The Constitution Now and Then (#3)

As its first order of business in the 112th Congress, the new Republican leadership decided to read the US Constitution out loud. The implication of this reading is that the previous Congress (which was controlled by Democrats) had lost touch with the true meaning of the US Constitution.

This issue brings up a wider discussion of the term "original intent." Much debate has taken place over what our Founding fathers intended for the Constitution and whether their original intent is being followed by our current politicians. But did all our Founding Fathers agree on the original intent of the Constitution and if so can we accurately decipher what that intent was over 225 years later? Additionally, is their original intent still relevant to us in 2011?

With that said, what was the original intent of the founding fathers regarding the 2nd amendment and our right to bear arms? Here is what the 2nd amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Does this amendment refer to our personal rights to bear arms or is this a right from a bygone era where states were responsible for raising an army and protecting its people with militias.

Incidentally, the Supreme Court has not made many rulings on the 2nd amendment over the course of our history but most significantly, it did rule in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that individuals have a personal right to bear arms in federal enclaves (Washington D.C.) outside the jurisdiction of a militia. The Court will soon rule on whether individuals have that right in the 50 states.

But what would our Founding Fathers say about the status of guns in society in 2011? Would they hold true to their 18th century beliefs or would they see a need to adjust to the needs of our current society? Do we need to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government in the same way our ancestors did in the 1700s?

Current Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer argues that our Founding Fathers would support gun control.

Original intent: Federalist #29 on the militia.

Here is your task:

• Can you accurately determine what the original intent of the Founders was on the issue of gun rights? Be sure to cite your information.
• Do you believe the Founding Fathers would approach the issue of gun rights the same way today? Explain and defend yourself.

As usual stay civil and within the bounds of good taste, especially in light of the recent tragedy in Arizona.

Who's to Blame? (Post #2)

On Saturday in Tucson Arizona twenty two year old Jared Loughner committed the heinous crime of mass murder killing six and wounding fourteen including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. This tragic event was immediately blamed on the vicious and vitriolic nature of political discourse in America today. Both sides of our unbiased news media found a way to put the cause of this horrible event on each other. Did the media incite violence in this terrible event? Or, could it actually have been a sad act committed by a disillusioned psychopath unaffected by politics right or left? What do you think? Has political discourse in this country gone too far? Is there any connection to freedom of speech here? Please be respectful of other bloggers opinions. (More here, please follow the links)

What does it all mean? (post #1)

Recently the United States has experienced several fish and bird mass die offs. This has been a much discussed issue in the media. Even Jim Carey joked that the world was ending in reference to what has happened in Arkansas and Louisiana as well as other places around the country and world on Saturday Night Live. Many theories have been offered to explain these animal deaths ranging from secret weapons tests to nature to armageddon. What do you think? Please be respectful of others opinions while blogging

Wanna Fly Now? (Post 28)

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has a new policy regarding searches at US airports. Pat-downs and full body scans are now part of the routine.




Interest groups such as the ACLU are protesting the pat-down procedures.

Are you willing to allow extra security at the expense of your liberties?

Please post by the end of the week.

The Bush-Era Tax Cuts and the Nation's Economic Health (Post #27)

UPDATE: Obama has signaled a compromise has been reached with Republicans that would extend the tax cuts for all income levels but also extend unemployment benefits and provide for a temporary payroll cut on social security taxes for the middle class.

Below is a list of the main provisions of the Bush-era tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 that are set to expire on December 31, 2010:

• The two "marriage penalty elimination" provisions will expire, so that:
  • The standard deduction for married couples will fall, no longer double what it is for single filers; and
  • The ceiling of the 15% bracket for married couples will fall, no longer double what it is for single filers
• The 10% tax bracket will expire, reverting to 15%
• The child tax credit will fall from $1,000 to $500
• The tax rate on long-term capital gains earned by middle- and upper-income people would rise from 15% to 20%
• The tax rate on qualified dividends earned by middle- and upper-income people would rise from 15% to ordinary wage tax rates
• The 25% tax rate would rise to 28%
• The 28% rate would rise to 31%
• The 33% rate would rise to 36%
• The 35% rate would rise to 39.6%
• The PEP and Pease provisions would be restored, rescinding from high-income people the value of some exemptions and deductions
• The estate tax would be restored with an exemption level of $1 million and rates that top out at 55%

Here is a visual of the savings for each income bracket under the Bush tax cut and the alternative plan of the Democrats. Allowing all Bush-era tax cuts to expire will save the US government about $700 billion. It is clear that the Republican plan will save the most money for the wealthiest classes. But will those tax cuts to the wealthiest allow money to trickle-down to the rest of society?

Earlier this week the U.S. House of Representatives voted to extend the so-called Bush Era tax cuts for families making $250,000 or less. The House allowed the tax cuts to expire on those making $250,000 or more.

On Saturday, the Senate, led by Republicans, voted to not to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for those making $250,000 or less. The Republicans are playing a game of chicken. By voting no on extending the tax savings to the middle class, they are trying to push Democrats to extend the Bush-era tax cuts to all groups, including those making millions of dollars a year.

Our politicians are struggling with two polarizing concepts. One, the US economy needs a boost and extending tax cuts will increase aggregate demand and hopefully spur spending and hiring. But which groups in society should benefit from a tax cut? On the other hand, we are facing a $13 trillion debt and ending the Bush tax cuts will provide the US government with over $700 billion, helping to reduce the deficit.

Here are more detailed arguments in favor of extending or ending the tax cuts:

Arguments for allowing the tax cuts to the rich to expire.

Arguments for extending the tax cuts to the rich.

Your task:
Should the Bush-era tax cuts be extended to all groups including millionaires or only on the middle class? Or should all the Bush-era tax cuts expire?

Other questions to consider: what is a fair tax? Who should shoulder the burden of taxes in society? What is more important, balancing the budget or stimulating the economy?

Be sure to post by Wednesday, December 8 at 8:00am.