Economy Trump Plans to Sign $2.7 Trillion Budget

[Problem Child]

The Bernie Medicare for all plan would cost 4 trillion a year for 10 years.

Trump budget= fiscal conservatism.

 

[panamaican]

No, that is complete nonsense. At the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment (1868) state abortion restrictions were widespread. By the end of the 19th Century, with the 14th Amendment in full effect, abortion was a statutory crime everywhere in the United States. There is no evidence from the ratification debates on the 14th Amendment to suggest that its authors or the ratifying state legislatures believed the 14th Amendment applied to abortion. I am not aware of any successful federal challenges to state abortion laws on 14th Amendment grounds until Roe 105 years later.

Are you reading your link? (I'm going to paraphrase since I can't copy/paste)

Pg. 1780 - ...acceptance of abortion normal in common law of both England and United States.
Pg. 1780 - ...abortion not criminal under common law.
Pg. 1780 - ....the quickening (when the woman feels the fetus first move) is the cutoff. Not a crime prior to.
Pg. 1781 - ... some states dissented and passed anti-abortion laws that contravened the common law.
Pg.1783 - ...criminal statute by end of 19th century.

So, if we're reading that properly, abortion was not a criminal act when the nation was founded. It was normal under common law, both in the U.S. and England. It was only later that states, but not the federal government, increasingly encroached on the ability of women to have abortions.

So, under an originalist interpretation, abortion is a non-criminal act that the government was not regulating. There's nothing to suggest that at the rime of founding, either the fed or the states saw abortion as something the government was to regulate. The states attempted to contravene this longstanding practice over time. The fed, rightly, did not. The 14th Amendment forces the states to adhere to the protections on individual freedom that they had gradually abandoned, which would include how they regulate abortion.

If the Constitution protects a right to privacy and personal autonomy, as stated in Lawrence v. Texas and the history of abortion in the common law pretty then I think an originalist interpretation pretty much leaves us with the position that abortion is protected under the Constitution.

 

[MiniCraque]

The deficit has nothing to do with inflation. You mean printing money to pay for the deficit and therefor increasing the money supply. Borrowing money can also pay for the deficit and doesn't really increase the money supply.

Inflation depends on the change in money supply AND the velocity of money. Printing money to pay for the deficit (which isn't borrowing money) doesn't necessarily increase the velocity of money.

Btw -- there are different definitions of money supply. Inflation usually uses the M3 definition.

So if you're increasing the money supply but inflation isn't going up then velocity of money isn't changing (either the money is just sitting there somewhere or the added money is circulating and economic activity is just slowing down in general).

This is incorrect. Inflation isn't just about the money supply, it's ultimately about aggregate demand. Driving up demand through G (as in C + I + G + Nx) can result in inflationary pressure depending on the shape and level of excess capacity.

That's not to say it will happen, but rising price levels are a possible result of increased government spending.

 

[waiguoren]

Are you reading your link? (I'm going to paraphrase since I can't copy/paste)

Pg. 1780 - ...acceptance of abortion normal in common law of both England and United States.
Pg. 1780 - ...abortion not criminal under common law.
Pg. 1780 - ....the quickening (when the woman feels the fetus first move) is the cutoff. Not a crime prior to.
Pg. 1781 - ... some states dissented and passed anti-abortion laws that contravened the common law.
Pg.1783 - ...criminal statute by end of 19th century.

So, if we're reading that properly, abortion was not a criminal act when the nation was founded. It was normal under common law, both in the U.S. and England. It was only later that states, but not the federal government, increasingly encroached on the ability of women to have abortions.

So, under an originalist interpretation, abortion is a non-criminal act that the government was not regulating. There's nothing to suggest that at the rime of founding, either the fed or the states saw abortion as something the government was to regulate. The states attempted to contravene this longstanding practice over time. The fed, rightly, did not. The 14th Amendment forces the states to adhere to the protections on individual freedom that they had gradually abandoned, which would include how they regulate abortion.

If the Constitution protects a right to privacy and personal autonomy, as stated in Lawrence v. Texas and the history of abortion in the common law pretty then I think an originalist interpretation pretty much leaves us with the position that abortion is protected under the Constitution.

Originalism doesn't mean "the laws in 2019 are the same as they were in 1787". That would be absurd, and no one thinks that way. Originalism means:

• (1) all existing statutes should be interpreted as written (i.e., adding no extra-textual meaning) and all terms should be interpreted according to the meaning that the relevant legislature or other legislative body assigned them at the time of passage (i.e., the meaning of legal terms does not "evolve" through time).
  
• (2) the structure of the US government is exactly that which the US Constitution described in 1787, except for structure-modifying amendments ratified under any Article V process (e.g., 11th Amendment, 17th Amendment) and except possibly for structure inherited from the Articles of Confederation or common law (see for example the logic of the majority opinion in the recent case of California Tax Franchise Board v Hyatt).

That's my definition and I think it's basically consistent with what you'll find in any quality source.

There is no evidence whatsoever that those state legislators who ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868 believed that the 14th Amendment contained an implicit "right to privacy", let alone a nationwide right to an abortion. On the contrary, most of the states which ratified the 14th Amendment had statutory abortion restrictions at the time of ratification and yet none of them overturned these restrictions in response to ratification. No contemporaneous federal court overturned state abortion restrictions on 14th Amendment grounds. Given the above, your conclusion fails under (1). Furthermore, the federalist structure of the US government (2) codified in the 10th Amendment and elucidated in The Federalist No. 45 and the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions makes it crystal clear that only states---not the federal government---have authority to regulate abortion.

As I noted in my previous post, it took until 1973 for the Supreme Court to discover an implicit right to abortion in the 105-year-old text of the 14th Amendment. Discovering new "rights" in old texts is anathema to originalism and, more broadly, common sense.