"You didn't build that ... "

[Lovely Lane]

You're kidding, right?

Since it doesn't say to do so, end of discussion.

end of discussion? we never had one.

You got to give Cesar what is his, and the government uses taxes in many ways that you and I have little say. I didn't want to fund any war's, but I did as a tax-payer. I didn't want tax dollars to be given to Wall St, but it happened.

Stop whining about tax dollars usage, the party who controls the House purse is responsible for cutting the checks which funds the government programs. So write your Congressman if you don't like where the money goes. I did, and still paid for War's, Wall St bailout and inflated Defense budget.

 

[Publius]

end of discussion? we never had one.

You got to give Cesar what is his, and the government uses taxes in many ways that you and I have little say. I didn't want to fund any war's, but I did as a tax-payer. I didn't want tax dollars to be given to Wall St, but it happened.

Yes, Jesus commanded us to render to Caesar. But there's just one small thing you're overlooking.

In our case, "Caesar" is the United States government and, unlike the literal Caesar Christ spoke about, the United States government is under the authority of the Constitution.

So the government is acting both illegally and unjustly when they act outside what the Constitution allows them to do.

While the Bible is clear that we are to render to Caesar, it is equally clear that the government is to act both legally and justly and that we are under no Biblical obligation to obey unjust or illegal laws.

That being the case, yes, we certainly can object to the government's actions, tax policies, and can work to get around them.

 

[Lovely Lane]

Yes, Jesus commanded us to render to Caesar. But there's just one small thing you're overlooking.

In our case, "Caesar" is the United States government and, unlike the literal Caesar Christ spoke about, the United States government is under the authority of the Constitution.

So the government is acting both illegally and unjustly when they act outside what the Constitution allows them to do.

While the Bible is clear that we are to render to Caesar, it is equally clear that the government is to act both legally and justly and that we are under no Biblical obligation to obey unjust or illegal laws.

That being the case, yes, we certainly can object to the government's actions, tax policies, and can work to get around them.

Well like most things, it's a matter of interpretation. And we have the SCOTUS to interpret our laws. It appears that you and SCOTUS don't see it the same way when it comes to your view of what is illegal and unjust.

 

[Publius]

Well like most things, it's a matter of interpretation.

There's nothing to interpret. The Constitution tells us specifically what the government can do and anything that is not enumerated, they cannot do.

You don't extend your argument to other areas of your life, do you? If you go to court for running a stop sign, do you really argue that you were right to run the stop sign because the sign only said "STOP", it didn't say "DON"T GO"?

All throughout our history, it's been enumerated powers, not implied powers or we-can-do-it-until-you-prove-we-can't powers.

This idea that the government can do whatever they want until the Supreme Court says they can't and then they'll just do an end run around the Constitution and the SCOTUS ruling didn't happen until very recently in our history.

Is that a fact?

That is a fact.

That's funny. And how do you know about my life? That's strange.

I never said anything about your life. I just asked a question. If you can't answer it, just say so.

seems like the power comes from somewhere, the source maybe the Constitution but the interpretation comes from SCOTUS.

The problem is that there's nothing in that clause to interpret.

You seem to be a scholar of the Constitution, so what was it that had the founding fathers create a judicial branch, (Article III)? And what role do you believe that Judicial Review has contributed to 'government of the people' since the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision?

First of all, if you want to discuss case law, then answer my question first.

Second, you can't even get the basics right, so I'm not really sure what the point of getting into some of the more advanced stuff would be.

 

[Lovely Lane]

There's nothing to interpret.

Is that a fact?

The Constitution tells us specifically what the government can do and anything that is not enumerated, they cannot do.

Seriously? Loose constructionist, strict constructionist, it's all the same to me.

You don't extend your argument to other areas of your life, do you? If you go to court for running a stop sign, do you really argue that you were right to run the stop sign because the sign only said "STOP", it didn't say "DON"T GO"?

That's funny. And how do you know about my life? That's strange.

All throughout our history, it's been enumerated powers, not implied powers or we-can-do-it-until-you-prove-we-can't powers.

seems like the power comes from somewhere, the source maybe the Constitution but the interpretation comes from SCOTUS.

This idea that the government can do whatever they want until the Supreme Court says they can't and then they'll just do an end run around the Constitution and the SCOTUS ruling didn't happen until very recently in our history.

You seem to be a scholar of the Constitution, so what was it that had the founding fathers create a judicial branch, (Article III)? And what role do you believe that Judicial Review has contributed to 'government of the people' since the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision?