"The Buffet Rule" Should be Implemented by the Federal Government

I am glad to see my opponent was able to work his schedule to give a more in-depth rebuttal to my arguments. It will certainly add to the value of the discussion. My opponent has pointed out that had I continued to read on in Justice Story's Commentaries, I would clearly see that his Honor agrees with Con's position on Article 1, Section 8 "The General Welfare Clause". The minor point is that § 906 comes well before my citation of §954 in Story's work, not after, but this has no bearing on the veracity of his argument. I will have to agree that indeed § 906 of Commentaries does quite clearly state that the General Welfare clause was not intended to be an independent and substantive grant of power. It was not intended to create an unlimited national government. This interpretation of Story's work is not in question, especially when this is precisely what I've said from the beginning. However, my opponent goes further. He claims Story "does in fact agree with my interpretation of the General Welfare clause as not granting any power to Congress accept[sic] for those specifically enumerated within the clause". My opponent suggested I should have read on a bit further in Story's work, however it is in fact my opponent that should have done as he suggested. Had he done so, he would have seen that Story actually agrees with my position, not his. Sections 907 through 911 and beyond , show this to be the case. Let me quote an excerpt from § 910: "§ 910. It is no sufficient answer to say, that the clause ought to be regarded, merely as containing 'general terms, explained and limited, by the subjoined specifications, and therefore requiring no critical attention, or studied precaution;' because it is assuming the very point in controversy, to assert, that the clause is connected with any subsequent specifications. It is not said, to 'provide for the common defence, and general welfare, in manner following, viz.,' which would be the natural expression, to indicate such an intention." [1] What Story is saying here, is that were the Constitution written to only give the Federal Government the specific enumerated powers and nothing more, they would have used different language. Story was a Conservative according to the politics of his time, but his work was not considered to be overly partisan. His judgment of the "General Welfare" clause was to give a swift kick in the pants to both extremes of the political spectrum. As my opponent so eloquently put it, it was not a substantial power grab, as the Federalist would want it to be. However, according to Story, it also was not (as Madison argued) limiting the Federal Government to only the enumerated powers. Political Science Professor John Vile also cites Justice Story as arguing with the likes of Alexander Hamilton's position which opposed Madison [2]. I am not surprised that Madison agrees with my opponent. History shows the Founders were split on how strong the Federal Government should be, which is why they broke off into the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Our country can often be defined by this struggle between these two groups, and it by no means is the struggle over. It is my contention that the Constitution was a compromise between the two, allowing for the two sides to pull at one another so that neither side would win out overall. That is how I also believe it should be. My opponent, however, would seem to be arguing that it was an open-and-shut case: The Anti-Federalists won, their interpretation reigned supreme, and the Federalists ran home with their tail tuck between their legs. In reality, as I said, it has always been a struggle. Technically, from an historical perspective, the Federalists have had a judicial edge, with cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland [3] giving Congress powers not explicitly granted in the enumerated powers. Since our legal system works off of precedent, what I suggested is in fact legal, regardless of what my opponent has to say about the Constitution. Con has challenged me to show where there would be any limit to Federal Power. If my interpretation is true, then the Federal Government can mandate exercise or the eating of vegetables. My opponent misses the word "provide" in Article 1, Section 8. Regulating how people act against each other, and giving services to the public, fit nicely with this word. Telling people what to do in their personal lives (assuming it doesn't directly affect others [i.e. making a bomb]) does not fit under that definition. However, this topic is little more than a red herring. My suggestions were little more than that: suggestions. The intent was to show what exactly 4 billion dollars a year could buy; even by my opponents reading of the Constitution there are still things we need to buy. Without that, there is still debt to pay down, and while it won't make a large contribution, as I said (and my opponent agreed*) every little bit helps. Then there's my opponent's rebuttal that the Buffet Rule is not fair. Now I will note my opponent has agreed that a progressive tax rate is fair. I will also note that his only attempt at a system that would raise more income while being more fair than the Buffet Rule, removing all tax in favor of a single Consumption tax, was rebutted by me as being unfair to the elderly and actually regressive on poor people. My opponent has had two opportunities to respond to my criticism on this and has chosen not to, so I believe that point must be conceded to me, as this is the final round. What we have left is his example with Percy. The example seems to show that someone who makes a large amount of money is not paying much more of a percent than someone who makes very little money. This is not the progressive tax structure my opponent says would indeed be fair, and as I've pointed out repeatedly, his example does not use numbers which would be affected by the Buffet Rule. When I showed the numbers that the Buffet Rule would actually have some effect on, it showed that without the rule, the burden on the lower-income worker was even greater. His latest response does not address this either, so it would seem he has no argument against the fairness of the Buffet Rule either. In the end, my opponent lays out a challenge to either prove the Federal Government has the power to do as I suggested, or to show that the Buffet Rule would make a significant contribution to the paying off the debt. The former I spent a good deal of time defending, but still assert it is irrelevant to whether the Buffet Rule should be passed. The latter, is guilty of moving the goal posts. My opponent has already agreed* that every little bit helps, so if in response to the resolution "The Buffet Rule Should Be Implemented", his is only left with "it may help a little bit, but not a lot" that is not sufficient reason to not implement the rule. It would raise 47 billion dollars, and that is a good starting point, if nothing else. I would argue that Con has not refuted all (if any) of my reasons for implementing the Buffet Rule, and has not given any sufficient reason not to implement it. I would also argue that I have outsourced him, having correctly cited Justice Story, as well as cited several court decisions and scholarly works in my favor. I urge you to vote "Pro" in all applicable areas. A sincere thank you to my opponent for his time and effort. [1] Story, Joseph L., Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. (1833) § 907 - § 911, Retrieved from:http://www.lonang.com... [2] Vile, John R. The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of America's Founding. p 302 Retrieved from: http://books.google.com... [3] http://www.lawnix.com... * "The problem with the thought process is not that every little bit doesn't count, because it does."