Apparently, the Louisiana purchase fell under under the treaty-making clause of the Constitution. Which is FAR less of a stretch than any recent “interstate commerce” decision of the Supreme Court.
Well, then this sounds like it might need some looking into.
Does anyone know of any supreme court decisions upholding congresses ability to pass laws providing for the general welfare?
How many legs does a dog have if the Supreme Court decided that the tail is a leg?
Distilling a complex subject such as Constitutional interpretation down to a simple matter? Check.
I’d still like to hear how they rationalized it if it’s opposed to what the constitution says.
On further thought, he’s lamenting that the Constitution was interpreted in the way that it was interpreted. They same way we appear to be interpreting it now. Perhaps they should have been a little more clear when writing that section.
Right. We ALREADY have a progressive tax system. That’s the status quo. To make it MORE progressive pits class against class.
With your second point, I would meet you in the middle and say that it is difficult, but not impossible to change classes. That being said, some poor schlub working for 9 bucks an hour sure can’t see that light at the end of the tunnel. For him, it’s rich v. poor and this tax plan promotes that.
I’ve never understood why Jefferson gets the historical ballbuster for the Louisiana Purchase. Sure, acquiring new territory isn’t mentioned in the constitution.
So is that power reserved to the states or the people under the 10th? No. States can’t enter treaties with foreign nations. The people? How would they do that? Possibly through their elected representatives in Congress?
To his credit, Jefferson did talk about an amendment to give him that power, but his advisers worried that the opportunity might pass in the interim.
I don’t see the equivalency between doubling the size of the country for pennies in a one time transaction versus enacting vast social programs that continue forever.
I never argued any equivalency; I argued that Jefferson was very flexible in interpreting enumerated powers when it suited him.
Disagree. That implies that Jefferson was looking at the text of the Constitution, twisting and turning it for his own political devices and pet programs.
In one circumstance, Jefferson went ahead with something obvious to everyone that was in our best interests, but still did so with apprehension that he could be violating the constitution. So, he made a judgment call to proceed with reservations.
In other words, he wasn’t “flexible” because it “suited him.” He reluctantly did it because it was obviously the best course for everyone, and it was still questionable that it was a violation.
Would a President be justified in making a judgement about legislation on that same basis today?
By that argument, making it less progressive would also do so, would it not? So, were Bush’s tax cuts “class warfare”? If they were, then shouldn’t we end that warfare as soon as possible?
(I just gotta chime in)
other presidents yes, clearly not THIS current president. 
So ANY time there is a change to tax rates, a class war has de facto broken out? The US is pretty much continually at war with itself then, as the amount of $$ it takes to put you in a particular tax bracket changes every single year. Also, as Chronos has pointed out, Bush’s tax cuts must have been by definition “class war” as well.
If any adjustment to the tax code leads to the term “class warfare”, then Paul Ryan’s statement does not have any meaning at all, other than to stir things up for political gain.
You could argue that it would be bringing the classes closer together, thereby brokering a truce in the “warfare.” Unless you are arguing that the poor would be pitted against the rich in a “they are still paying much, much higher, but just not as high as they used to” battle.
It depends on the situation, how questionable the violation might be, and the agreement of others. Remember, Jefferson needed 2/3s of the Senate to ratify the Louisiana Purchase. Whatever trap I might be walking into (:)) if Obama can get 67 Senators, then my answer is “yes”.
No. When there is a change in tax rates, there should be a change in tax rateS. Note the S. Every bracket needs to be changed. When you do so, it is “class-neutral”. When you specifically raise only a particular bracket, thus targeting ONLY one “class” - that’s “class warfare”. Pure and simple.
No, bringing the classes closer together is exactly what Obama’s proposing, that started this whole tempest in a teapot. Bush’s changes were driving the classes further apart.
OK, let’s raise the taxes on the rich and lower them on everyone else.
So then the lower tax rate for capital gains (which clearly favors the weathy class as the poor do not have assets that gain in value) is an example of “class warfare” against the poor then, yes? Are you currently agitating to have capital gains taxed at the same rate as salary income?
Capital gains rate for the “poor” is already 0. Cannot be lowered.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to pay income tax on capital gains.”