Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: A Bill to end Federal expenditures promoting the production of art

  1. #1

    Default A Bill to end Federal expenditures promoting the production of art

    .

    Should the Freedom Caucus sponsor the following bill?




    A BILL

    To return integrity to the Congress of the United States by ending un-constitutional Federal expenditures promoting the production of art


    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,



    SECTION 1. Short title.


    This Act may be cited as the “Restoring constitutional limits on federal spending by ending federal expenditures to fund the production of “art” Act of 2017.


    SEC. 2. Findings.


    Congress finds the following:


    (1) That a fundamental principle of constitutional construction requires an adherence to the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.


    (2) That after reading the text of our Constitution and reviewing the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified, there is no wording to be found beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, nor anything to be found during the debates which framed and ratified our written Constitution, which justifies or authorizes Congress to tax for and appropriate federal revenue to promote the production of “art”.


    (3) That indeed, our federal Constitution is crystal clear and declares, Congress has power “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”. But it goes on to explain exactly how this may be done: “. . . by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”


    (4) That to continue funding for the production of art, which has given us such things as Andres Serrano's anti-Christian bigotry called "P*** Christ"; Robert Mapplethorpe’s homosexual display called “The Perfect Moment”; Annie Sprinkle’s pornographic performances at a New York theater; Karen Finley, “the nude, chocolate smeared women”; Kyle Abraham’s “The Watershed and When the Wolves Came In” focusing on sexual identity; a 2016 festival for sexual deviant singing groups who appeared in a “flash mob” in Denver; taxpayer financing for a sexual deviant festival in San Francisco; funding for the Feminist Press at the City University of New York to digitize classic LGBT titles; an open mic group in D.C for story telling about “***** Culture in America"; and the latest venomous and hateful smut on display financed by tax revenue being Shakespeare In Central Park depicting the violent murder of President Trump ___ it is time to admit our Founders were absolutely correct to limit Congress’ power to “… securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”


    (5) That federal funding of the “arts” has given rise to a self-evident abridgement of the “freedom of speech” in that government uses its taxing power to tax A, and then arbitrarily and at government discretion hands this revenue over to B which allows B to spread and broadcast his/her expressions, opinions and feelings in a more forceful manner than A, who has been taxed, even if A finds B’s expressions, opinions and feelings offensive and abhorrent. Are we to forget the wise words of Thomas Jefferson who stated the following? ”That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. . .”



    SEC. 3. Now, therefore


    (1) Upon passage of this Act in Congress Assembled and the President’s approval, there shall be no more federal revenue appropriated from the Treasury of the United States to fund the production of “art”.


    SEC. 4. Rule of Construction.


    Nothing in this Act shall be construed to forbid Federal funding of Congress’ constitutionally authorized functions so long as they are found within the text of our Constitution and its documented “legislative intent” which give context to its text.


    _________


    JWK


    "To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, [for the production of their “art”] to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Association v.Topeka,(1875).



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    It needs a provision to abolish the National Endowment For The Arts.
    “Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

    Robert A. Heinlein

    "Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler"

    Groucho Marx

    “If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.”

    Lewis Carroll

    “I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.”

    Linus Van Pelt, from the Peanuts comic strip by Charles M. Schulz

  4. #3

    Default

    $#@! NO. That's one of the worst articles in the CONstitution. What kind of "freedom" caucus wants the regime ever-more entangled in the daily affairs of Muricans?
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    $#@! NO. That's one of the worst articles in the CONstitution. What kind of "freedom" caucus wants the regime ever-more entangled in the daily affairs of Muricans?
    Huh? The Bill proposed to end our federal government funding the production of "art".


    JWK

  6. #5

    Default

    A Bill to end Federal expenditures [snip]

    Should the Freedom Caucus sponsor the following bill?

    No further reading required.

  7. #6

    Default

    More government to combat government is folly. Just cut out the perverted pictures and statues.

    No need to waste time and money with a bill. Just say *Sorry perverts and weirdos. No more molestation of children. No more money for you. Get a real job.*
    Last edited by Iowa; 07-17-2017 at 05:16 AM.

  8. #7

    Default

    cut them out , then they will have more money to send to the middle east .

  9. #8

    Default Why end federal funding promoting the production of "art"?

    Aside from the apparent un-constitutionality of Congress financing the promotion of “art”, there are a number of unassailable reasons for our Republican Controlled Congress to grow a spine and propose a Bill to end our federal government taxing and spending to promote the production of “art”.

    See: Ten Good Reasons to Eliminate Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts

    Reason #1: The Arts Will Have More Than Enough Support without the NEA

    Reason #2: The NEA Is Welfare for Cultural Elitists

    Reason #3: The NEA Discourages Charitable Gifts to the Arts

    Reason #4: The NEA Lowers the Quality of American Art

    Reason #5: The NEA Will Continue to Fund Pornography

    Reason #6: The NEA Promotes Politically Correct Art

    Reason #7: The NEA Wastes Resources

    Reason #8: The NEA Is Beyond Reform

    Reason #9: Abolishing the NEA Will Prove to the American Public that Congress Is Willing to Eliminate Wasteful Spending

    Reason #10: Funding the NEA Disturbs the U.S. Tradition of Limited Government


    JWK



    ”That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. . .” Jefferson, "A Bill For establishing religious freedom."

  10. #9

    Default The case against federal funding of the “arts”

    .

    With regard to the constitutionality of our federal government financing the promotion of "art", take note that those members of Congress who supported taxing and spending as proposed in the Arts and Humanities Act refused to offer a constitutional amendment granting power to Congress to tax and spend for the promotion of art. Instead, they chose to ignore our written Constitution and its limited power to promote the “Progress of Science and useful Arts “. . . by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”


    And why did out Founders refuse to grant the power which Congress usurped when passing the A&H Act? One of our forefathers sums it up in the following eloquent words which have come to pass:

    "The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.” See: Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Representative Page

    And what has the passage of the Arts and Humanities Act given us? It has given us such things as Andres Serrano's anti-Christian bigotry called "P*** Christ"; Robert Mapplethorpe’s homosexual display called “The Perfect Moment”; Annie Sprinkle’s pornographic performances at a New York theater; Karen Finley, “the nude, chocolate smeared women”; Kyle Abraham’s “The Watershed and When the Wolves Came In” focusing on sexual identity; a 2016 festival for sexual deviant singing groups who appeared in a “flash mob” in Denver; taxpayer financing for a sexual deviant festival in San Francisco; funding for the Feminist Press at the City University of New York to digitize classic LGBT titles; an open mic group in D.C for story telling about “***** Culture in America"; and the latest venomous and hateful smut on display financed by tax revenue being Shakespeare In Central Park depicting the violent murder of President Trump ___ it is not time to admit our Founders were absolutely correct to limit Congress’ power to “… securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”?

    But even if we ignore how the passage of the Act has resulted in the above perversions of art and raised a swarm of sycophants who shamelessly feed at our public trough, there is a more important reason for ending Congress financing the promotion of “art”.

    Federal funding of the “arts” has given rise to a self-evident abridgement of “freedom of speech” in that government uses its taxing power to tax A, and then arbitrarily and at government discretion hands this revenue over to B which allows B to spread and broadcast his/her expressions, opinions and feelings in a more forceful manner than A, who has been taxed, even if A finds B’s expressions, opinions and feelings offensive and abhorrent. Are we to forget the wise words of Thomas Jefferson who stated the following? ”That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. . .”

    And, are we to forget what our Supreme Court has stated? "To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen [a working person’s earned wage] and with the other to bestow upon favored individuals, [for the production of their “art”] to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less a robbery because it is done under forms of law and called taxation."____ Savings and Loan Association v.Topeka,(1875).


    Why are there so many who support taxing A to finance B's propagation of opinions and expressions which obviously results in tyranny and robbery?


    JWK



    They are neither “liberals” nor “progressives”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use government force to steal and then enjoy the property which labor, business and investors have worked to create.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Huh? The Bill proposed to end our federal government funding the production of "art".


    JWK
    Ooops, that should be "$#@! yes".IDK how I misread this thread so badly....I was just having a FB debate on the exact same topic at the same time with some hippie liberals who were on the other side of the debate, so I might've copypastaed on accident.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Ooops, that should be "$#@! yes".IDK how I misread this thread so badly....I was just having a FB debate on the exact same topic at the same time with some hippie liberals who were on the other side of the debate, so I might've copypastaed on accident.
    Thank you for clearing that up!


    JWK

  13. #12

    Default The case against federal funding of the “arts” continued . . .

    .

    In addition to the facts already presented as to why federal funding of the “arts” ought to be ended, let us recall what transpired during our Constitution’s framing as it applies to the subject under discussion.

    During the framing of our Constitution there were a number of powers proposed to be vested in Congress. But after our Founders examined and debated such powers, they were rejected and never made their way into our Constitution. Here are some of those proposals pertinent to our discussion which our Founders addressed and rejected. Confirmation can be verified by CLICKING HERE


    A power . . .


    "To grant charters of incorporation in cases where the public good may require them, and the authority of a single State may be incompetent"


    "To establish an University”


    "To encourage by premiums & provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries"


    "To establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts & sciences"


    "To grant charters of incorporation"


    "To establish public institutions, rewards and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, commerce, trades and manufactures"



    Eventually, our wise founding fathers, after careful deliberation and agreement, bound the hands of Congress with a specification of particulars which is found beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, for which Congress may lay and collect taxes to promote the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Not appearing on that list of particulars is a power To promote the production of “art”.


    JWK


    "In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"--- Jefferson
    Last edited by johnwk; Today at 03:47 PM.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    .

    In addition to the facts already presented as to why federal funding of the “arts” ought to be ended, let us recall what transpired during our Constitution’s framing as it applies to the subject under discussion.

    During the framing of our Constitution there were a number of powers proposed to be vested in Congress. But after our Founders examined and debated such powers, they were rejected and never made their way into our Constitution. Here are some of those proposals pertinent to our discussion which our Founders addressed and rejected. Confirmation can be verified by CLICKING HERE


    A power . . .


    "To grant charters of incorporation in cases where the public good may require them, and the authority of a single State may be incompetent"


    "To establish an University”

    "To grant charters of incorporation"
    Interestingly, Congress granted a corporate charter to Columbian College in 1821.* Its name was changed to George Washington University in 1904.

    Given that Congress' legislative powers over the District of Columbia are analogous to those of a State government, there is seemingly no constitutional issue in granting corporate charters or establishing universities in the District. Query: could Congress make arts-related grants so long as they are somehow restricted to the District?

    *The first corporation chartered by Congress was in 1791 -- the First Bank of the United States. You may recall that the legality of the Second Bank of the United States (chartered in 1814) was upheld in McCullough v. Maryland, based on the "necessary and proper" clause.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous






Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-05-2017, 01:12 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-22-2014, 11:50 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-07-2013, 12:14 AM
  4. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-16-2012, 11:48 AM
  5. Ron Paul Expenditures vs. Bachmann Expenditures
    By ord33 in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-16-2011, 06:30 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •