| Author | Post |
|---|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18th, 2008 08:26 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: This is not to speak in favor of or denunciation of the 16th Amendment, commonly called the federal income tax amendment. It is just an interesting bit of history and prophesy. The prediction was made by Richard E. Byrd, then Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates. He made this in 1910 prior to the ratification of the 16th Amendment.
"The 16th Amendment means that the state must give up legitimate and long established source of revenue and yield it to the Federal Government. It means that the state actually invites the Federal Government to invade its territory...and to establish Federal dominion within the innermost citadel of reserved rights...A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed on every man's business...
"An army of federal inspectors, spies and detectives will descend upon the State. They will compel men of business to show their books and disclose the secrets of their affairs. They will dictate forms of bookkeeping. They will require statements and affidavits...
"When the Federal government gets a stranglehold on the individual businessman, state lines will exist nowhere but on the maps. Its agents will everywhere supervise the commercial life of the states."
This goes along with the Declaration of Independence which in part states:
"He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance."
I note two things here. 1. he said it was a long established source of revenue. and 2. he doesnt say idividual he says business. If a tax on the average workers income was long established then why would an admendment be needed? And why does he only say business? cos a business is licensed by the state and if you are licensed or foolish enough to be conned into thinking you need the states permission to do business then youve created a nexues of priviledge.
And no I dont believe the 16th was properly ratified and YES I DO BELIEVE THE SUPREME COURT WHEN IT SAYS IN SEVERAL CASES THAT THE 16TH GAVE NO NEW POWER OF TAXATION. The income tax is a fraud just like the financial system is. They are linked.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18th, 2008 06:50 pm |
|
This is not to speak in favor of or denunciation of the 16th Amendment, commonly called the federal income tax amendment. It is just an interesting bit of history and prophesy. The prediction was made by Richard E. Byrd, then Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates. He made this in 1910 prior to the ratification of the 16th Amendment.
"The 16th Amendment means that the state must give up legitimate and long established source of revenue and yield it to the Federal Government. It means that the state actually invites the Federal Government to invade its territory...and to establish Federal dominion within the innermost citadel of reserved rights...A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed on every man's business...
"An army of federal inspectors, spies and detectives will descend upon the State. They will compel men of business to show their books and disclose the secrets of their affairs. They will dictate forms of bookkeeping. They will require statements and affidavits...
"When the Federal government gets a stranglehold on the individual businessman, state lines will exist nowhere but on the maps. Its agents will everywhere supervise the commercial life of the states."
This goes along with the Declaration of Independence which in part states:
"He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance."
|
Helen here
Member
|
Posted: Fri Oct 31st, 2008 09:03 pm |
|
Hey help me under stand
If Obama and his wife file taxes separate , will he have pay the same taxes as Joe the plumber
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Tue Oct 28th, 2008 12:19 am |
|
| My concern comes from having the head of Ways and Means say he questiions the value of the tax breaks for 401K's. Face it, if that had been a Republican , it would have been front page news and the pundits would already equate it to being the first step in the destruction of the cherished system of retirement secuity. Since the carrot is so large (around $80 billion) , I do believe there is more than just idle talk going on here. It was a congressional hearing , after all, not an afternoon tea among friends.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 07:07 pm |
|
Good point...and, for the record, my link was not supportive of the professor, either.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 05:32 pm |
|
Hartlyboy wrote: No, Fred, I think NewsMax gets a little too far right and US News has a strong left bias . I try to get info from Journals and other reports that might be less political.
The reference I owed EarnestLi was http://www.workforce.com which is a business publication that keeps up on current events as it affects workforce management. The reference at that site is the October 16 article referencing 401K's
I read the article on your link and the one on Fred's. It seems to me that this committee heard testimony from a professor who had a suggestion for how to handle 401Ks. The suggestion was listened to, but nothing was done about it.
I don't find this alarming. I might somewhere down the line, depending what else happens. I actually like the idea of people with divergent views testifying before congressional committees.
I think it would be more honest to say that you disagree with and are concerned about this particular professor's suggestion. I do not think there is sufficient information presented (other than the professor's own conlusion, "... they are interested in pursuing it, she said.") to make any conclusions about what the committee's intentions are.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 05:03 pm |
|
No, Fred, I think NewsMax gets a little too far right and US News has a strong left bias . I try to get info from Journals and other reports that might be less political.
The reference I owed EarnestLi was http://www.workforce.com which is a business publication that keeps up on current events as it affects workforce management. The reference at that site is the October 16 article referencing 401K's
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 03:50 pm |
|
Not exactly.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/23/would-obama-dems-kill-401k-plans.html
They held hearings and invited a bunch of people to speak on retirement plans, and one professor proposed the plan HB is talking about. McDermott questioned the tax breaks for the 401Ks in that they were put in place for a reason, and he questioned whether we are getting out of it what they should, but he did not call for this specific program, which is not what you get from the Newsmax article, if that is where you got your information, HB.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 03:39 pm |
|
Ben Franklin wrote: Like he said thou thats one of the very few times JP has insulted anyone. Ever!
While you Ernie just keep going. How about a little less insulting and a little more real discussion. No ones saying dont be emotional, but really do you need to insult everyone so consistantly?
The rest of you? Why do you keep letting him bait you? You know what lets just start an insult thread so we can get it out of the system so to type. Pun intended. Dont direct them to any single person just lay them out.
Ben, isn't this exactly what I have suggested? I even put up a seperate website for this. I started a seperate topic for this. There are folks here that just like to ratchet it up. For the next week, I will oblige them if that's what they want, but I will also talk civily to anyone who cares to do so.
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 03:29 pm |
|
You all still got money in a 401k? Are you nuts? You do know that In Oct alone over 20K was evaporated out of everyones 401k.
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 03:27 pm |
|
EarnestLi wrote: Bixby wrote: Ben Franklin wrote: Actually Ernnie JP is quite knowledgable I think you mistook what he was saying. Although youre both correct on your points.
The Constitution in theory can only be changed by amendment.
however such rulings as you need to face 6 months in jail for a jury trial is clearly changing the constitution without an amendment. the 6th is very clear In ALL criminal charges you get a jury trial. oh except if youre going to family court where there are no juries. ---did you all know that?
I get both your points. Quite right, Ben. here I am agreeing with you twice in one day. I would like to add another thing. To my knowledge JP has never been uncivil to anyone nor has nhe ever insulted anyone. I don't even think he has been caustic in tone to anyone. I would probably say that he is one of the most respected persons on these may forums along with a few others. On the other hand, EarnestLi is the opposite.
How about this? "Your insults prove that you are a fool of the first order and your knowledge so scant that it defies logic."
Like he said thou thats one of the very few times JP has insulted anyone. Ever!
While you Ernie just keep going. How about a little less insulting and a little more real discussion. No ones saying dont be emotional, but really do you need to insult everyone so consistantly?
The rest of you? Why do you keep letting him bait you? You know what lets just start an insult thread so we can get it out of the system so to type. Pun intended. Dont direct them to any single person just lay them out.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 05:31 am |
|
| I'll check on which url had the 401K info and get back to you. Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 05:35 am by Hartlyboy
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 12:00 am |
|
Hartlyboy wrote: OK, nobody likes EarnestLi and he doesn't like any of you. Now , back to the original thrust of this thread, taxes.
The activity now in the House by the Democrats would really concern me if I had any 401 k money left to be taxed. The Dem chair of Ways and Means is actively discussing the abolition of the tax breaks that go with 401K money and , get this, the requirement that we each save some portion of our income for our retirement. When the Republicans suggested this it was called Privitation and it was a nasty thing. Now, the Dems are boldly proposing it because they can link that to a change in the tax laws that will give them 80 billion a year to 'redidtribute'. Talk among yourselves on that one!
Do you have a link where there is information on this?
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 11:55 pm |
|
OK, nobody likes EarnestLi and he doesn't like any of you. Now , back to the original thrust of this thread, taxes.
The activity now in the House by the Democrats would really concern me if I had any 401 k money left to be taxed. The Dem chair of Ways and Means is actively discussing the abolition of the tax breaks that go with 401K money and , get this, the requirement that we each save some portion of our income for our retirement. When the Republicans suggested this it was called Privitation and it was a nasty thing. Now, the Dems are boldly proposing it because they can link that to a change in the tax laws that will give them 80 billion a year to 'redidtribute'. Talk among yourselves on that one!
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 11:56 pm by Hartlyboy
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 08:31 pm |
|
Cobra wrote: EarnestLi wrote: Wow! Maybe I need to reconsider what I've been saying. If you agree with Bixby, then maybe I've gone too far. I mean it's not like Bixby has been calling people socialists and Marxists, is it? Not really the same. You smear for the sake of smearing. he calls it right. You are a DailyKOS flunkie. Keep trying and you may be promoted to moveon.org. Maybe even Michael Moore might take you for his next America bashing film. Maybe even Bill Mahr in his next anti religious flick. You will fit all of them.
Not really the same? Spoken like a true fascist.
|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 352 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 06:55 pm |
|
EarnestLi wrote: Wow! Maybe I need to reconsider what I've been saying. If you agree with Bixby, then maybe I've gone too far. I mean it's not like Bixby has been calling people socialists and Marxists, is it? Not really the same. You smear for the sake of smearing. he calls it right. You are a DailyKOS flunkie. Keep trying and you may be promoted to moveon.org. Maybe even Michael Moore might take you for his next America bashing film. Maybe even Bill Mahr in his next anti religious flick. You will fit all of them.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 06:48 pm |
|
Cobra wrote: EarnestLi wrote: Bixby wrote: Playing the Game wrote: "sick, twisted freak" is a term of endearment on the Glenn Beck prgram. Lighten up and disappear as promised. E distorts and twists and hurls accusations and comments as they were confetti. He uses the Saul Alinsky tactic which is so aptly described in "Rules for Radicals." E must read the book consistently since what he does is outlined in several chapters. He is an agent provocateur and serves no other purpose in these forums but to stir up dissent, conflict, and confusion. The personal attacks and insults he fires off must be something of his own choosing. He has taken over from Taos Eddy as the most distasteful person here, hands down.
I call a pig a pig. I don't believe in exchanging pleasantries with NAZIs. Bixby, you are right. His credibility here is zippo. The favorite smear of the leftists are calling someone a racist or a nazi. He always proves out what you say.
Wow! Maybe I need to reconsider what I've been saying. If you agree with Bixby, then maybe I've gone too far. I mean it's not like Bixby has been calling people socialists and Marxists, is it?
|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 352 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 06:38 pm |
|
EarnestLi wrote: Bixby wrote: Playing the Game wrote: "sick, twisted freak" is a term of endearment on the Glenn Beck prgram. Lighten up and disappear as promised. E distorts and twists and hurls accusations and comments as they were confetti. He uses the Saul Alinsky tactic which is so aptly described in "Rules for Radicals." E must read the book consistently since what he does is outlined in several chapters. He is an agent provocateur and serves no other purpose in these forums but to stir up dissent, conflict, and confusion. The personal attacks and insults he fires off must be something of his own choosing. He has taken over from Taos Eddy as the most distasteful person here, hands down.
I call a pig a pig. I don't believe in exchanging pleasantries with NAZIs. Bixby, you are right. His credibility here is zippo. The favorite smear of the leftists are calling someone a racist or a nazi. He always proves out what you say.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 06:39 pm by Cobra
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 06:18 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: Playing the Game wrote: "sick, twisted freak" is a term of endearment on the Glenn Beck prgram. Lighten up and disappear as promised. E distorts and twists and hurls accusations and comments as they were confetti. He uses the Saul Alinsky tactic which is so aptly described in "Rules for Radicals." E must read the book consistently since what he does is outlined in several chapters. He is an agent provocateur and serves no other purpose in these forums but to stir up dissent, conflict, and confusion. The personal attacks and insults he fires off must be something of his own choosing. He has taken over from Taos Eddy as the most distasteful person here, hands down.
I call a pig a pig. I don't believe in exchanging pleasantries with NAZIs.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 02:30 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: "sick, twisted freak" is a term of endearment on the Glenn Beck prgram. Lighten up and disappear as promised. E distorts and twists and hurls accusations and comments as they were confetti. He uses the Saul Alinsky tactic which is so aptly described in "Rules for Radicals." E must read the book consistently since what he does is outlined in several chapters. He is an agent provocateur and serves no other purpose in these forums but to stir up dissent, conflict, and confusion. The personal attacks and insults he fires off must be something of his own choosing. He has taken over from Taos Eddy as the most distasteful person here, hands down.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 01:03 am |
|
| "sick, twisted freak" is a term of endearment on the Glenn Beck prgram. Lighten up and disappear as promised.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 11:48 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: a sick twisted freak.
More civility. Thank God you're not a nasty mother.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 08:21 pm |
|
EarnestLi wrote: Bixby wrote: Ben Franklin wrote: Actually Ernnie JP is quite knowledgable I think you mistook what he was saying. Although youre both correct on your points.
The Constitution in theory can only be changed by amendment.
however such rulings as you need to face 6 months in jail for a jury trial is clearly changing the constitution without an amendment. the 6th is very clear In ALL criminal charges you get a jury trial. oh except if youre going to family court where there are no juries. ---did you all know that?
I get both your points. Quite right, Ben. here I am agreeing with you twice in one day. I would like to add another thing. To my knowledge JP has never been uncivil to anyone nor has nhe ever insulted anyone. I don't even think he has been caustic in tone to anyone. I would probably say that he is one of the most respected persons on these may forums along with a few others. On the other hand, EarnestLi is the opposite.
How about this? "Your insults prove that you are a fool of the first order and your knowledge so scant that it defies logic." EarnestLi, yours if just the reply I would expect from a sick twisted freak. I am not so civil as JP when I respond to uncivil people like you. If you read your own uncivil speak you may suddenly realize what you are. What he said is not uncivil at all. You are a bad spinmeister and an even worse community blogger.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 02:14 pm |
|
I'll disagree with whether that was the full intent of the founders, but it certainly has developed that way.
Laws are passed, and it is a rare law that is simply black and white. There are interpretations that have to be made....For instance, free speech. The Bill of Rights gives it to us, but it is not an unfettered right. There are limitations, and laws can be passed.
There were arguments as to which branch should be more powerful, even back then. The legislative branch would have been considered the "people's branch" and were supposed to be the primary mover, but we've evolved into our current form.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 01:40 pm |
|
A simple, profound truth:
What the Supreme Court rules as constitutional is what is constitutional under the United States Constitution.
Our founding fathers basically agreed to abide by the court's rulings in all matters. I guess they found that preferable to blood in the streets and endless revolution. As long as we all get to vote, there is always hope for a better tomorrow. That's what the real magic is in our form of government. The people can change their minds.
When all is said and done, that's what so many of our people have given their lives for over the years. That's what we are protecting; the right to change our minds.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 04:14 am |
|
| Oh well, you obviously don't pass the Hiram test.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 04:12 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: How old is your grandmother?
Take it from me, she's not your type.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 04:11 am |
|
| How old is your grandmother?
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 04:10 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Whence came you?
I come from the North, the South, the East, and the West. I'm an all around guy.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 04:04 am |
|
| Whence came you?
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 03:52 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: I guess that makes you a fool in the 32nd degree
Again, I am devastated.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 03:51 am |
|
| I guess that makes you a fool in the 32nd degree
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 03:13 am |
|
Bixby wrote: Ben Franklin wrote: Actually Ernnie JP is quite knowledgable I think you mistook what he was saying. Although youre both correct on your points.
The Constitution in theory can only be changed by amendment.
however such rulings as you need to face 6 months in jail for a jury trial is clearly changing the constitution without an amendment. the 6th is very clear In ALL criminal charges you get a jury trial. oh except if youre going to family court where there are no juries. ---did you all know that?
I get both your points. Quite right, Ben. here I am agreeing with you twice in one day. I would like to add another thing. To my knowledge JP has never been uncivil to anyone nor has nhe ever insulted anyone. I don't even think he has been caustic in tone to anyone. I would probably say that he is one of the most respected persons on these may forums along with a few others. On the other hand, EarnestLi is the opposite.
How about this? "Your insults prove that you are a fool of the first order and your knowledge so scant that it defies logic."
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 08:48 pm |
|
Ben Franklin wrote: Actually Ernnie JP is quite knowledgable I think you mistook what he was saying. Although youre both correct on your points.
The Constitution in theory can only be changed by amendment.
however such rulings as you need to face 6 months in jail for a jury trial is clearly changing the constitution without an amendment. the 6th is very clear In ALL criminal charges you get a jury trial. oh except if youre going to family court where there are no juries. ---did you all know that?
I get both your points. Quite right, Ben. here I am agreeing with you twice in one day. I would like to add another thing. To my knowledge JP has never been uncivil to anyone nor has nhe ever insulted anyone. I don't even think he has been caustic in tone to anyone. I would probably say that he is one of the most respected persons on these may forums along with a few others. On the other hand, EarnestLi is the opposite.
|
2centsworth
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 28th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 78 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 08:18 pm |
|
Ben Franklin wrote: Actually Ernnie JP is quite knowledgable I think you mistook what he was saying. Although youre both correct on your points.
The Constitution in theory can only be changed by amendment.
however such rulings as you need to face 6 months in jail for a jury trial is clearly changing the constitution without an amendment. the 6th is very clear In ALL criminal charges you get a jury trial. oh except if youre going to family court where there are no juries. ---did you all know that?
I get both your points.
Don' defend him Ben. Ernie just gets off sniping at people.
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 07:55 pm |
|
Actually Ernnie JP is quite knowledgable I think you mistook what he was saying. Although youre both correct on your points.
The Constitution in theory can only be changed by amendment.
however such rulings as you need to face 6 months in jail for a jury trial is clearly changing the constitution without an amendment. the 6th is very clear In ALL criminal charges you get a jury trial. oh except if youre going to family court where there are no juries. ---did you all know that?
I get both your points.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 05:08 pm |
|
Newshound wrote: EarnestLi wrote: Being called a fool by a fool isn't necessarily bad. Here's the bottom line. What our Supreme Court rules is what is Constitutional at the time of the ruling. Whether we like it or not, that's the way our Constitution is written.
Somethings that have been ruled unconstitutional can be changed by legislation that removes the offensive items. For instance a law that states a, b and c that was struck down because c was determined to be unconstitutional can be rewritten and c can be excluded.
Other than this, you have to either amend the Constitution or get another ruling from the Supreme Court.
If there is one thing I know JP, I know you are either not an attorney or not a very knowledgeable one. I don't think JP is arguing that at all. All he has said is that the Constitution may not be changed unless by amendment. You are replying to what has not been said and you are attempting to smear him by insinuating that he is denying the power of the SC. They do have guidelines regarding interpretation and that they just do not sit willy-nilly saying, "let's change this.." We all know that law can be challenged on constitutionality and he is not denying that. Another attempt on spin by you. For years now he has been correct on matters of law, some by case and some by opinions of the court. More knowledgeable than you from what I have read of you so far. So have at it. Insult some more with your personal attacks. Give the webmaster something to more consider.
Here's something to consider. You guys just make it up as you go along.
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1027 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 04:12 pm |
|
EarnestLi wrote: Being called a fool by a fool isn't necessarily bad. Here's the bottom line. What our Supreme Court rules is what is Constitutional at the time of the ruling. Whether we like it or not, that's the way our Constitution is written.
Somethings that have been ruled unconstitutional can be changed by legislation that removes the offensive items. For instance a law that states a, b and c that was struck down because c was determined to be unconstitutional can be rewritten and c can be excluded.
Other than this, you have to either amend the Constitution or get another ruling from the Supreme Court.
If there is one thing I know JP, I know you are either not an attorney or not a very knowledgeable one. I don't think JP is arguing that at all. All he has said is that the Constitution may not be changed unless by amendment. You are replying to what has not been said and you are attempting to smear him by insinuating that he is denying the power of the SC. They do have guidelines regarding interpretation and that they just do not sit willy-nilly saying, "let's change this.." We all know that law can be challenged on constitutionality and he is not denying that. Another attempt on spin by you. For years now he has been correct on matters of law, some by case and some by opinions of the court. More knowledgeable than you from what I have read of you so far. So have at it. Insult some more with your personal attacks. Give the webmaster something to more consider.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 03:15 pm |
|
Ben Franklin wrote: no one else wrote: BTT
Jurisprudence wrote: EarnestLi wrote: You either fail or refuse to accept and recongnize that under our Constitution the current members of the Supreme Court have the final voice on what is or is not Constitutional. There are numerous sources for how to interpret the Constitution. All that's very interesting, but when the current Court votes, that's what's Constitutional under our Constitution. The only remedy would be enacting new legislation or amending the Constitution. Your insults prove that you are a fool of the first order and your knowledge so scant that it defies logic. The Constitution cannot be remedied by legislation but only by amendment. There is already legal precedent for interpretation. Unless overturned, they must stand.
"Where the meaning of the constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose of intent not manifest in its letter." Norris v. Baltimore, 172, Md. 667; 192 A 531.0.
"If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right." Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.
"It is the peculiar value of a written constitution that it places in unchanging form limitations upon the legislation and thus gives a permanence and stability to popular government which otherwise would be lacking." Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412.
Hes right we have alot of unconstitutional stuff going on that is approved by the federal courts. a few that come to mind are; this bailout, useing the commerce clause to extend its jurisdiciton into the states, drug laws, Police officers being able to stop you without having standing, the right to bear arms unconditionally, all executive orders, all 3 letter agencies, the Federal reserve system, Taxing the pay of a worker, The FBI etc writing their own warrants and gag orders, any forced collection of tax without a court order from a court of competant jurisdiciton, the Supremes decison that I have to face 6 months jail time to be entititled to a jury trial when accused of a crime--a decison that was obviously made to keep revenue generation going, and which clearly violates the 6th
and thats just off the top of my head!
Being called a fool by a fool isn't necessarily bad. Here's the bottom line. What our Supreme Court rules is what is Constitutional at the time of the ruling. Whether we like it or not, that's the way our Constitution is written.
Somethings that have been ruled unconstitutional can be changed by legislation that removes the offensive items. For instance a law that states a, b and c that was struck down because c was determined to be unconstitutional can be rewritten and c can be excluded.
Other than this, you have to either amend the Constitution or get another ruling from the Supreme Court.
If there is one thing I know JP, I know you are either not an attorney or not a very knowledgeable one.
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 03:03 pm |
|
no one else wrote: BTT
Jurisprudence wrote: EarnestLi wrote: You either fail or refuse to accept and recongnize that under our Constitution the current members of the Supreme Court have the final voice on what is or is not Constitutional. There are numerous sources for how to interpret the Constitution. All that's very interesting, but when the current Court votes, that's what's Constitutional under our Constitution. The only remedy would be enacting new legislation or amending the Constitution. Your insults prove that you are a fool of the first order and your knowledge so scant that it defies logic. The Constitution cannot be remedied by legislation but only by amendment. There is already legal precedent for interpretation. Unless overturned, they must stand.
"Where the meaning of the constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose of intent not manifest in its letter." Norris v. Baltimore, 172, Md. 667; 192 A 531.0.
"If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right." Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.
"It is the peculiar value of a written constitution that it places in unchanging form limitations upon the legislation and thus gives a permanence and stability to popular government which otherwise would be lacking." Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412.
Hes right we have alot of unconstitutional stuff going on that is approved by the federal courts. a few that come to mind are; this bailout, useing the commerce clause to extend its jurisdiciton into the states, drug laws, Police officers being able to stop you without having standing, the right to bear arms unconditionally, all executive orders, all 3 letter agencies, the Federal reserve system, Taxing the pay of a worker, The FBI etc writing their own warrants and gag orders, any forced collection of tax without a court order from a court of competant jurisdiciton, the Supremes decison that I have to face 6 months jail time to be entititled to a jury trial when accused of a crime--a decison that was obviously made to keep revenue generation going, and which clearly violates the 6th
and thats just off the top of my head!
|
no one else
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 404 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 01:12 pm |
|
BTT
Jurisprudence wrote: EarnestLi wrote: You either fail or refuse to accept and recongnize that under our Constitution the current members of the Supreme Court have the final voice on what is or is not Constitutional. There are numerous sources for how to interpret the Constitution. All that's very interesting, but when the current Court votes, that's what's Constitutional under our Constitution. The only remedy would be enacting new legislation or amending the Constitution. Your insults prove that you are a fool of the first order and your knowledge so scant that it defies logic. The Constitution cannot be remedied by legislation but only by amendment. There is already legal precedent for interpretation. Unless overturned, they must stand.
"Where the meaning of the constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose of intent not manifest in its letter." Norris v. Baltimore, 172, Md. 667; 192 A 531.0.
"If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right." Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.
"It is the peculiar value of a written constitution that it places in unchanging form limitations upon the legislation and thus gives a permanence and stability to popular government which otherwise would be lacking." Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412.
|
Jurisprudence
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 823 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 03:12 am |
|
EarnestLi wrote: You either fail or refuse to accept and recongnize that under our Constitution the current members of the Supreme Court have the final voice on what is or is not Constitutional. There are numerous sources for how to interpret the Constitution. All that's very interesting, but when the current Court votes, that's what's Constitutional under our Constitution. The only remedy would be enacting new legislation or amending the Constitution. Your insults prove that you are a fool of the first order and your knowledge so scant that it defies logic. The Constitution cannot be remedied by legislation but only by amendment. There is already legal precedent for interpretation. Unless overturned, they must stand.
"Where the meaning of the constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose of intent not manifest in its letter." Norris v. Baltimore, 172, Md. 667; 192 A 531.0.
"If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right." Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.
"It is the peculiar value of a written constitution that it places in unchanging form limitations upon the legislation and thus gives a permanence and stability to popular government which otherwise would be lacking." Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 02:20 am |
|
Jurisprudence wrote: EarnestLi wrote: Bixby wrote: The constitutional basis for taxing is very clear in the Constitution and cannot be used for anything one or the Congress wants. The Framers were very emphatic on this, so JP's research is correct. Where is your research that states otherwise? The current members of the SC do have guidelines that are supposed to be adhered to. They stood pretty strong for nearly a couple of hundred years until Roosevelt began placing judges who have socialist tendencies and their own idea of reshaping America. (See the discussion between Roosevelt and Senator Glass on the eve of Roosevelt's inaguration. Working Paper 9504 - Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Ohio) I grant that the liberal activist justices may have their own view which is why it is important to have those justices who are strict constructionalists. Has the SC ruled that there is a constitutional basis for government provided healthcare? JP's arguments are as mine but not as tyou describe. You say in his own rigid manner. He describes them in terms of the documents and papers of the Founding Fathers. It would do you well to read Story's Commentaries, especially VolI, Book III, Chapter V, pp. 397-456 - Rules of Interpretation of the Constitution. BTW, one can discuss how to best provide health care without using the government. The Constitution is not a part of it unless one tries an end-run around it by introoducing more socialism.
I have 3 comments. The first is that it is not productive to discuss current taxation issues with someone who takes your position because you do not agree that there is a Constitutional basis for almost all of our current taxes. You believe congress is misspending tax money. For example, anyone who attempts to discuss whether a tax used for health care is correct is wasting their time with you because you cannot conceive of any legitimate tax that would be used on health care.
Second, you either fail or refuse to accept and recongnize that under our Constitution the current members of the Supreme Court have the final voice on what is or is not Constitutional. There are numerous sources for how to interpret the Constitution. All that's very interesting, but when the current Court votes, that's what's Constitutional under our Constitution. The only remedy would be enacting new legislation or amending the Constitution.
Third, you are so rigid that you cannot allow yorself to even consider that something may rise to a level where it would be vital to the general welfare.
You argue by defining things in your own unique, rigid manner. Your arguements are circular and they all depend upon how you define words. For others to engage you in such discussions is a waste of time. Why discuss how best to provide for health issues with someone who really maintains that there is no basis for such concern on a national level regardless of what is happening or how it might affect our national well being? James Madison on the General Welfare Clause
Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made. - James Madison
James Madison, Report on Resolutions, in 6 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON, quoted in Roger Pilon, Freedom, Responsibility, and the Constitution: On Recovering Our Founding Principles, 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 507, 530.
You either fail or refuse to accept and recongnize that under our Constitution the current members of the Supreme Court have the final voice on what is or is not Constitutional. There are numerous sources for how to interpret the Constitution. All that's very interesting, but when the current Court votes, that's what's Constitutional under our Constitution. The only remedy would be enacting new legislation or amending the Constitution.
|
Jurisprudence
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 823 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 12:49 am |
|
EarnestLi wrote: Bixby wrote: The constitutional basis for taxing is very clear in the Constitution and cannot be used for anything one or the Congress wants. The Framers were very emphatic on this, so JP's research is correct. Where is your research that states otherwise? The current members of the SC do have guidelines that are supposed to be adhered to. They stood pretty strong for nearly a couple of hundred years until Roosevelt began placing judges who have socialist tendencies and their own idea of reshaping America. (See the discussion between Roosevelt and Senator Glass on the eve of Roosevelt's inaguration. Working Paper 9504 - Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Ohio) I grant that the liberal activist justices may have their own view which is why it is important to have those justices who are strict constructionalists. Has the SC ruled that there is a constitutional basis for government provided healthcare? JP's arguments are as mine but not as tyou describe. You say in his own rigid manner. He describes them in terms of the documents and papers of the Founding Fathers. It would do you well to read Story's Commentaries, especially VolI, Book III, Chapter V, pp. 397-456 - Rules of Interpretation of the Constitution. BTW, one can discuss how to best provide health care without using the government. The Constitution is not a part of it unless one tries an end-run around it by introoducing more socialism.
I have 3 comments. The first is that it is not productive to discuss current taxation issues with someone who takes your position because you do not agree that there is a Constitutional basis for almost all of our current taxes. You believe congress is misspending tax money. For example, anyone who attempts to discuss whether a tax used for health care is correct is wasting their time with you because you cannot conceive of any legitimate tax that would be used on health care.
Second, you either fail or refuse to accept and recongnize that under our Constitution the current members of the Supreme Court have the final voice on what is or is not Constitutional. There are numerous sources for how to interpret the Constitution. All that's very interesting, but when the current Court votes, that's what's Constitutional under our Constitution. The only remedy would be enacting new legislation or amending the Constitution.
Third, you are so rigid that you cannot allow yorself to even consider that something may rise to a level where it would be vital to the general welfare.
You argue by defining things in your own unique, rigid manner. Your arguements are circular and they all depend upon how you define words. For others to engage you in such discussions is a waste of time. Why discuss how best to provide for health issues with someone who really maintains that there is no basis for such concern on a national level regardless of what is happening or how it might affect our national well being? James Madison on the General Welfare Clause
Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made. - James Madison
James Madison, Report on Resolutions, in 6 WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON, quoted in Roger Pilon, Freedom, Responsibility, and the Constitution: On Recovering Our Founding Principles, 68 Notre Dame L. Rev. 507, 530.
|
EarnestLi
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 605 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 05:27 pm |
|
Mendavor wrote: Bixby and his cohorts are standing in the way of progress and should be swept away for resisting the will of the people. The constitution is an archaic document and there have been several proposals to replace it for scores of years. The best replacement I have seen is the Constitution for the Newstates of America. Look it up and read it and you will see what I mean. Change is coming and it is useless to resist.
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm
You are not who you pretend to be. You are a right wing flunky.
|
Mendavor
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 298 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|