to your alma mater, and you can pay for his pre-law school admissions tutorials, and he can get a recommendation from your friend the judge, the school might be more inclined to think he has a better chance of passing the Bar--ya think?!  Where's does that leave everybody else?  Do you think this is a "level playing field"?

it doesn't matter whether or not people are born to a proverbial "level" playing field. of course it takes more than hard work and good efforts to get ahead. but its not an impossible feat. with all of the "rags-to-riches" stories and things that we hear about every day in this country i believe that it is possible for these ideals to work and for americans to get aheaad.

actually alice studies have shown that sicne the 60's class jumping has been less and less... today it is far more likely to stay in the class you were born in than in 1960

ditto

Hey, while you are at it, be sure to send a copy to all the members of the house and senate, the president, his cabinet, the state representatives and your local city management. It seems they are the ones who need to see this the most. Its pretty much a no brain-er to us working stiffs.

Doesn't the 1st amendment guarantee freedom of speech? How can that not be interpreted to mean that you should be able to speak however and whatever you want?

I agree that the first amendment guarantees freedom of speaking any language you choose. I think, however, that all government business needs to be uniform, and that uniform should be English. 

Private business' deciding that they will work only in some other foreign language is perfectly OK. It is their right.

the artilce doesn't say that english is our national language. however, when 95% of the entire country still speaks english as their primary language it may be a good idea to learn it. no one said that you coudldn't know other languages as well....

First of all, this article is not some kind of secret "free speech" issue.

I believe, and correct me if i'm wrong (as i'm sure you will) but it just seems like the author of these "nonrights" is simply saying that it is absurd for people to come to a country who's primary language is english, and not know it atleast well enough to be semi-effective. its not like learning english will somehow make your life  terrible....

what does speaking in english have to do with freedom of speech?

joules, we know english isn't our national language. but those

Gullah, the Amish, the Hawaiian, sign language?

people still have to function in the free world. and im pretty sure that sign language did not exist during the time that the bill of rights was drafted. im not questioning its validity im just saying

people speak english here. i know it sucks but thats the way it is

Trust me.  The Amish speak English. 

Governments throw away hundreds of thousands of tax dollars trying to accommodate  people who don't speak English.   I think governments need to declare English as the official language and if you need another language, bring a translator.  We adopted a child from Russia and we never considered expecting them to do official government business in English:  we took a translator.

right on janice

People should not come to this country without knowing how to speak English.  People living in this country should raise their children as english speakers.  End of story. 

Everyone has the right to be bi-lingual.  Speak whatever language you want as long as one of them is English.

I would never consider going to live in any country if I did not know the language. (Unless, of course, the best job I wanted was to scrub someone's toilet for the rest of my life)

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country.

I'm always amused by the number of Baby Boomers who believe this unequivocally, despite having immigrant grandparents who never learned English.

Also ironically (given the tone of the seeded article), many people view the lack of an official language as an implicitly Constitutional topic, as making English the official language would disenfranchise the 4% of the population who neither speak English "well" or "very well." That may sound like a small number, but that's still over 12 million people who would be effectively reduced to second-class citizenship because of their inability to understand or effectively participate in political life.

I would never consider going to live in any country if I did not know the language.

I've known a number of people who have lived and worked abroad in countries where they didn't speak any of the official languages. You might be shocked to learn that they have all done just fine, in no small part because many countries (unlike America) place a real cultural value on being multilingual.

I think the point behind the argument is that in any other country, you're expected to learn their culture and language, to be an effective citizen. Why should, if you come to the US, should the citizens of this country, have to learn to speak your language to communicate with you ? 

I live in SD, and I can't even order food at some fast food restaruants without knowing spanish.  

If I went to Mexico, would they try to learn English to accomodate me ? 

I think that you are right Sgt, and it's always funny how people say these things about "americans should be more tolerant" and "people have a right to free speech". Well, that doesn't matter. The larger point is that I don't care how many languages you want to speak. But ONE of those languages better be english if you come to America.

you have the right not to order fast food or patronize their businesses.

Sgt-

You have the right not to eat at that restaurant and they ahve the right not to serve you if they don't want to.

IF you went to mexico, they WOULD learn english to accommodate you. I have lived an worked in three different countries in my life and every place I went the company I worked with and the places I frequented made a visible effort to learn English just for me. everything from learning "hello how are you" to one restaurant in Argentina that I went to often that had an entire menu translated for me because I went there so often.

Honestly, what does it matter to YOU if other people are not speaking english in the US??? the answer is that it doesn't. if you want to go somewhere where you can order your fast food in english then you can go to a different restaurant.

#5.6:  Sign language dates back to at least 1620 with the first known instructional publication. Our American "Bill of Rights" dates to July 1776, 150+ years later.

Honestly, what does it matter to YOU if other people are not speaking english in the US???

Well, there's the fact that my tax dollars have to pay for the local, state and federal governments who feel that it's necessary to print information in other langauges.  There's the fact that they expect people to be able to speak their language as opposed to having learned English.  My sister works in a hospital and a non-English speaking person came in with his wife who was having a baby.  He ranted and raved about there not being a person there who could speak HIS language rather than accepting any responsibility for learning the language of the United States. 

Then there's the fact that they expect us to teach their children in their language.  The City of Dallas tried to go to Mexico City to hire teadhers rather than hiring American teachers because they said the English speaking American teachers were unable to teach the students in Dallas schools. 

Does any of these make sense to you?  I certainly don't understand it.  But it definately matters to me.

Correction for above post - not the City of Dallas.  The Dallas Independent School District.

Janice - Agreed 100%. 

If America were a country in which the norms of the majority became mandatory for the remaining minority, it wouldn't be America anymore. This is a country where you can be a citizen even if you aren't Christian (which most Americans are), even if you aren't straight (which most Americans are), even if you are disabled (which most Americans aren't), and even if you don't speak English (which most Americans do). And as a citizen, you are entitled to equality before the law.

This insistence that America is "a nation of English" is built on reasoning that confuses the "average American" for the "normative American." You wouldn't insist on revoking handicapped parking spaces, would you? An American citizen is a citizen regardless of their linguistic skills, and to argue otherwise is, effectively, to argue that millions of Americans "aren't real citizens," which starts to smack of paranoid nationalism.

You have the right to not speak English.  Just like I have the right to ignore you if you can't understand what I'm saying.

I lived in Italy for three years and never learned the language.  When I went somewhere and had trouble communicating (well), it was MY fault, not THEIRS.

A person without legs cannot grow them back.  A person that doesn't know English can learn it.  Deciding not to learn how to speak English is not a handicap it is laziness.

Personally I really don't care if people speak english or not but then our government has to spend billions of dollars to accomodate every other language on every form in America.  Schools have to hire special teachers for a handful of students in an already burdened school system.  Law enforcement has to have bi-lingual officers to keep our streets safe. 

It simply is not practical to accommodate every language.  If Wal-mart wants to have signs out in multiple languages it is because they are out for the almighty dollar.  I don't think our government should be forced to do that.  I as a taxpayer am out to save the almighty dollar.  We need to save in every way we can so we can bail-out more companies. 

I agree with not spending the money on the dual language thing because of the money, not for any other reason. I have little problem with the language thing, people find a way to communicate when it is necessary. It is a two way street, You have the right not to learn another language and I have the right to at least learn what I need to know to get by but it is not the governments business to bother over it.

Deciding not to learn how to speak English is not a handicap it is laziness.

The question here is not what a citizen's responsibility is to their government, but rather what a government's responsibility is to its citizens.

Even if the 12 million Americans who currently speak moderate-to-no-English all wanted to learn, not all have the time or resources to be able to afford it, and doing so would likely take a long time. It would still constitute a sort of "poll tax" that would effectively bar many current American citizens from the public square for many years. It would put many current citizens in the position of not being able to understand mandatory forms (like those associated with paying taxes). Furthermore, many of these individuals may find learning English impossible at this stage in their lives.

Whether you agree with the choices of these people or not, the government must still provide them equal protection under the law. Just as government must serve you it must also serve them.

Janice-

I read your response to my question of how them not speaking english affects you, and I was thoroughly unimpressed.

You said that the local, state and federal government spend extra money on printing paperwork in other languages.  This is something the federal government would have to do anyway. When you exclude places where multi-language paperwork is necessary for use by the tourism industry (airports, post office, national parks, monuments and other landmarks), Then you must exclude any paperwork that is printed in multiple languages that must be "filled in" (tax forms, census questionnaires etc.) because the money spent on having the papers in other languages must be spent ANYWAY, when you take away 12 million other language forms you must replace them with 12 million english ones, otherwise you would not have enough for everyone. After excluding these things, how much is left?

Then you answered my question with a story of man who went into the ER and no one spoke his language... That is HIS  problem, not yours. That does not have anything to do with you or your sister. 

Then you spoke about the Dallas School District hiring teachers that speak spanish to accommodate the spanish student and you said that it is a tax burden on you. Again, the same as the paperwork, even if the school district did not accommodate their language they would have to hire more teachers ANYWAY, otherwise the classrooms would be overcrowded. whether they hire the extra teachers in english or not is not important, and the fact that they hired the best teachers they could find (who happened to be from Mexico City) is irrelevant. If my kids were in school with an English speaking teacher from Great Britain I would applaud the school for caring enough to find the best of the best.

Belarious   -    Your argument of no time or resources is just another excuse.  To me being able to communicate well within society should be top priority and I believe there to be many resources available to anyone willing to make the effort.  All too often we make excuses for mediocrity.  If we never expect anything from anybody we will get the results we are seeking: nothing. 

I know, I know, it is much easier to make excuses than it is to accomplish anything.

Your argument of no time or resources is just another excuse.

And the poor are just lazy, no doubt.

I'm not defending the refusal to learn English. I'm merely asserting that the government has a responsibility to treat its citizens as equal before the law. Americans who don't speak English are no less American than those who do. Discriminating against a citizen who (for whatever reason) happens to speak poor English is still discrimination, whether that inability it a choice or an affliction.

Belarious... To me being able to communicate well within society should be top priority

This is admittedly a cheap shot, but perhaps you should embody your priorities at least well enough to spell names correctly.

Saying that the US has a formal language would be as much of a waste as the was they are going about it now. I know several people that were "illegal" when they got to this country. They have worked hard and managed to get on the right side of the legal issue. Some have learned to speak English a lot better than I can speak Spanish. I know a few that haven't made any effort to assimilate, and they still get by and only want to make enough money to keep the family they left behind in good shape and hopefully some day to go back home.

Unless of course, you become a couch potato through inheritance. Then we will fight tooth and nail to provide you with government services like police and the courts while opposing any effort at all to tax you to pay for it. It is the duty of the working stiffs to support our landed aristocracy and not to impose "death taxes" or wealth taxes. After all, how would you afford that 20th house if we did?

Don't generalize, it betrays your intolerance.

This entire seed is nothing but an overgeneralization. I was staying within the spirit of it.

Unless of course, you become a couch potato through inheritance. Then we will fight tooth and nail to provide you with government services like police and the courts while opposing any effort at all to tax you to pay for it. It is the duty of the working stiffs to support our landed aristocracy and not to impose "death taxes" or wealth taxes.

You do realize that if that money was made by the parents, they already paid tax on it? So that money has already gone toward the community services you mentioned. Wealth taxes? You mean like Capital Gains? Already in place. Death Tax? That would be a tax on money that has already been taxed. Why is that fair?

Jealousy is very unbecoming.

You do realize that if that money was made by the parents, they already paid tax on it?

So? When it was transferred to the heirs, it was income to the heirs and should be taxed again. Just like when you pay your gardener, he needs to pay income tax even though you were already taxed when you earned the money. An "fair" income tax should tax all income, should it not?

A wealth tax is a tax on assets over a certain amount, whether they have appreciated or not. It is one tool to assure that inherited aristocracy, which is a concept utterly foreign to the very idea of the United States of America, cannot become entrenched, as their unearned wealth is guaranteed to decline over time. Thus the great grandchildren of Preston Bush would actually have to go out and earn a living rather than cruising on his accumulated wealth, for example. The same would be true of the great grandchildren of Joe Kennedy. Currently, this country does not have one.

Aristocracy is incompatible with liberty. Both Adamses, Jefferson, and Paine understood that, so if you wish to dismiss it as mere jealosy (when, of course you have no idea how much I may have inherited or stand to inherit, of course) then I am proud to stand in the company of such jealous men*.

*Most of whom (with the possible exception of John Adams) would definitely be considered "liberals" by the way. The people fed up with liberals backed the king, so I guess your attitude is hardly surprising.

So? When it was transferred to the heirs, it was income to the heirs and should be taxed again. Just like when you pay your gardener, he needs to pay income tax even though you were already taxed when you earned the money. An "fair" income tax should tax all income, should it not?

Then maybe we should start taxing or children's Christmas and birthday presents. 

The problem with you're logic is that it crossses a line that the government should not cross.  I would agree that some inheritances should be taxed. However, taxing a child's inheritance from his or her immediate family or a spouse's inheritance is just wrong.  It's born of envy and is simply siezure. 

This entire seed is nothing but an overgeneralization. I was staying within the spirit of it.

I don't think it is.  The "non-rights" for the most part are common sense to most people and the article didn't use terms that implied that everyone takes advantage of them. 

The problem with you're logic is that it crossses a line that the government should not cross. 

Again, why? Because you say so? Should income paid to children as employees of family owned businesses be similarly exempt from taxation?

Should income paid to children as employees of family owned businesses be similarly exempt from taxation?

No, not at all.  I would say that tax should be paid on transactions that take place in a capitalist manner.  Your parents dying is not such a transaction.

We have inheritance tax here, and I don't know anyone who feels it is fair.

Your parents dying is not such a transaction.

But the transfer of their assets most certainly is.

And Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, Sr. wrote a rather persuasive op-ed a couple of years back arguing that the only way in which the inheritance tax is unfair is that it is too low. Buffet has constantly argued that the wealthy in general are taxed at levels that are far too low as well. Do you claim to know more about money management than he does?

Unless of course, you become a couch potato through inheritance.

I think the point is that we have very different standards for poor people who dont work, as compared to rich people who dont work.

Whats that song that says: if a rich man loses on a horse, he a Bon Vivant.  But if I poor man loses on a horse, he's a rounder and a bounder and lot of dirty names.

I think the point is that we have very different standards for poor people who dont work, as compared to rich people who dont work.

One of the reasons for the so-called "double standard" is that the "idle rich" don't usually collect welfare, food stamps or Medicaid. They pay capital gains on their earnings, they pay property taxes for the homes they may have inherited (after paying an inheritance tax), and they support the economy by spending the money they inherited.

Never a better argument for the fair tax...

AdipicAcid

Buffet has constantly argued that the wealthy in general are taxed at levels that are far too low as well. Do you claim to know more about money management than he does?

No, not at all.  I agree with him, the wealthy pay too little tax.  But inheritance tax does not only affect the wealthy, many middle and even lower class families have assets to pass on.  And this passing on is not a capitalist transaction, there is no exchange of goods or services for cash, somebody has died.

So design it with a blanket $2 million exemption, in 2008 dollars.

  And this passing on is not a capitalist transaction

Any transfer of assets is a transaction.  Get thee to an economics class.

So design it with a blanket $2 million exemption, in 2008 dollars.

That's one way of dealing with it, yes.  Where I live there is a cap, but the amount still captures most middle-income families (and $2 mil is decidedly not middle income in South Africa).

Any transfer of assets is a transaction.  Get thee to an economics class.

Yes, in absolute terms of course it is.  The point I am making is that my preference would be for only transactions in which services or goods are exchanged for money to be taxed.  In inheritance, no services or goods are exchanged for the money.

The point I am making is that my preference would be for only transactions in which services or goods are exchanged for money to be taxed.

Which means you wish to tax the poor and middle class far harder than the wealthy, as they must spend a far higher percentage of their income and assets on goods and services. The inheritance tax is one way to get around that problem, as it taxes the net wealth of a person right as they reach the point where they don't need it anymore.

I'll have to mull that point.  The wealthy are typically heavily invested, it's not just sitting doing nothing.  You can tax income from those investments, and the capital gains when they are sold.

i don't think that they meant for the legitimately disabled to be on the list

Unfortunately there's no way to enforce that one!

There is a way to discourage people from having babies.  Make sterilization a condition of welfare and food stamps.  We'd see a lot fewer children being born then.

So I'd have to choose between having children or eating?  Not everyone on welfare abuses the system.

wronghanded1 - you don't have to choose between having children or eating, you can simply have children...  and eat them.

ok, just kidding. besides, american kids would have to be considered junk food, right?, all plumped full of sugary snacks and caffienated sodas and cheetos and mcd's happy meals.   blech!

There is a way to discourage people from having babies.  Make sterilization a condition of welfare and food stamps.  We'd see a lot fewer children being born then.

That's a horrible concept.  There is a much less repugnant way of dealing with it, which has been very successful (and possibly too successful) in places like Singapore: people can have as many children as they like, but the state limits the number of children who can be supported with grants, schooling etc.

That's a horrible concept.

"But it's all for the good of the community! Please think about the children!"

(sorry, just had to throw that in there...)

You do not have the right to spawn an unlimited number of progeny unless you have the economic capability to provide for their basic needs (food, clothing, shelter, etc), and the good sense to teach your children how to behave in public. 

JKiff,

Excellent point.  Here is my belief why most may not agree.

1.  It seems that today having children is an after thought to sexual pleasures without realizing the potential outcome.  No, I am not a far right wing wack who believes that one must be married before engaging in sex, but I do believe that a degradation in moral values (no  they do not have to be based on the Bible) has lead to an increase in children born into single families.  There is nothing to make one think twice about protected sex. 

2.  The welfare system, which I believe needs to be abolished, provides a safety net for those who wish to act irresponsibly.  I am for free will and the government should have no say in how many babies you have, but don't expect the government to pick up the tab after a night of pleasure.  

This leads to my comments on Janice22's post.

There is a way to discourage people from having babies.  Make sterilization a condition of welfare and food stamps.  We'd see a lot fewer children being born then. 

If we abolish the welfare system people would naturally become more responsible.  With responsible adults having children then it is likely that their children would grow up more responsible and productive in our society.  To mandate sterilization would impact our economy with less manpower for future production of goods.  The governmment has no place in neither ones sex life and poviding for ones children.

VR

Ken

i don't really like digg that much and apparantly its on its way somewhere (the bill of nonrights that is) because they got it from a chain email.

i don't know about that....

You don't know about what exactly?

about how much i want to help people who have problems due to their own mistakes and or/ irresponsibility. i'm not saying that its a terrible thing. i'm just saying that at some point people have to learn. and if you keep perpetuating this idea that there is always some type of safety net then its just holding you in a cycle...

Ok, I understand what your saying and I agree with you that there has to be a logical end to charity in some cases.  To your point, too many are completely oblivious to the necessary preparation it takes to confront the things that life can throw at us. 

I'd like to see a mandatory high school class titled "Real Life".  Teach/remind the difficulties that life will have and what ones responsibilities are to prepare for them.  I believe that too many people are completely clueless and believe, as you've said, that there is some safety net out there.  

My frustration is that we don't recognize it or are willing to talk about it.  Politically, it's too profitable to to create victims.  

high school kids are gonna need way more than that at the rate this country is going....

MH_Wichita,

Maybe they need to fall on their faces to realize that things are not always going to be handed to them.  This is something I believe went terribly wrong with this campaign.  America voted on the promise of a handout called "Change".  It goes beyond just our youth; it is what parents are teaching their children.

Ken

Ken-ev-pow

You're right, there is value in letting kids learn from mistakes, my kids would certainly agree that I believe that.  But unfortunately, we can't not rely on all parents to guide and teach their children, that's painfully obvious.   There has to be someone who will step up and make sure kids learn the whole truth. 

I also agree with you about the campaign, I was continually frustrated by people's hook-line-and-sinker acceptance of a promise to solve the problems that citizens can only solve for themselves.  That will be very obvious 4 years from now, or 8 years, when we will still have poverty, unemployment, homelessness, illegitimate births, drug abuse, abandoned and abused children.  Too many people have bought into the lie that whatever happens in their lives, no matter what their situation, it had absolutely nothing to do with their choices.  It was all a matter of someone, usually a republican, that denied them their "rights". 

But who decides what the "whole truth" is? A Priest? A Rabbi? A Mulluh? A scientist? You? Me? I don't think any of us is so arrogant as to believe they know the "whole truth," are we?

And yes, there will still be all those things, but if the statistics from the Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton. and Bush two Presidencies are any guide there will be markedly less, as well as less national debt, less unemployment, less stratification of wealth, less animosity from the outside world, and more stability in the Middle East. That is not my opinion, that is historical fact,  and that should trump all opinions, yours and mine!

Don't take my comment out of context.  I wasn't referring to  the mysteries of the universe.   I'm referring to much simple truths which are or should be obvious.  Many of the social issues in this country are a result of peoples' choices.  Note that I didn't say all social issues and I didn't say that everybody's poor situation was due to their choices. 

Also, I didn't speak to the national debt or foreign relations and I also didn't speak to magnitude.  My point was: social issues are also a function of choices, an obvious truth which is deliberately avoided in any discussion about those issues.

MH_Wichita,

I was not clear with my comment about needing to fall on their face.  I was not referring to children but their parents who take no responsibility as parents or responsibility as citizens.  

How have Republicans denied them "rights" when it comes to their choices?  I do not think this is relevant when discussing ones responsibility as a citizen.  As for the promised "Change" it is a change of more social welfare aiding ones choice to do less for themselves.  In this case it would not be Republican's but the Dems who favor this way of government. 

VR

Ken

Ken

Republican's don't deny "rights", I was referring, sacastically, to the conventional wisdom that its always a Republican's fault, no one looks in the mirror.  Of course it doesn't have to be a Republican, often it's a CEO, a white man, the wealthy or it could just be someone who has a dollar more. 

MH_Wichita,

I have been accused of missing sarcasim before.  Sorry for the confussion.

Ken

Ken

That's Ok, I've been accused of not being very good at it.

My friend says the same thing about common sense. It seems it is not so common any more.

You are absoluteley right, our Constitution very clearly states that providing for the common good is the responsibility of the government. I assume that you would agree that basic health care is a common good, wouldn't you?

I would. However, where does the constitution say that it your employer's obligation to provide part of your compensation in the form of subsidized health benefits?   

The Common Good.

Things like roads, rails, courts, police and armies, space stations, sewer systems.

And I might suggest that it is not a good idea to go into long-term debt to do those things.

Roe v Wade says you are wrong on that one.

Only because Roe v Wade conveniently doesn't recognize that an unborn child is just that, a child.

We probably should open this thread to that topic.

Only because Roe v Wade conveniently doesn't recognize that an unborn child is just that, a child.

So a miscarriage is manslaughter, then?

No but an assault that forces a miscarriage is manslaughter, go figure. Abortion is a miscarriage........of justice.

Sorry, involuntary manslaughter is the non-intentional taking of a life. By your argument any mother who does anything that could be construed as risky and then has a miscarriage must be investigated for it.

Either that, or you don't take the entire "life begins at conception" thing nearly as seriously as you claim.

Viable life does not begin at conception.  Early on the fetus is more like a parasite.

Viable life does not begin at conception.  Early on the fetus is more like a parasite.

Ever see an 8-week-old fetus through an ultrasound? I have, several times. You can see the heart beat. Granted, if it were removed from the womb, it wouldn't yet be able to survive, but for those of us who have lost babies, we didn't think of them as "parasites". So sad that some do. I though of both the babies I lost (one at 8 weeks, one at 12) as my children, and the loss was that of a mother losing a child, not that of a dog getting rid of a case of ringworm.

It is sad for you that you lost your pregnancies that you wanted but that doesn't mean that everyone has to want to be pregnant.  Our law states that people get to choose. 

I'm not arguing whether it's legal; I was simply disagreeing with your characterizing what many would argue is a baby as a "parasite".

A fetus is like a parasite that cannot live without its host.  Sorry if the analogy is gruesome to you but that doesn't make it less accurate.

So if you get into an accident and are hooked up to life support, can we call you a parasite?

A human being is a human being. DNA doesn't lie.

I guess if I'm on life support you can call me anything you want.

You got me there :D

And you don't have the right to tell others, based on the current interpretation of religious writings, what can occur in the confines of their own bodies. You have every right to be offended, but not to legislate the actions of those with other beliefs. Doesn't your Bible say something like "Judge not, lest ye be judged?"  or is that one optional?

The real question is, WHAT things do we have a right to choose?

Currently, we have the right to choose to kill a child in the womb (that is, "abortion", which is to "abort" a pregnancy, abort being to discontinue something that is in process, in this case, te growth of a human child).

Is that a "good" right? Should we expand the current law and make it even more readily available to anyone at any time, as our President elect wants to do? Your answer probably depends on your beliefs about what this life on earth really is.

The one that gets me the most, that I have heard much recently, is "I believe a woman should have a right to choose abortion (of her child), but I am not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice." Or how about, "... but I would not personally ever abort". I must ask, if you are not pro-abortion, or you would not abort, why is that? What do you believe abortion is? If you wouldn't, or you are not for it, how is it that you can also say that it is a good thing?

I will buy the whole parasite arguement, it seems some are parasites long after they are born, which is why we have this article about non-rights. They continue to expect to feed off of us long after we thought someone had weened them.

I agree with you to a point. 

If Nativity scenes, crosses, Ten Commandments, etc. are located anywhere on public property, there is a huge outcry from the "freedom from religion" groups (American Atheists, ACLU, etc.) about the separation of church & state.

When all faiths are represented in public with public money (including donated land rental) that that would be fine, although I would also like some sort of atheist / humanist statement too.  My argument with publicly funded religious things is fairness of tax expenditure and public representation, not intolerance.  I think it's just better and easier for government not to get involved at all.

I'm told that if I speak up about what I believe, I'm "pushing my religion".

I for one am quite happy to hear what you have to say, and I may even debate it, but there comes a point where the debate has ended - there are no new facts to bring to bear, and neither party has changed their mind.  At this point, the debate has ended and it's fruitless, let's talk about something else.  If you go beyond that, or it is not appropriate to the situation (strangers at a wedding, for instance) then you are indeed "pushing your religion".

It's a shame we can't all lighten up, let people speak, and not believe we have the right not to be offended - no matter what side of the issue we're on.

Hell, I'm with you there.

I have no problem with other religions being allowed to display items representing their faith - equal access. There was a nativity that had been used for decades in San Diego in a city park; it was stored and maintained by a private organization, so no tax dollars were involved. The city was forced to remove it because a few people deemed it offensive. That's the kind of thing I'm referring to.

So about the atheists... What type of monument would they use? When I was living in SoCal, there was a big push by atheists to have crosses removed from two hills (one was a WWII memorial). I got a huge laugh out of one of the newspaper columnists who suggested that the atheists could lay claim to any of the other hillsides in the county, as they were all unadorned. Monuments to nothing, he called them.

I dunno... I sure see plenty of displays celebrating the glorious secular power of money and consumption every Christmas season. 

Generally I don't think we need a monument.  But if everyone else has one, then we need one I suppose.  I also don't like crosses on mountains, particularly ones that are lit up.  But I also don't like houses on mountains, and I wouldn't like atheist monuments on mountains.  But if it's an old WWII memorial I really don't have a problem with it.  That's not only religious, it's national heritage and should not be forgotten.  I don't only mean the war, but the history of the religious nature of society and it's leaders at the time.

I kick back harder than some because I grew up under state-mandated religion.  I prefer to keep the state out of it all together.

I am an athiest but I happily celebrate Santa Claus Day every year! 

I dunno... I sure see plenty of displays celebrating the glorious secular power of money and consumption every Christmas season.

Brian White, that is capitalism and has nothing to do with religion.  No atheist or humanist worships anything at all, much less money.  SOme may chase it ver hard, but it's not religion.

However, I share your sadness at the loss of the true spirit of Christmas to corporate greed.  The decorations where in the shops a month ago already :(

I kick back harder than some because I grew up under state-mandated religion.  I prefer to keep the state out of it all together.

I can respect that. I don't want state-mandated religion either (who gets to decide which one???), only my right to "the free exercise thereof".

However, I share your sadness at the loss of the true spirit of Christmas to corporate greed.  The decorations where in the shops a month ago already :(

I have never been a Christian.  To me, Christmas was always about spending time with family, buying presents, and eating cookies.  It has always been an utterly secular holiday to me.

My problem with "Christians" is that they seem to think they are the only ones who have rights. They try to dictate when life begins, what my female friends do with their bodies, whether I can gamble or not, what science is allowed to discover, how and what they are allowed to study. Some states have laws about what can be purchased on Sundays, there are religious sentiments on my money and in the pledge of allegience,. Many preachers usurp their flock's right to vote by telling them what is acceptable to the God who says in the Bible that his mind is unknowable. There are even museums hawking their displays as "Natural History" and showing children playing with Dinosaurs. The Flintstones was not a documentary! Then they talk about being "Pro-life" and bomb Middle Eastern cities where they know the majority of the dead will be innocent. Many of them also insist that we are a Christian nation when reading our founders writings says just the opposite. (Jefferson called Christianity a "Three headed beast" Madison's word was "foolishness",  Washington was a Diest, and Thomas Paine an Athiest.) All the while claiming to be "persecuted" because our laws don't sufficiently reflect the opinions of their imaginary(to me) friend!Leave me alone and I will gladly do the same, but don't say things you cannot prove and be offended that I want another opinion. 

I can respect that. I don't want state-mandated religion either (who gets to decide which one???), only my right to "the free exercise thereof".

The people who decide are the same people who then use that religion to enforce evil laws.

I have never been a Christian.  To me, Christmas was always about spending time with family, buying presents, and eating cookies.  It has always been an utterly secular holiday to me.

Point taken, Brian.  My point is that the spirit is in the family and the giving, not so much the buying.  But these days the focus is on the buying, and it's yucky.

or if you want the military version, a twist from what Reagon said about the Marines 
"Uncommon valor is a common virtue"

"Common Sense is an Uncommon Virtue"