Capital Punishment

When you hear Capital Punishment, you a probably thinking about the death penalty. Well I am going to talk about the other certainty of life, taxes. The tax burden in the US is not the heftiest in the world, but that does not mean it is small. It is most of it you just don’t see, but you pay it none the less. A good chunk of your taxes are paid before you have the chance to feel the money, in payroll deductions. So how much are you really paying? The average tax burden in 2008 was 28.2%¹³. What does this mean? In short nearly 1/3 of what you earn goes to taxes, lets see how.

Say you want to buy a new TV. You find a nice flat screen at a local retailer, just what you where looking for. It cost $999.99 dollars for the TV, but you know you have to account for sales tax, thinking it will only minimize the overall increase of your purchase you get it. But how much did it really cost you? How much Tax did you just pay to get this new TV? Well it was not just sales tax, it was not just taxes at all. Lets look at what it REALLY cost, and how much tax you really just paid to get this treat!

Gerrymander against the Democratic System.

If you have ever looked at Congressional or even perhaps State Districts, you may have noticed that some seem to form peculiar shapes. Why would who ever draws these do that and not make them more like, well a box? The answer is simple, it is called a Gerrymander, drawing these political districts in such a manner that gives an advantage of one group of people over another to ensure the highest probability that a candidate of this specific group is elected to that office.

While I watched the results of the 2010 National Elections on TV, one commentator’s statement struck me more than any other one made that night. “Now that they have the power during redistricting”, in other words, to Gerrymander Congressional Districts to their favor.

Gerrymandering can undermine the entire electorate, have results that do not represent the people as a whole, can be used to consolidate power to one group or small number of groups or one party. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of it is, instead of the people voting and choosing who their politician will be, it is politicians choosing who will vote for them or their group or party.

House of Representatives Reapportionment

With the 2010 Election winding down, and still several races still undecided. 2010 also marks the the once a decade census. How does one have to to deal with the other? Reapportionment of US Representatives to States happens in 2011 with redistricting in states happening and being finished in time for the 2012 election cycle.

If you have watched the new, perhaps you have heard about the consequences of state legislature and governorships importance in the past election, because they will deal with how districts are drawn. Typically the party in power gets to draw the districts, and it is almost a given, they will draw them to their parties advantage, that is they will choose who gets to vote for the ones they like, otherwise called a Gerrymander.

The Gerrymander [who James Madison was almost casualty of in Virginia for the 1st Congress, when his district was drawn to PREVENT him from being elected, which he still was] is an absurd idea. Politicians should not be able to select who gets to vote for them, the voters should choose who they get to vote for. Their should be no such thing as a "safe" district, the more competitive the district, the better it is for the district and the people as a whole.

The results of this election should not matter in redistricting. Districts should simply be drawn to ensure equal numbers of voters in all districts of the state, and then let the people of the district choose who they want. They should not be drawn to ensure the higher probability of a particular party being elected, by choosing who gets to vote for them. Let the Republic live up to its name, and be representative of the people, not a politicians desire.

General Welfare (Part 4) Final Drafts and Debates of the Convention

After the Committee of Detail presented its final draft of a Constitution to the Convention on August 6th (as discussed in Part 3), debates began on the various aspects, provisions and clauses. The Constitution presented contained 23 Articles, with Article VII representing what would become Article I Sections 8, the Section that contains “general welfare”. Article VII of the proposed Constitution contains the enumerated powers as well as prohibitive powers similar to what would end up being Article I Section 9, among others.

Article VII Section Clause 1 reads:

• The legislature of the United States shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.

Just as with the following 17 clauses after this clause, general welfare or any similar variant does not appear anywhere within these 18 clauses.

It would not be until the next day a reference to General welfare in some would appear, but it would be tied to Article III of the proposed Constitution. Article III concerned establishing the Legislature to consist of two bodies, each having a negative on the other [not giving assent to the others bills], and when it should meet.

General Welfare (Part 3) Debates in Convention, Committee of Detail

As already discussed [in Part 2]on July 26th, the Convention broke into Committee of Detail [selected July 24th] until August 6th. The Committee consisted of five members Oliver Ellsworth (Connecticut) Nathaniel Gorham (Massachusetts) Edmund Randolph (Virginia) John Rutledge (South Carolina) James Wilson (Pennsylvania). The purpose of this committee was to make a draft constitution for the Convention as agreed to through this point of debating. Max Farrands records on the Convention contain James Wilson’s [Pennsylvania] notes from the committee, the only records of the committee that may in fact be available from the committee. James Madison’s Notes [Virginia] do not contain the committee with July 26th-Aug 6th having no entries, similarly Rufus King [Massachusetts] from July 15-Aug 7th. James McHenry [Maryland] did not return to the Convention until Aug 6th, after departing for personnel reason in Jun. Robert Yates [New York] last entry in from July 5th, before departing the convention, William Pierce [Georgia] does not address the Committee, nor does William Patterson [New York], or Alexander Hamilton [New york], though several do mention the committee did take place during this time, these are among the most common records of the convention itself.