well said Nico.
As Will Rogers used to say,
It ain’t what people don’t know that bothers me.
It’s what they know for damn sure that just ain’t true that bothers me.
There are a lot of folks that are absolutly certain about things that just aren’t true.
Everyone has an opinion, but few support those opinions with fact. Policy arguments make for the juiciest of conversations, and few enjoy discussions over the difference between black and white. The crowd favorite is usually the grey area in between. One example I like to use is that of the Constitution. I hear people using the Constitution in arguments all the time. Sometimes it’s used correctly, sometimes it’s not. I always like to ask people how much basic info they know about the Constitution, just to test their knowledge of the very powerful document. First off, when was it written? Some people think 1776, and are surprised to learn that it wasn’t. The Constitution wasn’t ratified until 13 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, and was somewhat of a “reset button” after a failed attempt at government for the new world. Our founding fathers did away with its predecessor (the Articles of Confederation) and were able to have their new version implemented. The main idea behind the Constitution was one Federal government, mainly because they needed one form of money. In the 7 articles that make up the constitution, they did not include one that relates to individual freedoms (directly at least), it was all about the government and its structure as well as its power. Some people wonder how they knew that those seven articles were so bullet proof and think that they must have had a window to the future, well, a lot of the articles address many of the issues they faced in those 13 years under the AoC. (But hey, these guys were no joke, serious visionaries) Now, the amendments are full of all the fun stuff, including the Bill of Rights and of course the very successful 18th amendment (joke). Some people also don’t know that the Constitution only protects citizens from abuse from government. For example, if an employee is at work (private employer) and posts a picture supporting chocolate lovers (anything for that matter) and his/her boss hates chocolate and makes the employee take it down because company policy says that no one in the office can advocate or support anything that has to do with chocolate, this employee may be up in arms, but he/she does not have a constitutional claim against their employer for violation their first amendment rights. Now, if the employer was a government entity, then yes. You can only bring a claim under the Constitution if your rights are violated by government. Now, that’s not to say that Mr. Anti-chocolate boss won’t be held liable, there may be some enacted law that protects citizens’ rights from private employers, but that won’t be an argument under the Constitution. So next time you hear, “that’s unconstitutional”, ask yourself… is it?
Well, my example is fairly drawn out, but I believe that if you are going to make an argument, or form an opinion, it’s important to know what you’re talking about, nothing is worse than an empty argument or an opinion without a solid foundation. If I don’t know, I don’t argue. Do you always know the facts that support your opinions? How important do you think it is to be able to support it yourself with facts and evidence, not just because everyone else does?
well said Nico.
So If a government agency, say the IRS, practices discrimination -“treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual” that agency is breaking ones constitutional rights- correct?
So even if the Tea Party groups did not qualify for tax exemptions, the fact that they were singled out and evaluated in a way different from other applicants would qualify as discrimination, right? If this is correct, why are the legislators focusing on the tax angle and not the discrimination angle?
Just curious. Seems the subject would have more strength if they actually used the ‘d’ word.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.