It's not "we" as in "We the People." That's the first word in the preamble which introduces the Constitution. It's not "Article" as in Article 1. That's the outline form of the Constitution.

The first word is "All" not "except," not "unless," but "All." All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." (Article 1 section 1)

The Constitution gives only Congress the power to legislate. The Executive and Judicial Branches are not given that power. Additionally, Congress does not have the power to give the Executive and Judicial Branches the power to legislate because of that first word "All."

Only one little word is used to separate the law making duties of government.

Chief justice Roberts following what John Marshall had done before, rewrote the healthcare law which, however slight, is legislating from the bench. The Chief Justice was out of line. He should have deferred to Congress.

With President Obama's comparing Warren Buffet's tax rate with his secretary's and, wanting to make it fair, I would like to give a short explanation of why the tax rate argument is not just.

Suppose an employee makes $100,000 annually and has a 30% tax rate, his tax liability would be $30,000. If his employer makes $1,000,000 annually with a tax rate of 15%, his tax liability would be $150,000. With half the rate, the employer's tax liability is 5 times greater than his employee's.

If Nike and the shoe stores offered the shoes at market value, which is above the $180 selling price, they, not the scalpers, would collect the additional revenue thereby being able to produce more shoes to meet the demand.

Offering the shoes at market value would eliminate mobs and mob violence at shoe stores.

Why is Nike making "limited edition" shoes? This too could be the cause of mob violence. Planed shortages are not a good idea in the free market.

In the justification for gun control, a thesis statement must be made. It states, "you have a gun I don't want you to have, give me your gun or I will kill you with my gun." The only variation to the statement is "you have guns we don't want you to have, give our agents your guns or our agents will kill you with their guns."

Taking the second part of the thesis first; "give me your gun I will kill you with my gun," says "I'm allowed to do the thing you're not allowed to do and, you're not allowed to do it under penalty of pain." This is an example of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy isn't just being inconsistent it includes the element of pain. You have to be willing to harm someone who has done no harm in order to prevent him from doing the same thing you're doing.

The first part of the statement "you have a gun I don't want you to have" assumes malicious or criminal intent on the gun owner's part. If you assume criminal intent, you don't have to prove it. And, without proving criminal intent the "presumption of innocence" no longer exists. How do you  distinguish between a crime and an accident or even ignorance without proving criminal intent?

Some people will say "I only want gun registration." This is as bad as an outright ban. It is an admission on the registrar's part that he does not believe a gun owner has criminal intent. "Describe your gun to me and pay me a little money and I will allow you to keep your gun." That's extortion! How does someone rise to the position of being the arbiter of someone else's freedom? The Constitution neither gives government the power to increase it's own power nor any individual person power above any other's. That power is retained by the people in the Ninth Amendment.

Another argument that is waged is the "gotcha" argument. "Do you believe people should be allowed to own machine guns, rockets, cannons etc?" It makes no difference what I believe. People will only arm themselves to the extent to meet the perceived threat.

I have a "gotcha" question too. How many people are you willing to kill for the sole purpose of disarming them?

 

Throughout history, monarchs, dictators, despots, and others enacted laws to pass judgement on people for the purpose of controlling their lives, liberty, and property. When the United States came into existence our founding fathers, in effect, said "we are going to pass judgement on law" to protect individual life, liberty, and property. This had never been done before and is the reason America is exceptional.

The Rule of Law

How do you pass judgement on law? You ask. What is commonly said is "we live in a nation of law, we are governed by law, the law rules." What should be said is "we live in a nation of law not of men, the law rules." Hopefully someone will ask the question "if men make the law then men rule?" The law that rules, man made law, and the rule of law are not the same thing. The rule of law is the standard that is used to determine if man made law is valid.

In the rule of law; law cannot be retroactive. The founding fathers knew this when they wrote "no ex post facto law" and, it's the reason we have grandfather clauses to various laws because without them, no one would be able to plan his future knowing sometime in the future someone could pass a law undoing everything that was planed today. Law must be consistent over time.

In the rule of law; the penalty for violating the law must be foreknown. This tenant keeps political crime to a minimum. Political crime is the pre-curser to political correctness. Law must be consistent among men.

In the rule of law; Law cannot give any individual or group an advantage over any other individual or group. It's the reason there have been demands for campaign finance reform. Again, Law must be consistent among men. In order for law to give, it must first take because law has nothing. Our founding fathers chose to protect not take. How did they do it?

In the rule of law; We do not murder, steal, bear false witness against each other or, waste time coveting. (acting on jealousies) You should recognize these as four of the ten commandments. All of them start with "you shall not...." (depending on the version you read) None of them say "you shall not except under condition of." There are no conditions under which these behaviors are acceptable and, because they are unacceptable they are absolute. And, because they are absolute we have a standard on which we can base our judgements. Rational thought can now occur. Rational thought comes from the moral not the other way around. (Plato and Kant were wrong in this regard) Law must be moral.

One other item must be addressed. Violating the law is not a crime. It's what one intends to do when he violates the law that could make it a crime. It is incumbent on the accuser to prove the person who violated the law did so with criminal intent; i.e. take someone's life, liberty, or property. Without proving intent, there is no "presumption of innocence."

The word "capitalism" came into prominence around the beginning of the 20th century. It is the free market as named by it's enemies. By calling the free market, capitalism (an "ism" being a belief system) it is on par with any branch of socialism anyone can name; communism, national socialism, fabianism or any branch of socialism the progressives or, the democrats have yet to name. If we eliminate all of the "isms;" communism, national socialism, capitalism, etc, what's left? Free market or, freedom is left. The word freedomism does not exist. Freedom is not a belief system; It is a condition. You are either free or you are not!

Rush, in defending the free market institution, used capitalism which is the wrong word to use in defense of freedom. The word "Capitalism" should never be used. Capital and capitalist are good words to be used along with free market.

The president says citizen A owes person B health insurance (charity). The president and B should take citizen A to court and sue him for failure to pay. If A is, in fact, indebted to B then, B should have no problem winning a judgement against A. The president knows that pursuing this course of action will result in a loss because even though he makes his claim, he will be unable to prove his claim. Instead of suing, the president and B conspire to pass legislation to force Citizen A, under penalty of pain, to provide B charity. When B receives the the charity extorted from citizen A, B is guilty of the crime of receiving stolen goods.

It doesn't end there. Citizen A is cheated out of his day in court. He will suffer a loss without an opportunity to defend himself against the loss. There are millions of people who fall into the same category as citizen A. And, from time to time those who are in the same position as B will also fall into the same category as those with A. How can it be that everyone is required to pay what no individual can be proven to owe? How can everyone in general be held accountable for what no one in particular can be held accountable for?

B learns he can use government to extort from A to satisfy his needs, whatever they may be. And, elected representatives in government learn they can use A's resources to buy B's vote. In addition, the president is in a position to "stack the court" with judges, who are friendly to his position, to affect the outcome of any future court action.

If government contributes to charity then, every charitable organization has a claim to government money. Government cannot provide funds for every charity therefore it must, through the political process, decide which organizations must go without. My prime political axiom states "anytime you give someone the power to make your decisions for you, he will make those decisions in his own best interest." It is in the best interest of those in elected offices to make decisions that will maximize the possibility of their being re-elected.

This is how government run charities, including ObamaCare, work.

     Most of us learned during childhood that we need to trade things of equal value. The fallacy of this thinking is explained quite well in Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action, The reason trade takes place is because we value the thing we are trading for more than the thing we are trading. The person we are trading with values the thing we have to offer more than what he is wiling to trade in return. (do consider the value of goodwill when trading)

     Bruce Springsteen is angry with Ticketmaster because it allowed its subsidiary, TicketsNow, to sell his concert tickets at market value (bid price) instead of face value.

     Consider this, suppose there were five thousand seats available for his concert, and suppose there were fifteen thousand people wanting tickets. If Springsteen or his agents had put the tickets up for auction, the the price would have risen to the point where only five thousand people would have bought tickets. Springsteen, the rest of the performers, and the venue where he performed would have made the extra money. But instead, Springsteen wanted the tickets to go at face value allowing scalpers to buy up the tickets to sell above face value. The scalpers are the ones who made the extra money. Springsteen and his E Street Band were angry at the wrong people. They should have been angry at themselves for giving scalpers the opportunity to make a profit.

     Those who are opposed to free market principles will invariably turn profits over to scalpers.

We should not look at "the gap" but rather, why the rich are getting richer at a greater rate.

     Rich people are rich because they provide the goods and services the community around them desire. This is being socially responsible. Poor people are poor because they do not provide the goods or services the community around them desire. This is not being socially responsible. When we take from the rich, we impede the rich person's ability to provide goods and services and lessen his ability to be socially responsible. When we give to the poor, we reward the poor for not being socially responsible.

     Those who demand taking from one person to give to another are socially irresponsible.

     National health care is an example of the above.  By taking from a producer to pay for a less productive persons health care, government run health care advocates are willing to harm productive people in favor of those who are less productive. They are willing to harm people who have done no harm in order to take from them to give to someone else.

     If national health care is the right thing to do, then just do it. Laws never need to be passed to do the right thing. All anyone has to do is to find indigent americans or anyone else for that matter and put them on his health care insurance policy. No one is stopping anyone from doing this. (the insurance companies maybe? Write a separate policy.) Advocates won't take the lead by paying for the care of others, no, they want to force others, under penalty of pain, to care for those who can't or won't pay full fare.

     Privately run charities have worked well in the past. We need to return to them.