Little wonder so few know Constitution
Thank you, Rocky Mountain News, for remembering Constitution Day with “Constitution Day a blank for students” (Sept. 17) and the same day’s Speakout column, “Founders’ genius: leave power widely dispersed.” Sadly, the law creating Constitution Day and requiring “any school and college receiving federal money to teach about the Constitution on or about Sept. 17” is, itself, a violation of the Constitution.
The Constitution grants no authority to Congress regarding education whatsoever. As a result, every federal educational regulation, mandate or budget item is unconstitutional.
Our youth are ignorant about the Constitution because our politicians ignore it (and their duty to protect it) except when giving rah-rah speeches.
The Founders’ genius was not simply spreading power among three branches of federal government, but in leaving most power in the hands of state governments and the people of those states directly. We do a great disservice to the Constitution by ignoring the checks and balances between the states, the people and the other branches of government — the first of which is the limitation of the federal government to the 17 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8.
John R. Pack, Parker
mary you really need to run for president as you have the knowledge and the mastery of everything in the universe. there seems to be nothing that you do not command superior knowledge to.
Posted by on October 1, 2007 06:22 AMmost of the people in the country are huge idiots , they are SHEEP that cannot think on their own!
TURN THE TV OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Fresh on October 1, 2007 07:04 AMAs with math, English, writting and critical thinking, any k-12 educational system infested with liberals, socialists and teacher college grads probably has very few "educators" who are remotely qualified to teach anything about our constitution. Just look what these clowns are "teaching" in the classrooms right now!
Posted by on October 1, 2007 08:10 AM6:22 can't disagree so he/she tries to be funny
Posted by GOP Tool on October 1, 2007 08:19 AMGood letter, John II. Clearly defines your take as one of a strict original intent interpretor. However, the debate as to "intent", and all that it encompasses is still open to debate.
Posted by on October 1, 2007 08:45 AMBush is simply the worst President we have ever had. Even honest Republicans KNOW that it is true.
Posted by No longer a Republican on October 1, 2007 08:45 AM8:45,
I'd love to take credit for this letter but it wasn't mine. But, I will say that I'm not a "strict original intent interpretor"; I adhere to a strict English language interpretation.
Why is it that some folks spend more time trying to classify interpretations of the Constitution instead of explaining the Constitution itself? Where is the authorization for a federal education system? General welfare? Is there anything that does not fall under the general welfare term? Does it not seem silly that we allow the federal government to define "general Welfare" however it wants? Why have an amendment process if "general Welfare" covers anything and everything?
Posted by on October 1, 2007 09:14 AM09:14 AM anonymous, whoever you may be.
This is nothing more than the same old disingenuous, and duplicitous, attempt to disguise the inability to understand the simple facts of the REAL world. The matter of "general welfare" has been, time and again, been the objeect of Supreme Court decisions, which decisions are, in and of themselves, the way by which Amendments and Statutes stemming from those Amendments, are determined to be enforcable in the Courts as Law.
The "classification of interpretations" is all that is presented here, currently under the heading of "strict English language interpretation". The argument is stale; and a total waste of time, as usual.
Posted by on October 1, 2007 09:33 AMThe------to the best of my ability, are the salient words. It supposes that anyone who attains the presidency has ability but, has history not shown us some presidents have more ability than others? ( By the way, this is not an invitation to the radicals of any party to foam at the mouth about what presidents were and were not able). This is a statement meant to clarify the oath taken and hopefully cause people to rethink what the whole constitution says. There is far to much misinformation, mostly spewed forth by politicians quoting phrases out of contex, being deceptionally foisted on the people these days.
Posted by Allen Campbell on October 1, 2007 09:38 AMThe posting of 09:33 is mine. For some reason, every time a new set of letters is posted, the "Remember personal info?" block goes back to "No"; and the info that was there disappears all through the lines. I'm trying to catch up and restore. Thanks for your patience here..
Posted by Old Grouch on October 1, 2007 09:41 AM9:14 was mine.
Old Grouch, why not just give me your explanation? How about trying to answer, in your own words, the question I posed in my last post?
Posted by John II on October 1, 2007 09:47 AMOld Grouch
"...every time a new set of letters is posted, the "Remember personal info?" block goes back to "No"; and the info that was there disappears all through the lines..."
Face it, my friend, this only seems to happen to you. It must be part of a "vast right wing conspiracy" led by An American to dull your opinions! lol
Posted by mongoose on October 1, 2007 10:03 AMThe part of the Constitution that is real clear is the Bill of Rights.The Bush administration went to court and defended the Second Amendement as a right of the individual to own firearms.When Bill Clinton was president his administration went to court an d said the Second Amendment was only to protect a State right and not a right of the people to own firearms.Which president would you say has a better understanding of the Constitution? The Democrats do not go by the Constitution they just go by what they "feel" the Constitution should be.Do not trust these people to determine if Bush violated the Constitution because they do not even understand something as simple as the Second Amendment.
Posted by An American on October 1, 2007 10:16 AMFor the first eighty-five years of our nation’s history, under both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, the language of “general welfare” was viewed as a limitation on the powers
of Congress, not as a grant of plenary power.
If the Court would re-assert that limitation as it has reasserted the original limitations of the commerce clause, the major federalism decisions of the past decade would be anything but much ado about nothing. The decision about whether to spend would be restored to the people
who benefit, so that real responsibility for setting priorities on spending could be restored. We would avoid many of the looming fights over “relatedness of conditions to spending” that we are
likely to see in the coming decade. And perhaps best of all, we would restore the original constitutional check on the insatiable appetite of Congress to spend not just our own hard-won earnings but the future earnings of our children as well.
Lest we forget, we once fought a revolution over just such an abuse of power. One of the charges leveled against King George III in the Declaration of Independence was that “He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.”
It is time to restore the “general” to the General Welfare Clause, before Congress eats out any more of our substance.
It appears that study of the Constitution is an exercise in futility when out of nine people who have studied it scholarly reach a different conclusion on the same subject matter in a five to four decision.
Deicide Corner: Profanity on this subject matter will not be tolerated in which the non-shaggers will define profanity and build pyres to enforce their conclusion.
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide (Free cassette of blasphemous songs: Me on piano) on October 1, 2007 10:46 AMmongoose,
I have no idea why this happens. Nor am I aware of any "conspiracy" in the matter. I have noticed the effect several times in the past few weeks, generally after I come back from the "Preview" area to what has been posted. Since I do not intend to post without a screen name, I simply feel it necessary to clarify when whatever glitches that is glitching.
There have been several others who have - or who seem to have - had something of the same problem; and have also indicated their need to identify a posting that went up without any identification. I think it is merely a matter of our being courteous to the rest of the line.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 1, 2007 10:53 AMThat's a good point, Mr. Grimes. But, the real problem is not the supposed complexity of the Constitution but the political bias of the judges. When one party only appoints judges that agree with their twisted political views, we get twisted political views on in the Court.
Posted by John II on October 1, 2007 10:54 AMI'm not expecting a logical response from Keith or An American, but here's a try.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So all you Second Amendment absolutists, who would argue that "well regulated" only applies to the militia, yet the right accrues to the individual, even though the argument presented in the plain language of the text is to provide security to the state, not the individual in their home, claim that gun registration and background checks "infringe" upon your individual rights.
Like I read so often here when it comes to the 4th amendment right to be free of warrantless wiretaps, "if you've nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." Such reasonable measures to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them, does nothing to infringe upon the rights of lawful gun owners.
Since the First Amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Yet we allow many abridgements of free speech in our laws regarding slander or words that create danger ("Fire" in theaters.)
Given that First and Fourth Amendment rights can be moderated, why not the Second?
Repugnants are Liars:--
Your logic, while simply explained and to the point, is well above the comprehension abilities of those who you addressed it to. Congratulations on a brilliant attempt.
Posted by on October 1, 2007 11:27 AMJohn II
” But, the real problem is not the supposed complexity of the Constitution but the political bias of the judges. When one party only appoints judges that agree with their twisted political views, we get twisted political views on in the Court.
Doesn’t this beg the question: Isn’t the amount of “twist” perceived in the court dependent upon the respective observer? If the observer in question is of a Liberal orientation, Justice Ginsburg might appear as a “straight shooter;” whereas if the observer is of a Conservative orientation Justice Ginsburg might seem “twisted.”
We could go through and apply this simple litmus test to each of the Justices, but I believe you know where this is going.
It’s similar to your argument about strict interpretation of the Constitution, especially in light of the “General Welfare” clause. You refer to Madison in your defense of limiting the General Welfare clause of the Constitution. However, another of the original architects offered a different interpretation of the same clause.
Madison contended that the Clause's reference to the general welfare was just short-hand for the powers granted elsewhere in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, while Hamilton viewed the clause as a stand-alone grant of power.
The two interpretations have been argued for over 200 years before the Supreme Court. You accept Madison’s, whereas the prevailing interpretation SO FARhas been Hamilton’s.
As I told Old Grouch on another thread, I’ll be out of pocket for a couple of weeks for work. I’m writing this while in a cab (stuck in traffic!) on the way to my hotel.
I hope we have a similar thread to this or the CSU letter which addresses constitutional issues in the future when I have more time.
Posted by darfor on October 1, 2007 12:02 PMI love it when liberal Democrats fall into my trap.Let's see what the Founding Fathers had to say about the Second Amendment.Alexander Hamilton"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the US who are peaceable citizens from keeping their OWN arms".James Madison"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed-unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."Thomas Jefferson"The constitutions of most of our states[and of theUS] assert that all power is inherent in the people;that they may exercise it by themselves;that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person,freedom of religion,freedom of property and freedom of the press".George Mason"I ask you sir what is the militia?It is the whole people,except for a few public officials".Why do the Democrats say the Second Amendment is not an individual right in light of all this proof?There are two reasons .One is because they do not "feel" it should be a right so they make bogus facts to prove how they "feel" is right.They do the same with the war.Two they are cowards so that fear guns.I have more quotes I will post later to further prove Democrats are liars.
11:06,
The 2nd Amendment secures an individual right just as the 1st and 4th Amendments do.
The 2nd Amendment does not simply exist to protect the State, as you said, but to protect the free State. In other words, the 2nd Amendment is yet another amendment that protects the individual from the government.
Also, the wording of that amendment was common for that era. The first part of the sentence gives justification for the second part (the right to bear arms). But, It is not the only justification.
As to gun laws, even the NRA supports some kind of limit on gun ownership. For example, the NRA supports laws that restricts gun purchases by the mentally ill.
Posted by John II on October 1, 2007 12:11 PMJohn2, it sounds, like you are interepreting what you think the 2nd amendment means.
AA, name-calling but no answer.
Posted by Repugnants ar Liars on October 1, 2007 12:18 PM"AA, name-calling but no answer."
You expected different? Perhaps you were hopeful of receiving a thoughtful, non emotionally laced answer.
You're lucky you received a modicum of historical reference tossed in with the usual blustering rhetoric.
Posted by on October 1, 2007 12:28 PMAn American,
Your quotes are well noted, however you failed to understand that the Constitution is a "living document" that can be changed to meet current social needs. Which means it is nothing more than a damn piece of paper that can be distorted to meet any radical's way of thinking. Just because for two hundred years the general public had the right to bear arms, doesn't mean the radical left can't find enough judges on the Supreme Court to change that meaning to "meet social needs" . Additionally, for two hundred years the 10 commandments have hung on the walls of our court rooms, now all of a sudden that has become unconstitutional. I could list more but I think you get my point. The way the Constitution is being distorted these days, it is just a damn piece of paper.
Posted by jgd777 on October 1, 2007 12:30 PMRequired reading for the 2nd amendment...
What the Second Amendment protects is an individual right to bear military weapons, not for hunting, not for target shooting, not for repelling foreign invaders, but for the purpose of preventing oppression of the people by their own government. The historical, textual, structural, doctrinal, prudential, judicial, and legislative evidence is devastating. Any intelligent person who wishes to study the matter seriously should probably begin with S. Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 637. Professor Levinson (University of Texas) is a devout liberal who set out to prove once and for all that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right (etc., ad nauseam). To his great embarrassment (hence the title), he found overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He had the academic integrity to admit it, for which he deserves great admiration. He does not like gun ownership, any more than some people like flag-burning or organized religion, but he recognizes that the individual right exists, and is integral to our constitutional protections, whether one likes it or not.
Posted by on October 1, 2007 12:30 PMAs to gun laws, even the NRA supports some kind of limit on gun ownership. For example, the NRA supports laws that restricts gun purchases by the mentally ill.
Posted by John II
Didn't they oppose the ban on plastic weapons and armor piercing bullets? I think the NRA has a purpose but they really take too hard line of a position on some things. on
Posted by on October 1, 2007 12:42 PMdarfor,
I am well aware of Mr. Hamilton's views regarding the "general Welfare" term. Mr. Hamilton was a genius and one of my favorite characters in the great American struggle for independence. But, he was also a bit of a ambitious zealot. For example, when he was appointed major general during the Quasi War, he had ambitions of using his army to set up a new government. He had big ideas for America and he was frustrated with any obstacles that prevented the fruition of those ideas.
I do not only quote from Mr. Madison. But, I do find it ironic that Mr. Madison, known as The Father of the Constitution, is now seen by most liberals as being wrong about his own interpretation of the very document he helped to construct. This is like telling Mr. Tolstoy that his famous book, War and Peace, was about neither war nor peace.
His view on the Constitution has won because it's the easiest view to maintain politically. If one can view the Constitution with such broad undefined powers, one can promise anything the population desires.
As for your comments regarding the twisted views of liberals and their judges, there is little wiggle room for you in this argument. If we can establish that conservatives, by and large, view the Constitution strictly as it was written and that liberals, by and large, view the Constitution as they interpret it, then by definition, the liberals are twisting the Constitution to meet their political views. Now, we can debate whether or not those twists are appropriate or not, but the point about a liberal twisting of the Constitution is apodictic.
Posted by John II on October 1, 2007 12:42 PMjdg777
I truly hope that you had tongue firmly in cheek when you said; "...you failed to understand that the Constitution is a "living document" that can be changed to meet current social needs..."
The Constitution provides an unchanging framework which defines our form and function of government, and against which all new or proposed laws must be measured for applicability.
While acceptable interpretations of allowable laws are constantly added to through case law (again, measured against what is or isn't allowable within the constitutional framework), the constitution itself is unchanging.
While we may find it bastardized occasionally -- by both the left and the right - the constitution itself does not change.
Posted by darfor on October 1, 2007 12:45 PM12:42,
I also oppose legislation banning plastic weapons and armor piercing bullets. I don't see that as too "hard line".
Posted by John II on October 1, 2007 12:49 PMdarfor,
I'm positive that jdg777 was being sarcastic.
Posted by John II on October 1, 2007 12:53 PMHere are some more quotes from our Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment.Thomas Jefferson"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". Noah Webster "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in most every kingdom of Europe.The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the WHOLE body of the people are armed , and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops." George Washington " Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence...From the hour the Pilgrim's landed , to the present day, events,occurrences,and tendencies prove that to ensure peace,security, and happiness,the rifle and pistol are equally in dispensable...The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference-they deserve a place of honor with all that's good".Thomas Jefferson"A strong body makes the mind strong.As to the species of exercises,I advise the gun.While this gives moderate exercise to the body , it gives boldness ,enterprise and independence to the mind.Games played with the ball , and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind.Let your gun therefor be the constant companion of your walk".A letter Jefferson wrote to his nephew.I will let the people decide are the Democrats right that the Founding Fathers did not want the Second Amendment to be an individual right or are the Republicans right when they say that it is a right of the people.
Posted by An American on October 1, 2007 12:55 PMJohn II
Hotel finally in sight...quick, but non satisfying response to your last post...
"His view on the Constitution has won because it's the easiest view to maintain politically."
Hasn't won very much in the Court where the final opinions count the most. Does win in a lot of conservative intellectual circles though. However, there is hope for your position as the base arguments going all the way back to the Butler decision are being aggressively attacked in various court settings.
"...If we can establish that conservatives, by and large, view the Constitution strictly as it was written and that liberals, by and large, view the Constitution as they interpret it..."
Not near as cut and dried as you can imagine or hope. I've had decisions where I was literally shocked (the first few times -- now it's SOP) at where certain votes went.
Some of the biggest "twists" I've seen in Constitutional law have come from the so called "conservatives". Of course, this changes on an almost cyclic basis.
Have a good couple of weeks...I have to totally switch gears and bear down for the next several days.
I know it sounds strange thanking you and Old Grouch in the same post, but giving me the opportunity to kick around law and social concepts outside of a work environment has given me some much needed relaxation and mind clearing exercises.
Posted by darfor on October 1, 2007 01:04 PMjdg777:--
"...for two hundred years the 10 commandments have hung on the walls of our court rooms, now all of a sudden that has become unconstitutional..."
No, it was always unconstitutional as it favored, or gave preference, to one religion over others or none. It's just that legal challenges to such "traditions" have started to come forward in greater intensity as of late.
Posted by mongoose on October 1, 2007 01:26 PMthe only part of the constitution that congress is concerned about is the part that says they can be paid, the rest they consider trash.
Posted by on October 1, 2007 01:51 PMAn American
"...because the WHOLE body of the people are armed , and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops."
You'll look real cute, and last a long time, with your AK 47, pickup truck, and no body armor standing against the modern soldier outfitted for combat, full resupply lines and an M4 pointed at your center mass.
Where can I buy tickets...
Posted by on October 1, 2007 01:56 PMAnon 01:56 PM, you fail to realize that An AMerican will have ALL the people standing by his side in such a confrontation -- yeah, right! Most, including bigmouths like An American, will feel warm water running down their legs long before they see an armed "enemy soldier", and will be running hard at 180 degrees away from their "targets".
Posted by on October 1, 2007 02:17 PMI know that there will be no straight - i.e., politically unbiased - answer here; but I'll venture the question anyway.
In all this insistence that "liberals twist" the Consitution more than "conservatives", - to whatever ends, but genrally "political" - where do you "purists" place the Supreme Court decisions that upheld the Comstock Law?
That was the law that allowed all mail, including First Class correspondence, to be opened by Postal Inspectors, WITHOUT WARRANT, or complaint of suspected criminal action, solely for the purposes of determinging whether or not the mail contained "pornography", something the Court itself has never actually defined to this date, but acts, even today, upon the remark made by one Justice, that "I can't define it; but I know what it is when I see it"?
This violation of freedom of speech (Comstock Act) was made Law by a Republican Supreme Court, using the abvove "reasoning" - as well as the specious argument about "crying fire in a crowed auditorium" - which is a vast stretch, to say the least, when applied to reading, or viewing a photograph, in one's own home - and was hailed at the time as being among the greatest achievements in "protecting morals" acomplished to that time.
The decision also brought about the censorship of books and other materials, leading to criminal actions being brought against people who sought to import, sell, or distribute writings that were on a Post Office censorship list. Some of which remain there today, by the way.
This was in NO WAY WHATSOEVER a matter of "liberals twisting the Constitution" - which canard and falsehood is at the root of the whole argument about "interpretation" to begin with.
But, of course, when done by the Conservatives of the time, that's different. Or is it?
Anyone want to try to give an honest answer to the Constitutionality of the matter?
Posted by Old Grouch on October 1, 2007 02:30 PMdarfor,
You seem to have contradicted yourself. You're playing both sides of the argument (almost like your admission of arguing a point depending on who your arguing against).
First, you tell me:
"The two interpretations have been argued for over 200 years before the Supreme Court. You accept Madison’s, whereas the prevailing interpretation SO FARhas been Hamilton’s."
Then, after I concede your point about Mr. Hamilton and offer my explanation as to why his view has won, you say:
"Hasn't won very much in the Court where the final opinions count the most. "
You also ignored my "by and large" comment when you said:
"Not near as cut and dried as you can imagine or hope. I've had decisions where I was literally shocked (the first few times -- now it's SOP) at where certain votes went."
I don't doubt for a second that you've come across decisions that "shocked" you. But, I used the term "by and large" to modify my assertions in general terms; had I meant it in a absolute or "cut and dried" manner, I would have used the word always.
So, would you admit that, generally speaking, conservatives view the Constitution in a literal manner, while liberals are prone to interpreting the Constitution (either rightly or wrongly)?
If you can agree with that assertion, then the point of contention is simply reduced to a matter of logomachy. You may prefer to use the term interpretation; I prefer to use a more dysphemistic term such as twist.
Posted by John II on October 1, 2007 02:43 PMOld Grouch,
I'd have to review that Comstock Act but, as you have described it, it sounds ridiculous. Also, it seems that law was enacted in 1873. Do you have to go back that far to find a bizarre Republican interpretation of the Constitution?
Either way, as I've just reminded darfor, my assertions were modified with the term "by and large". There are, obviously, exceptions to my assertion.
Posted by John II on October 1, 2007 03:00 PMAs to 12:42s posting he said the NRA was against banning "plastic" guns.The guns the Democrats were trying to ban were not all plastic they had metal parts and showed up in x-rays.This was a Democrat and media lie.As to "armor pierceing" bullets the Democrats like Ted Kennedy wanted to ban ALL bullets that would go through a bullet proof vest.All high power hunting ammo will go through these vests and the Democrats wanted to ban all high power ammo.The NRA was against this but backed banning teflon bullets.This was a Democrat and liberal media lie.
Posted by An American on October 1, 2007 03:10 PMJohn II
While waiting for the rest of the group to show up, a quick response. I thought you were referring to Madison when you said:
"His view on the Constitution has won because it's the easiest view to maintain politically. If one can view the Constitution with such broad undefined powers, one can promise anything the population desires."
as you inserted it after your explanation of Madison as though explaining why his view wins in your mind. No, Hamilton rules presently.
"So, would you admit that, generally speaking, conservatives view the Constitution in a literal manner, while liberals are prone to interpreting the Constitution (either rightly or wrongly)?"
No, not in the terms you present. In theory, conservative thought should be of a more literal view of the constitution. However, you don't allow for the impact of 200+ plus years of case law that has a profound impact on constitutional interpretation and definition.
Liberal thought oft-times moves for a broader expansion and application of constitutional authority when seeking to implement a program or law. However, they too are utilizing the enhanced understanding of the constitution established through case law.
Returning to a literal, bare bones reading of the constitution such as you, Ron Paul, the Constitutionalist Party, etc., are wanting to do, while not impossible, is very high unlikely as you have that 200+ years of case law to wade through.
Before you can set a new direction in interpretation and application of constitutional principles, you have to demonstrate where all previous case law pertaining to the status quo is in error and must be overturned. While we occasionally see such turn of evens, they are rare and far between.
Each new established case law effects the constitutional provision underlying it by either confirming all precedent case law to date; modifying the interpretation of the underlying provision; or, expanding the scope covered by the underlying position. Case law has the effect of slight "unofficial" amendments to the constitution, for better or for worse -- it's just reality.
You're arguing for an absolute when no such beast exists in our legal system. That's why we have such a litigious society.
Posted by darfor on October 1, 2007 03:13 PMWell once again the Democrat postings do not care what the Constitution states because is does not fit how they "feel". This is proof that Democrats do not believe in the Constitution but just use it to make up things to destroy or country.Also the Democrats make fun of the fact that a citizen militia could defeat our military yet they claim that armed militias in Iraq are defeating the US military.The Democrats just make up facts to fit how they "feel".Point proven!!
Posted by An American on October 1, 2007 03:23 PMOld Grouch
Throughout history BOTH sides, liberal and conservative, have twisted interpretations, parsed words and deliberately sought to "re-interpret" case law, either directly or by selectively skewering the main thrust and concentrating on peripheral issues contained in a ruling, to their own advantage in meeting their agendas.
To say that either the left or the right is innocent of such shenanigans or strategies is disingenuous to say the least.
There are volumes written of expose written covering the dubious antics and strategies of both sides. Each side denies culpability on their part, branding such works as slander by the other. But, sadly, most are true.
Posted by darfor on October 1, 2007 03:27 PMWhy is everyone quoting the Supreme Court the liberal Democrats on the court just go with how they "feel" and make up bogus facts to back their "feelings".I think that is obvious!! Anyone can read the Second Amendment and its history and know what it means.It takes a Democrat coward to twist it into meaning something other than what it states.
Posted by An American on October 1, 2007 03:37 PMJohn II
Something else you have to bear mind when evaluating "conservative versus liberal" thought on the Court. American political discourse has changed dramatically in the last 50 years. What was at one time considered far right or far left is now "mainstream".
Consider Justice John Stevens. When he was appointed to the Court by Ford (30 some years ago) he was considered a moderate Republican and Judicial Conservative. Now he's considered one of the liberal leaders within the Court split.
His judicial philosophy, his approach to opinions has stayed fairly consistent over the years. But his decisions, once considered conservative are now viewed as liberal.
Posted by darfor on October 1, 2007 03:45 PMdarfor,
My apologies on the confusion. I should have said "Mr. Hamilton" instead of "his".
As for your case laws, I think that is way beyond the scope of this discussion. I want to hear your take (and Old Grouch, Truth, et al) on the Constitution, not a vague reference to 200+ years of case studies.
Do you really have to go back 200+ years to prove (or disprove) the simple and obvious constitutional leanings of modern conservatives and liberals?
For example, you just agreed with half of my assertion by admitting that: "Liberal thought oft-times moves for a broader expansion and application of constitutional authority when seeking to implement a program or law. "
Why point out "liberal thought" if both sides were equally guilty of a broader interpretation? Like I said before, by and large, liberals achieve this broader expansion and application of constitutional authority by twisting (interpreting) the words of the Constitution without compunction. Conservatives tend to take a more literal and restricted view of the Constitution.
Again, please remember I am speaking in general terms. Obviously, we can find exceptions on both sides.
Posted by John II on October 1, 2007 03:46 PMI now have to officially return to a work mode as "the gang is all here."
Posted by darfor on October 1, 2007 03:47 PMJohn II
You're tantalizing me and getting me in trouble!
"...on the Constitution, not a vague reference to 200+ years of case studies...Do you really have to go back 200+ years to prove (or disprove) the simple and obvious constitutional leanings of modern conservatives and liberals.."
YES! Because each time a case law is established the underlying constitutional issue is addressed.
"Conservatives tend to take a more literal and restricted view of the Constitution."
That's like tending to be a little bit pregnant.
FDR abused the constitution through many of his social programs. Bush abused the constitution through his (Un) Patriot Acts. Both presidents did it on the pretense of "for the benefit of the nation. "
You can argue both ways on both of these examples for years (though it should be noted that some of the [Un} Patriot Acts sections are falling in the courts. Nobody really challenged FDRs "abuses" effectively at the time.
Go ahead and post anything you want -- when I get back remind me to go to the archives for this thread. I'VE GOT TO GO -- THE VISUAL DAGGERS ARE GETTING SHARPER!
Posted by darfor on October 1, 2007 04:00 PMdarfor,
You may disagree with the constitutionality of Mr. Bush's Patriot Act. But, that is one act compared to numerous abuses by FDR. In fact, FDR was so frustrated with the Supreme Court overruling his programs that he threatened to pack the court with new judges. This is how Social Security managed to sneak through; The switch in time that saved nine. FDR even went so far as to round up Japanese-Americans and send them to camps.
Again, (again and again and again), I'm speaking generally about how the two main political ideologies view the Constitution. I hardly think it is worth all this petty side-stepping. If you are looking for a smaller subset to deal with, how about restricting it to the folks on this forum. Discuss the Constitution with them. By and large, the liberals here have a much more unrestricted view of the Constitution. For example, they will often rely on the term "general Welfare" for any massive federal program they desire, regardless of whether or not it is included in the enumerated powers or as an amendment.
Posted by John II on October 1, 2007 04:18 PMJohn II
It's been interesting watching you spar with darfor. As a little background that I don't know if you're aware of, Trinity (now in Ramadi) recruited darfor and me to come onto this forum. We all served together during the Viet Nam era. Now that you're aware of the relationship between darfor and myself I have a couple of comments to make.
darfor is an federal appellate attorney who regularly argues before the higher courts, normally from a fairly strict interpretation of the constitution.
Politically he is a conservative leaning libertarian who strongly advocates for states rights and clear delineation between church and state. He's taken cases which appear both pro and con religious interests depending on how he sees the conflict in relation to the constitution.
Currently he's arguing a case pertaining to some aspect of the Patriot Act. I'm not aware of the details.
When he gets back pursue your concern about case law and how it relates to constitutional principles and application. He and Trinity (Phd in Philosophy specializing in law and human rights) regularly go around and around on the subject.
Don't hesitate to pin him down, he relishes it. And, don't egg him on by accusing him of arguing both sides as that'll encourage him to do more of it!
And please, don't let him know that I set him up!
Posted by mongoose on October 1, 2007 05:01 PMJohn II, Old Grouch, darfor, mongoose:-
Do we have to pay for this constitution class, or can we audit it for free?
Outside of the fact that I got a little lost in the opening letter, it's been great reading about stuff that isn't normally talked about in the paper or shown on the news.
Posted by CA on October 1, 2007 05:22 PMBecause a person is intalled as a judge does not mean they have judgement, how else do you explain judges who legislate and legislators who judge and an executive which calls both irresponsible because they don't support the dictates of a president who fails understanding of the english language and calls the constitution just another God damned piece of paper. Welcome to the brave new big brother world suckers.
Posted by Allen Campbell on October 1, 2007 05:23 PMinstalled, that is.
Posted by Allen Campbell on October 1, 2007 05:26 PMOld Grouch
"Nor am I aware of any "conspiracy" in the matter."
You must have missed my L O L at the end of my post on this - a poor attempt at humor on my part.
Posted by mongoose on October 1, 2007 05:30 PMMongoose; me thinks you're setting John 2 up for a hard crash; not darfor for a spirited debate. You should be ashamed of yourself!
Posted by on October 1, 2007 05:46 PMAllen Campbell
"Because a person is intalled as a judge does not mean they have judgement, how else do you explain judges who legislate and legislators who judge and an executive which calls both irresponsible because they don't support the dictates of a president..."
That's a pretty fair assessment of our sorry political state. It seems as if we've had a lot of transmigration between the various branches of the government.
Posted by mongoose on October 1, 2007 05:58 PMJohn 2,
You, yourself are going back 200+ years in your contention that ONLY "the English wording" is to be considered - or however you express it at your whimsey.
In the REAL world - as darfor points out - that position of yours hasn't held up for that nearly 200+ years; but, you seem to think that everyone today must now find your ideas to be the only "right" ones.
In the REAL world, there are many decisions that begin: "The Court declares the Law to be . . . " Like it, dislike it, or have no opinion about it at all, that IS the way the Constitution has fulfilled its purpose of being the solid foundation upon which all our Laws are based. Even if Case Law goes back 200+ years, it still forms the fundamental basis for the position of viewing the Constitution as being a living document, rather than a fossilized, or chizeled in stone, production suitable only for the 18th Century.
I do enjoy your use of the word, "bizarre" when fobbing off the Republican Court decision I asked about. Nice way of just the same old same old John 2. Never deal with a direct question in a direct way. For the Republicans, however, conservative as they were at the time, there was nothing "bizarre" about it. No more than their attitudes towards censorship are "bizarre" for them today, where they continue to use the same old "fire in a crowded auditorium" argument to attempt to outlaw books, photographs, and written expressions of what they. "can't define, but (sort of) 'know'". when it suits them.
By the way, the time frame is a great deal less than any 200+ years, too. But, don't let that stop you from just brushing it off.
And, just by the way - since it won't mean anything to you, anyway - it was Mr. Justice Hugo Black who wrote the words: " . . . where it says, "no law" - (italicized), it means, NO LAW (all bold face caps.", in his dissent to a Case decided in favor of a REPUBLICAN/"CONSERVATIVE" Congressional Act to further extend censorship law.
Or, not to put too fine a point on it, any time the Republicans think, and act, as if the Constitution were just another, "god-damned piece of paper", to be abused any way they choose, it appears that's just fine, so far as you're concerned. But, when "liberals" don't submit to your ideas of "general welfare" as limited to what you think is the "correct interpretaion" that's all wrong.
Which is exactly why I said the argument is stale, and a waste of time. The clock does NOT run backwards. The REAL world does NOT hold to your theories; and it is futile to attempt to debate with a fixed belief-system that is so far removed from reality as yours is.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 1, 2007 05:58 PMThe frustrating part about darfor's argumentative style is that he never really takes a position on anything. I realize that this probably works well for him in the court room, but this is not a court room; it's a friendly discussion about the Constitution.
My assertion is simple and exoteric: liberals tend to have a broad interpretation of the Constitution while conservatives tend to have a much more literal view.
We do not need to review 200+ years of case studies to prove this assertion. Nor do we need to review the Comstock Act of 1873. I'm not even arguing at this point which constitutional view is the correct one. Now, all I'm simply asserting is the obvious difference between the two political ideologies.
You've actually already proven my assertion with this statement:
"Liberal thought oft-times moves for a broader expansion and application of constitutional authority when seeking to implement a program or law. "Posted by John II on October 1, 2007 06:15 PM
Old Grouch; in your last post you stated when a word should be italicized rather than actually italicizing it.
Have tried a little HTML in your text body?
Commands are given by bracketing the "tag" with your more than and less than keys (>).
If you want to italicize a word you would use (I can't give the full example as it would execute and not be viewable) . to end the italics after the word you use .
In example, I'll italicize these words and go back to regular text. To add the bold font you use the letter "b" inside the tag markers >. A forward slash / within the tag marker, before the command removes the command and returns you to normal type.
Just FYI if you want to try...
Posted by on October 1, 2007 06:17 PMJohn 2: you've sure back peddled on forcing your view of the constitution from being the one and only correct view, to pleading for a concession (at least) to:
"My assertion is simple and exoteric: liberals tend to have a broad interpretation of the Constitution while conservatives tend to have a much more literal view."
Don't trip on your own humility...we forgive you for being such a smug bore.
Posted by on October 1, 2007 06:26 PMOld Grouch said:
"In the REAL world - as darfor points out - that position of yours hasn't held up for that nearly 200+ years; but, you seem to think that everyone today must now find your ideas to be the only "right" ones."
That is irrelevant to our discussion.
My argument is that conservatives tend to appoint one type of judges while liberals tend to appoint another. All you are doing is telling me that my view is wrong because judges have already ruled on it. How does that deal with my original assertion?
"Even if Case Law goes back 200+ years, it still forms the fundamental basis for the position of viewing the Constitution as being a living document, rather than a fossilized, or chizeled in stone, production suitable only for the 18th Century."
What view of mine is chiseled in stone? All I'm saying is that the Constitution is what it is until we amend it. What are you saying? It sounds like you are saying the Constitution can morph itself with or without amendments. Am I correct?
What is your justification for Social Security? I think I've asked you that a dozen times this year and you never answer directly. Is your justification the term "general Welfare"? If so, why does the Constitution enumerate powers if general welfare can cover whatever the government wants it to? In other words, if "general Welfare" allows the government to determine what the government should provide for, why bother with all those other words in the document? We could have saved a lot of paper and ink by simply constructing the Constitution as follows: We the People...provide for the general Welfare...Finis.
But, I get the feeling that the Constitution enumerated powers for a reason: a limited federal government with strong State's rights.
Posted by John II on October 1, 2007 06:34 PMJohn 2 complains:
"The frustrating part about darfor's argumentative style is that he never really takes a position on anything."
No, he never accedes to your position and throws a counter into your every argument. He's playing with you because you never pin him down or force him to take and then defend a position. He probably wins in court by allowing his opponent to chase his own tail whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Appellate attorneys thrive on incomplete or weak opposing arguments. They don't have to play to a jury like we do; they advocate to people who have committed their lives to to legal arguments and not emotions or personal biases.
Posted by Small Practice Attorney on October 1, 2007 06:39 PM6:26,
I realize you have access to a keyboard and you're capable of typing words with it. But, merely typing words and pressing submit does not mean your words have meaning.
I have not back peddled from anything. If you feel that I have, please quote where I back peddled. In fact, I've consistently maintained the same assertion in all my posts. So, I'm not sure where you are seeing a back peddle.
Posted by John II on October 1, 2007 06:41 PMJohn 2; you're partially right when you say
"It sounds like you are saying the Constitution can morph itself with or without amendments."
As darfor and Old Grouch pointed out numerous times, case law addresses and modifies the parameters of the original constitution. Each time that a little more latitude is given a constitutional principle, the greater the chance of even more latitude in subsequent rulings.
Parse a word once, parse it again in seeking the ruling desired.
Posted by Small Practice Attorney on October 1, 2007 06:51 PM"it's a friendly discussion about the Constitution"
It's never a friendly discussion with you John when you throw out accusations such as the pussification of America, or your arguing like a woman. Most of your discusions are abusive and demeaning to anyone not agreeing with you.
Posted by on October 1, 2007 07:01 PMSmall Practice Attorney,
What is my weak argument? What is darfor's position? He simply claims that we cannot debate the issue unless we review 200+ years of case laws. I noticed he does this often: he argues without actually saying anything because he claims the issue is much too complex to debate without an exhaustive review of cases.
I cannot force him to take a position. I can only ask him questions. And he chooses to sidestep those questions.
He has already admitted that "Liberal thought oft-times moves for a broader expansion and application of constitutional authority when seeking to implement a program or law." So, I'm not sure what else is left regarding this point.
Posted by John II on October 1, 2007 07:01 PMSmall Practice Attorney said:
"As darfor and Old Grouch pointed out numerous times, case law addresses and modifies the parameters of the original constitution."
So what? That is irrelevant. Again, I'm arguing that there is a difference between the types of judges that political parties tend to appoint, and these folks are telling me that judges have already ruled on many cases. How do their comments address the difference in constitutional views that political ideologies tend to promote?
I asked Old Grouch for his personal view on the Constitution and you defend him (before he even answers) by saying we need to review 200+ years of case laws. That doesn't make sense to me. It gives me the impression that some folks are arguing with me and not my assertions.
Posted by John II on October 1, 2007 07:09 PM7:01 said:
"It's never a friendly discussion with you John when you throw out accusations such as the pussification of America, or your arguing like a woman."
Where did I do that on this thread?
Posted by John II on October 1, 2007 07:11 PMJohn 2; you can't be as dense as you come across!
You've been told that the original parameters of the constitution are flexed and stretched by subsequent case law (the 200 years + that seems to shake your boots). In order to define the constitution you have to do it in the light of all subsequent rulings pertaining to the point in question. You can't just magically erase all interpretation and affirmation of the constitution that has taken place since its inception so that you can fantasize as to what it really means.
I see where Old Grouch has given up on you; I'm surprised darfor toys with you as he does.
For me, I'm joining Old Grouch and will steer clear of the mental self abuse you call thought. I've been posting under another name for months and steered clear of your condescension and erratic forays into illogical legal interpretation. I shall now return to my regular screen name and ignore you.
Posted by Small Practice Attorney on October 1, 2007 07:15 PM"Where did I do that on this thread?"
You've been almost civil on this one, but it's not your usual manner. Most of your postings end up being demeaning and slanderous to others.
Posted by on October 1, 2007 07:18 PM"Liberal thought oft-times moves for a broader expansion and application of constitutional authority when seeking to implement a program or law"
So do the conservatives, buddy boy. The so called Patriot Act is falling apart in the courts because Bush pushed for broader expansion and application of constitutional authority to shove them down our throats.
From an earlier darfor post to OG: "To say that either the left or the right is innocent of such shenanigans or strategies is disingenuous to say the least."
Read all the arguments pertaining to your points or zip your pants and give your brain a rest.
Posted by on October 1, 2007 07:24 PM7:24,
"From an earlier darfor post to OG: "To say that either the left or the right is innocent of such shenanigans or strategies is disingenuous to say the least.""
I have never said that the right is innocent. In fact, I've said about eight or nine times now that I'm speaking in general terms. Citing the Patriot Act as the lone example of Republican abuse proves nothing.
Small Practice Attorney (darfor/mongoose) said:
"You've been told that the original parameters of the constitution are flexed and stretched by subsequent case law (the 200 years + that seems to shake your boots). In order to define the constitution you have to do it in the light of all subsequent rulings pertaining to the point in question."
Yes, I've been told that. So what? It still has nothing to do with my assertion. I'm asking for Old Grouch's personal view on the Constitution. I'm asking for darfor/mongoose's personal view on the Constitution. How do I get an answer to those requests by reviewing 200 years of case studies?
Posted by John II on October 1, 2007 07:39 PMEvery single poster has ignored the most dangerous suppression of our Constitution rights....that of Representation.
When Thomas Jefferson and friends wrote this document, representation in the House of Representatives was set at 1 per 30,000 citizens. The U.S. Census was set up to advise of the current US population.
The House of Representatives ILLEGALLY limited its numbers over a hundred years making the Census a joke. At the time we were suffering an influx of poor immigrants from Europe.
Today we also are experienceing a influx of poor immigrants, this time from Mexico.
In over one hundred years our population has soared. NOT ONE new member has been added to reflect this growth. We should have AT LEAST 1000 US representatives. With the technology we have today, it could happen.
Our House of Representative does NOT represent the American people. We once again have TAXATION without REPRESENTATION.
As an unafilliated voter I urge you to visit www.thirty-thousand.org and see the research.
Damn the politicians and power to yes, those of us who the Founders of this nation trusted to have common sense.
Posted by janis houston on October 1, 2007 09:48 PMCase law means nothing.It is just a bunch of judges twisting the Constitution to fit their political thoughts.Take the Second Amendment.No matter what "CASE" law says it is common sense what it means and we do not need a hand full of judges to explain the right.If you look at past "CASE" law on other issues you will see they make up what they "feel" should be.Who made the courts the ones that decide what the Constitution means? I think I know the answer but want to see what you guys think.
Posted by An American on October 2, 2007 09:05 AMSmall Practice Attorney,
I went out for the afternoon and evening; so it appears that I missed all the fun.
But, in the end, it really does come down to the same thing. It is impossible to debate a belief-system, whether that be formally called a "religion", or exists as a personal form of religion - idolization in a sense - concerning a particular idea, concept, or even object. One can criticize and reject, or one can praise and accept; a belief-system. But the belief-system itself is always posited as the axiomatic point from which the debate must begin, rather than as the result of exchange of ideas, which debate really is.
The basic problem in attempting any form of dialogue with John 2, is, simply, that he states everyone of his points as being axiomatic - i.e., matters not open to any real discussion - and then responds to challenge of any one, or all, these axioms by a series of modifications, or brush-offs, or just plain departure from the the topic itself, to the area of person/personality. And, he does so without any attempt at self-reflection, which might cause him to have to admit that any of his posited axioms could be at all, in any way, wrong to begin with - "wrong", that is, OUTSIDE OF the belief-systme itself.
No one can deny him the right to the belief-system. Nor should anyone attempt to deny him the freedom of expression he gives to that belief-system. But, one should recognize that a fixed belief - fixed for the moment anyway - is not, and cannot be, an invitation to debate - whatever else might eventuate from an exchange with the believer. He is perfectly entitled to believe that the Constitution is to be interpreted ONLY according to his way of thinking. But, any belief-system so monumentally ridiculous as to reject the REALITY of the opposite concept as actually being the current way in which things are done, makes for a futile, and foolish, waste of time for those who do live, and act, in the REAL world.
As "darfor" pointed out, for the past 200+ years, the concept and actuality of Case Law IS the current operative REALITY. And, the idea that all this wealth of development and growth should, simply, be wiped out, in favor of an 18th Century set of premises, is absurd. Here, the belief-system is best exposed for what it is, just that, a belief-system, rather than any attempt to debate.the merits of, or anything else concerning, the 18th Century premises.
And then, we veer off, into what FDR did, or what "liberals" do, or "conservatives" do less of, or "better", etc., etc., all of which are totally peripheral to the basic premises of the belief-system itself, the premises that the Constitution is nothing more than something to be interpreted in an 18th fashion, and none other.
It is a "game" no one else can win, simply because it is a 'game" in which the "rules" - as well as the "topics", "points", and even the "moves" - are continuously shifting to suit the believer, who presented the "game" - and made it up - in the first place. For those who are fans of Dungeons and Dragons, perhaps, that might be fun. And, I simply prefer to let them play at that.
To the writer concerning HTML,
I am not a "computer nerd" - or even all that much knowledgable in the area of the mechanics of such. I use the box(es) provided by the website, for the most part; and am limited accordingly, by the type style and accessories (none, in reality) available. Thank you for the instructions; but I am really not even a good typist, much less someone who can use computer commands that well.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 2, 2007 09:08 AMJohn 2,
You have my point of view, expressed at length, on another line. Your insistence upon repitition of something that you can look up yourself, is not germaine to the topic; nor is it to any point to which you have shifted the matter.
Your assertion about not needing to consider 200+ years of Case Law merely indicates your own lack of ability to recognize the matter of REALITY, when it comes to any area of conflict with your fixations and your belief-system.
As usual, you are merely avoiding any honest admission of the fact that you have brushed off a direct question to you - with your usual nonchalance, and refusal to acknowledge the pertinance of that question to your assertions - and you are trying to make it appear as if those of us who have, many times already, sought to get a direct answer from you, are to blame, somehow, for your own refusal to respond to others with facts, evidence, or reason. Your position is, as usual, meretricious and duplicitous.
Now, go play your own form of Dungeons and Dragons with those who choose to waste their time accomodating your fantasies.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 2, 2007 09:27 AMYet again, Old Grouch, you managed to completely sidestep questions posed to you in favor of meaningless lecturing.
Yes, I have a view I believe is the right one. Prove it wrong by cogently arguing your own view. All I want is to hear your personal view on the Constitution. In regards to this discussion, I don't care what previous judges have ruled. I want to hear what you think about it. Are you telling me you cannot form an opinion regarding our Constitution unless all 200 years of case laws are studied?
As for darfor/mongoose/Small Practice Attorney, I believe they are the same person. I have methods and various clues to come to that conclusion. And since mongoose/darfor also claims a close relationship with trinity, I now suspect that trinity was also a fake character. I also doubt the veracity of darfor/mongoose's supposed career of appellate court lawyer. I think this guy is really just a small-time lawyer or perhaps a law student attempting a prank.
Posted by John II on October 2, 2007 09:29 AMFind the rhetoric in conclusion that the Constitution says what the final arbiter says it says: e.g. Hein v. FFRF where Scalia claims an imperial presidency in W. Bush where he cannot be sued but Congress can when appropriating tax dollars to religion of choice: to wit:
Scalia's son is a pedophile priest; the Church needs money; the five Catholics on the Court say unmarked funds appropriated to the President can be funneled to the Church by the President. (If Mitt is it Mormons will get.)
Note: I err in favor of the children in assuming all priests are pedophiles and as in Australia children need to be chaperoned to the confessional. (All disputes to the Bench are predetermined by common sense (bias and prejudice).
Deicide Corner: “The world would be astonished if it knew how great a proportion of its brightest ornaments--of those most distinguished even in popular estimation for wisdom and virtue--are complete skeptics in religion.” -- John Stuart Mill
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo.com [Free blasphemous songs on cassette] on October 2, 2007 09:57 AMYep, many Americans have never read the Constitution and have not idea what it contains nor do they seem to care.
The Constitution designates only three Federal crimes, piracy, counterfeiting and treason and yet now the Federal Government has added over 4000 more deeds it does not like and has decided to criminalize.
The Constitution gives the Feds no authority to criminalize the American publics vices, such as drug useage but the Feds have decided to have a "War Against Some Drugs" and invent criminal penalties.
The Constitution does not give the Feds the authority to tax the labor of Americans but has decided to do it anyway.
The Constitution says that one need not declare any religious affilliation in order to be elected into a public office but the Feds have decided that even the elected non- religious must swear on a terrible comic book called "The Bible" in order to somehow make it official.
The Constitution says that only Congress can declare that the United States go to war, but we have a president that does not follow the Constitution and ignores the Congress and start a war with Iraq.
The Constitution says that only Congress has the authority to coin money, but the Feds decided to allow a private bank, The Phoney Federal Reserve, that has never even been audited, to print money out of thin air, and lend it to the Federal Government while charging interest thus creating a monster debt based fiat money system that can never be paid back, as they do not create the interest. And now this fiat money system has left us with a natinal debt exceeding $9,800,000,000. and counting.
Yes, John R. Pack, if people knew more about the Constitution, maybe we could take America back.
Posted by William on October 2, 2007 11:56 AMWilliam,
I don't know how you can make those claims unless you managed to read 200+ years of case studies.
Good post.
Posted by John II on October 2, 2007 12:43 PMWilliam:
The Constitution does not give the Feds the authority to tax the labor of Americans but has decided to do it anyway.
Amendment XVI -
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
CL,
William is probably referring to the flawed ratification process for that amendment.
Posted by John II on October 2, 2007 01:37 PMJohn II:
"The frustrating part about darfor's argumentative style is that he never really takes a position on anything"
I know Small PA already addressed this but I had to throw my bit in.
I was really enjoying your banter with darfor, especially because he previously revelaed his occupation in another thread. You see, I have 3 attorneys in my family, all in different fields of practice.
I can ask the same question to each one and get three completely different answers, all of which never commit to any certain position. After awhile you get better at pinninig them down but it takes a lot of practice.
But on the bright side, liquored up holidays with my family generate some rather drawn out yet interesting conversations.
Posted by KW on October 2, 2007 02:05 PMJohn II:
William is probably referring to the flawed ratification process for that amendment.
Ah, so now the Constitution isn't really the Constitution...
You do realize that many of these arguements have failed court challenges.
Also John II, given the language William used I find it doubtful that he really meant the ratification process.
Posted by CL on October 2, 2007 02:31 PMI have just responded and was given a notice by the RMN that my post will be held for review. In this post I have given examples where the IRS has lost cases recently in Federall Court because there is no law requiring Americans to pay an unapportioned tax on their labor. If the RMN is not deciding now to censor what they do not want others to read then they should post what I have written.
Posted by William on October 2, 2007 02:40 PMWilliam - that happens when your post has more than 2 links in it.
Posted by CL on October 2, 2007 02:42 PMWilliam:
In this post I have given examples where the IRS has lost cases recently in Federall Court because there is no law requiring Americans to pay an unapportioned tax on their labor.
Just wanted to point out that if, in fact, there is no law requiring the taxes that is not the same thing as saying the Constitution does not give the authority to levy the taxes.
Posted by CL on October 2, 2007 02:56 PMCL, I beg to differ. I said that the Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to tax the labor of American workers. Not that some taxes are not illegal like the income tax.
Since the 16th amendment of the U.S Constitution was never actually legally ratified by enough states to make it legal, there is no law that forces Americans to pay an unapportioned tax on their labor. Here is a link that explains what I refer to. William Benson began researching this in 1984 and found that the 16th amendment is not legal and therefore uinconstitutional. He did this after serving prison time for not paying income taxes and after he completed his research he now pays NO Federal Income Tax and the Feds refuse to arrest him because he can now use what he has written:
"The Law That Never Was"
Read it at http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp
Also read about Lousianna attorney that is also not guilty at
http://www.truthattack.org
KW,
That's funny. I'll bet those liquored-up family holidays are a lot of fun.
I'm not sure how to pin down folks like darfor or Old Grouch when they simply refuse to directly answer a question. Perhaps, it would be easier to do in person than in writing.
Posted by John II on October 2, 2007 03:14 PMOr this recent September 17, 2007 Las Vegas Federal Court Income Tax case where it was again shown 161 Federal Tax Charges to Zero that the Federal Income tax is illegal and the Constitution does not allow the Feds to tax the labor of American workers. This was blacked out by the mainstream media and the RMN.
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/update/update2007-09-30.htm
Posted by William on October 2, 2007 03:19 PMAnd on the lighter side. Seems some ladies in the South are getting an example of Constitutional law, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case about the Constitutionality of selling sex toys. Unless they also have a medical use, the toys are illegal.
If the court can just decline cases, then they have to be refiled under another amendment.
Clever way of not taking sides.
The reason we have Constitutional scholars, lawyers, judges and the Supreme Court is because the Constitution and its amendments are not as clearly and concisely written as say, the Bible (joke).
So many people say they love the original intent of the Constitution. Intent, what a precise word.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 2, 2007 03:24 PMSharon B. said:
"So many people say they love the original intent of the Constitution. Intent, what a precise word."
No, so many people love to tell other people that they love the original intent. I don't go around claiming to love the "original intent". I care about the actual wording of the Constitution.
If the Constitution enumerates it's powers, and it also says that anything not enumerated is left to the States, I don't see the constitutional complexity of government programs and departments such as Social Security or the Dept. of Education; they are not enumerated as federal powers therefore they are unconstitutional.
darfor and Old Grouch have yet to explain the workarounds for those federal programs. Maybe CL will take a shot at it.
Posted by John II on October 2, 2007 03:39 PMJohn II my letter was not written to or about you.
How would original wording handle say surrogate motherhood? What amendments cover it? Privacy, contract, interstate commerce if the woman goes to another state?
The Actual Wording could not look into the future and see everything new. That would leave nearly everything new to the states. Right?
Posted by Sharon B. on October 2, 2007 03:55 PM"The Actual Wording could not look into the future and see everything new. That would leave nearly everything new to the states. Right?"
Right. That's what constitutional amendments are for; to address issues not currently addressed in the Constitution.
Posted by John II on October 2, 2007 04:01 PMSharon B - Although I'm certainly no constitutional scholar, my interpretation reads much like John II. Those items not spelled out are left to the states.
And I believe this was suppose to be the stopper for all these amendments and programs the feds have installed.
Rather than follow this portion of our constitution, the feds deem these programs "necessary" and take the power back away from the states.
We'd all be better off had each state been left to decide how to handle new societal problems they faced. And if you didn't like one states policy you could have 49 other options to choose from.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John II - Whoa there dude. I was refering to wrangling with attorneys. Old Grouch is a whole nother animal and I don't think we can ever pin him down on any issue. He's like a greased pig.
No offense OG.
Posted by KW on October 2, 2007 04:09 PMso we left voting rights to the states, and integration. That worked out well, (joke again)
People can`t always move.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 2, 2007 05:02 PMSharon B. proclaimed:
"People can`t always move."
Ha, so therefore what? We should make everything uniform across the country so New Yorkers have the same experience as Coloradans and Alaskans have the same experience as Floridians?
People can't always do a lot of things. It is irrelevant. Let the States compete.
Posted by John II on October 2, 2007 05:22 PMWilliam -
CL, I beg to differ. I said that the Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to tax the labor of American workers. Not that some taxes are not illegal like the income tax.
I was simply pointing out that saying there is no law is not the same thing as saying the Costitution doesn't allow it.
Here is a link that explains what I refer to. William Benson began researching this in 1984 and found that the 16th amendment is not legal and therefore uinconstitutional. He did this after serving prison time for not paying income taxes and after he completed his research he now pays NO Federal Income Tax and the Feds refuse to arrest him because he can now use what he has written: "The Law That Never Was"
Yeah he went to jail, and he lost his case in court:
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/00_images/sj_reply.pdf
which, BTW found:
“Benson is wrong.” United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598, 607 (7th Cir. 1991). Binding
precedent makes it abundantly clear that the ratification and validity of the Sixteenth
Amendment is conclusive upon the courts.. Consequently, as the Seventh Circuit told defendant
in 1991, the Amendment’s ratification is “beyond review.”
So, we have a guy who, ater going to jail for not paying taxes, will tell you how to avoid going to jail for not paying taxes - if you send him money. Thanks, but I'll keep my money.
As for the two cases you provided links for, both were found not guilty of willfully not filing returns or paying taxes. For an explanation see:
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/belief.htm
Posted by CL on October 2, 2007 05:31 PM
In the aptly-named case of Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991), the Supreme Court noted that the statute making it a crime to fail to pay federal income taxes provides that the crime is committed only by someone who “willfully” fails to pay. The Supreme Court held that someone who truly believes that the law does not require him to pay taxes has not committed the crime of willfully failing to pay, even though his belief is wrong.
John II
If the Constitution enumerates it's powers, and it also says that anything not enumerated is left to the States, I don't see the constitutional complexity of government programs and departments such as Social Security or the Dept. of Education; they are not enumerated as federal powers therefore they are unconstitutional.darfor and Old Grouch have yet to explain the workarounds for those federal programs. Maybe CL will take a shot at it.
[shrug] I dunno. I've never looked into them. For all I know they may not be constitutional.
Good honest answer, CL.
Posted by John II on October 2, 2007 06:23 PMArticle 1, Section 8 of our constitution, that being the section that contains the "general welfare" clause, is simply not clear as to what that clause does or
empowers.
Section 8, in part:
"Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
[Section 8 continues with an enumeration of more specific powers, ending with this:]
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
There are good arguments for a strict interpretation such as Madison's, and good arguments for a broad interpretation, such as Hamilton's.
The broad interpretation is the one that has been adopted. People can certainly argue that such interpretation should be rejected in favor of a strict interpretation, but until that happens the broad interpretation is the one that governs our country and is the law of the land.
While, as shown in the article below, there have been cases which have applied the broad interpretation prior to 1936, it was in 1936 that the broad interpretation was expressly adopted. There have been many supreme courts justices, both liberal and conservative, both loose and strict constructionists, but I am not aware of any who has called for interpretation in United States vs. Butler to be overturned.
It requires a great deal of arrogance for a person to say that the general welfare clause is subject to only the strict construction which Madison favored. But then there is no lack of such arrogance on this forum.
HISTORY OF THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE as stated in http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html#fnb543
"With respect to the meaning of “the general welfare” the pages of The Federalist itself disclose a sharp divergence of views between its two principal authors. Hamilton adopted the literal, broad meaning of the clause; Madison contended that the powers of taxation and appropriation of the proposed government should be regarded as merely instrumental to its remaining powers, in other words, as little more than a power of self–support. From an early date Congress has acted upon the interpretation espoused by Hamilton. Appropriations for subsidies and for an ever increasing variety of “internal improvements” constructed by the Federal Government, had their beginnings in the adminis[p.154]trations of Washington and Jefferson. Since 1914, federal grants– in–aid, sums of money apportioned among the States for particular uses, often conditioned upon the duplication of the sums by the recipient State, and upon observance of stipulated restrictions as to its use, have become commonplace.
"The scope of the national spending power was brought before the Supreme Court at least five times prior to 1936, but the Court disposed of four of the suits without construing the “general welfare” clause. In the Pacific Railway Cases (California v. Pacific Railroad Co.) and Smith v. Kansas City Title Co., it affirmed the power of Congress to construct internal improvements, and to charter and purchase the capital stock of federal land banks, by reference to the powers of the National Government over commerce, and post roads and fiscal operations, and to its war powers. Decisions on the merits were withheld in two other cases, Massachusetts v. Mellon and Frothingham v. Mellon, on the ground that neither a State nor an individual citizen is entitled to a remedy in the courts against an alleged unconstitutional appropriation of national funds. In United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry., however, the Court had invoked “the great power of taxation to be exercised for the common defence and general welfare” to sustain the right of the Federal Government to acquire land within a State for use as a national park.
"Finally, in United States v. Butler, the Court gave its unqualified endorsement to Hamilton’s views on the taxing power."
UNITED STATES VS. BUTLER 297 U.S. 1 (1936):
Excerpts:
"Since the foundation of the nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to ap- [297 U.S. 1, 66] propriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of section 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.
"But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations.
"As Story says: 'The Constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.'
"Again he says: 'A power to lay taxes for the common defence and general welfare of the United States is not in common sense a general power. It is limited to those objects. It cannot constitutionally transcend them.'
"That the qualifying phrase must be given effect all advocates of broad construction admit. Hamilton, in his [297 U.S. 1, 67] well known Report on Manufactures, states that the purpose must be 'general, and not local.' Monroe, an advocate of Hamilton's doctrine, wrote: 'Have Congress a right to raise and appropriate the money to any and to every purpose according to their will and pleasure? They certainly have not.' Story says that if the tax be not proposed for the common defense or general welfare, but for other objects wholly extraneous, it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles. And he makes it clear that the powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare."
Posted by Truth on October 2, 2007 06:56 PMTruth said:
"While, as shown in the article below, there have been cases which have applied the broad interpretation prior to 1936, it was in 1936 that the broad interpretation was expressly adopted."
Yes, it is interesting to note that the man who pushed for this broad interpretation was the same man who imprisoned Americans citizens merely because they were Japanese-Americans.
Truth, I believe I've told you over a dozen times that FDR was responsible for the broad federal powers that exists now. FDR even went so far as to threaten the Supreme Court in order to get his programs passed.
Again, I'll repeat a previous post I made on this thread:
"His view [Mr. Hamilton's] on the Constitution has won because it's the easiest view to maintain politically. If one can view the Constitution with such broad undefined powers, one can promise anything the population desires."
This is the problem with an uneducated democracy: the people will eventually vote themselves into socialism.
"It requires a great deal of arrogance for a person to say that the general welfare clause is subject to only the strict construction which Madison favored. But then there is no lack of such arrogance on this forum."
Arrogance? I think not. It takes a great deal of arrogance to redefine the Constitution in a manner opposite of what is actually written. Just because there is a precedence for the blatant disregard for the Constitution does not mean that that constitutional apathy is legitimate.
But, it does go to show how quickly a unconstitutional program like Social Security takes hold. Many people get used to such an abuse and choose to ignore constitutional inconsistencies in favor of free money. This is why it is so important to fight against further abuses like giving $5k to every newborn child or instituting a universal health care system. Once these systems are put in place, they are very difficult to remove.
Posted by John II on October 2, 2007 09:53 PMJohn II, Sharon B. wheedled, give me some examples of how the states could compete in the areas of child labor or food safety or voting rights.
Are you sure compete is the right word?
Posted by Sharon B. on October 2, 2007 10:15 PMHere's a laugh for you. Some poster who is deeply frustrated with his inability to come up with any substantive arguments resorts to statements like this:
"Yes, it is interesting to note that the man who pushed for this broad interpretation was the same man who imprisoned Americans citizens merely because they were Japanese-Americans."
So he says that his interpretation of the constitution should prevail because President Roosevelt approved of the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans.
Boy, enough frustration and some people go crazy.
Posted by Truth on October 3, 2007 08:04 AMSharon B.,
I gave you legitimate examples of how the States may differ in the areas you mentioned.
We are all aware of child labor abuses. Was it always abusive? Child labor is not just about working in factory sweatshops. It's about working on the farm or learning a skill as an apprentice. Benjamin Franklin started out at an early age as a printer's apprentice. This sparked his interest in writing for newspapers. Abraham Lincoln started out rowing folks across the river. That experience helped shape his outlook later in life. Some people, like myself, feel that the real tragedy is sending kids en masse to public schools and allowing them grow fat and dumb in front of the boob tube.
Each State should set these laws. Some would be stricter, others less strict.
The same goes for food laws. I gave you an example of one section of the country that had different laws than, let's say, Colorado. Why does that bother you? What is it about letting each State decide on it's own food laws that bothers you?
"That would put us back to a time before 1900 and allow business to once again injure or kill us with tainted food and work children to death."
Do you think you might be exaggerating a bit? Why would all that have to happen if each State were responsible for itself as authorized by the Constitution?
Posted by John II on October 3, 2007 08:18 AMSharon B.,
Read this piece of news: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_on_re_us/secessionist_movement_1
The situation is occurring because of constitutional abuses. Instead of letting each State decide on it's own laws, an overbearing federal government now alienates both sides of the political spectrum. This could have been avoided if State's Rights were protected.
Posted by John II on October 3, 2007 08:30 AMWell, CL, your reply is typical of somwone who is upset about paying income taxes and does not like those I have shown you that have proven in court that the law does not exists and pay no income taxes haveing been found not guilty by jury and Judge. Keep your money but make sure to save some to donate to income taxes. The cases I have shown you are true and these folks do not pay.
Posted by William on October 3, 2007 08:41 AMWilliam -
That's a pretty lame defense of your position.
I have shown you that have proven in court that the law does not exists and pay no income taxes haveing been found not guilty by jury and Judge
Well, I addressed that pretty darn specifically by showing that:
1) At least 1 claim (and there are several others) that the 16th amend is unconstitutional was flatly rejected by the court
2) That the defendants in the cases you cited were found not guilty of willingly not paying or filing taxes.
#2 raises a rather interesting question - how can you be found not guilty of a law that doesn't exist??
You don't know me or what I think or feel about paying income taxes so your attempt to make me out as "typical of someone..." is baseless at best.
Oh well, thanks for playing, it was somewhat amusing.
Posted by CL on October 3, 2007 09:55 AMCL,
You shouldn't be so glib; William's points are valid.
Ohio ratified the 16th Amendment in 1911 even though they were not officially ratified as a State until 1953. That is a fact.
Another fact, the States did not ratify the same law. There were syntactical and grammatical differences. How can an amendment be legally ratified when almost every State has a different version of the amendment?
Even the court acknowledges these facts. It simply ruled those facts as legally trivial. But, should the triviality (or non-triviality) of an amendment be considered by judges, or by legislators? Judges should rule on constitutionality, not triviality.
Posted by John II on October 3, 2007 10:13 AMI have enjoyed playing with the stuff you write CL.
On point #1, that is debateable because it depends on which court and which judge oversees the case. In a recent tax evasion court case, the judge said "I will not allow the law in my court room", but the person won anyway and does not pay income taxes.
On point #2, since there is no law that requires Americans to pay an income tax on their labor, these folks were found not guilty of a crime that does not exist and pay no income tax which is why they challenged a law that does not exist even though the government pretends that it does exist.
You ask how they can be found not guilty of a law that doesn't exist? These folks challenged the IRS for accusing them of failure to pay income taxes based on a law that does not exist. They were found not guilty because the government could not magically make the law legal when it was not ratified by the required number of states. I pointed that out in "The law that Never Was". I does not matter what you think about the law that does not exist. Although I do not know you, as you say, or know what you feel about paying icome taxes, this post is about the constitution and I have pointed out what many do not know about this document and is that the 16th amendment that was not properly and legally ratified mens that the income tax amendment is not constitutional and it is good to see some Americans win in court.
I am sorry that you are upset. But here is another case of a former IRS agent Joe Banister, who resigned after realizing that the law does not exist. Guess what? He was taken to court for income tax evasion and Found Not Guilty.
See his case at
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?article_ID=44956
Since there is no law, Joe banister goes free and pays no income taxes.
Posted by William on October 3, 2007 10:59 AMCL,here is something you can watch for free that will help you understand that the income tax law does not exist.
Log onto Google and watch the film titled "America: Freedom to Fascism. At http://www.freedomtofascism.com
This documentary even has an intersting debate between the director and the former IRS commissioner who trys unconvincingly to defend the 16th amendment. During the entire film the director Aaron Russo keeps asking the IRS to show him the law and they will not do it because they canot produce a law that does not exist.
Posted by William on October 3, 2007 11:10 AMJohn II, great, 50 little countries viewing for survival with each other. Then they start to join up and become slightly larger countries. Meanwhile sensible people move to Canada which maybe only splits into two countries.
This does not answer my questions about laws against abuses, such as the child labor laws.
Yep, they have gone too far in some cases, but those extremes are usually states laws especially on the one area you mentioned, farms.
It is still better to have federal laws on issues of life and death, then to let each state decide.
Going out to check my antiques and have lunch with a friend, and keep the money moving. Another thread but you and I have been hopping around on these two for awhile. While Truth sits at home I will go have "fun".
Posted by Sharon B. on October 3, 2007 11:38 AMSharon B.,
Again, "abuses" are dealt with by each State instead of one federal government.
I can't believe after all of Truth's lecturing, you are going out to have fun while our nation is at war. Shouldn't you stay home and beat yourself with a bat for awhile or maybe watch The View to make sure you are not enjoying life too much? The least you can do is wear a hair-shirt while you're out having fun.
Posted by John II on October 3, 2007 11:49 AMWilliam:
On point #1, that is debateable because it depends on which court and which judge oversees the case. In a recent tax evasion court case, the judge said "I will not allow the law in my court room", but the person won anyway and does not pay income taxes.
You need much more substantiation than an un referenced claim as to what some judge in a "recent tax evasion court case" said.
Wikipedia has an article that covers many of the arguments and court findings:
"Tax protester constitutional arguments"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments#Sixteenth_Amendment_ratification_arguments
On point #2, since there is no law that requires Americans to pay an income tax on their labor, these folks were found not guilty of a crime that does not exist and pay no income tax which is why they challenged a law that does not exist even though the government pretends that it does exist.
Repeating an assertion doesn't make it true. In the earlier link I provided:
Benson engaged in conduct subject to penalty under IRC § 6700 by making false or fraudulent statements about the federal tax laws which he knew or had reason to know were false or fraudulent as to a material matter
And here's some info on IRC § 6700:
http://www.charitablesystems.com/irs/topicm.pdf
including:
Under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, Congress enacted IRC 6700 and IRC 6701 as penalties for the abuse of tax shelters. IRC 6700 imposes a penalty on anyone -- promoters, salesmen and their assistants -- for organizing and selling abusive tax shelters. IRC 6701 is the aiding and abetting provision, and it imposes a penalty on those who aid and assist in the preparation of false or fraudulent tax documents that would result in an understatement of tax liability.
So, there's the "no law" that Benson was charged with as well as mention of what I wrote on earlier about willfully not filing taxes or returns (Benson knew or should have know).
BTW, I'm not "upset", you have no way of judging what my emotional state is.
John II -
Another fact, the States did not ratify the same law. There were syntactical and grammatical differences. How can an amendment be legally ratified when almost every State has a different version of the amendment?
From the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals - seems other amendments had worse errors:
http://www.fraudsandscams.com/Benson/miller.htm
"Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so. ... [his] decision is now beyond review."
John II -
But, should the triviality (or non-triviality) of an amendment be considered by judges, or by legislators? Judges should rule on constitutionality, not triviality.
It's not just "triviality" - see the Supreme Court's ruling on "Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company" - among other things:
It is clear on the face of this text [the 16th Amendment] that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a genericsense -- an authority already possessed and never questioned
http://www.fraudsandscams.com/brushaber_case.pdf
There's much more to this than so-called "tax-protesters" let on. The problem is, many of them are scams (hence the source of the links).
Posted by CL on October 3, 2007 01:02 PM
All that matters is that in the cases that I have mentioned and in the movie I have suggested is that many people have been able win their cases in a Federal Court of law and prove that the law does not apply to them and now do not have to pay income tax on their labor. Watch the film if you have the time as it is free on the net.
Posted by William on October 3, 2007 01:16 PMCL said:
"It's not just "triviality" - see the Supreme Court's ruling on "Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company" - among other things:"
I used the wrong word. Instead of trivial, I should have said frivolous. That is the word used to describe tax protesters claims. In other words, judges ruled on frivolousness when they should have ruled strictly according to the Constitution.
Posted by John II on October 3, 2007 01:25 PMoK, CL, you asked for it and so here it is;
United States of America and Judge Dawson vs Irwin Schiff in a recent court case, said,
Quote; "I will not allow the law in my court room". Well, CL is that enough "substantiation"?
Hre is the link:
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=26549
Posted by on October 3, 2007 01:45 PM"I will not allow the law in my court room". Well, CL is that enough "substantiation"?
Here's where that originally came from - Irwin Schiff's blog:
http://irwinschiff.blogspot.com/2005_10_02_archive.html
and this is just one piece from a court filing in Schiff's case (for more follow the link):
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq/schiff_opp_sj.pdf
Diagnosis: From the historical record, Mr. Schiff's own descriptions of his behavior and Dr. Ortega's recent emergency psychiatric hospital report, it appears that the diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder is well established and warranted. Mr. Schiff had a recent episode of depression with suicidal ideation, which required hospitalization, but has been remediated with medication. I also believe there is a concurrent Delusional Personality Disorder.
I'll just consider the source...
Posted by CL on October 3, 2007 02:46 PMJohn II
...see the Supreme Court's ruling on "Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company"In other words, judges ruled on frivolousness when they should have ruled strictly according to the Constitution.
And what specifically in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company was "ruled on frivolousness"??
Posted by CL on October 3, 2007 02:55 PMCL, if Judge Dawson does not want the law in his courtroom that still does not make the income tax collecter legal. And as long as folks like Joe Banister and Tom Cryer continue to win in court and to prove that the law does not exist that is a good thing. Until the law that never was is overturned, millions in the underground economy as well as many of my personal friends will continue to barter, cheat, work for cash and do whatever it takes to hide what they have earned and that the government has no legal right to consfiscate. There is no law.
Posted by William on October 3, 2007 03:57 PMJohn II, I must be half asleep. First you said leave social problems to the states, (paraphrasing), then your one example of food safety is New York (a state last time I looked,) and trans-fat.
This is probably not a good day to talk about Federal safety issues because of X-ell. Even with federal laws, people get killed.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 3, 2007 06:48 PMSharon B.,
I don't get your confusion. Yes, New York is a state; Well done. You asked me how food laws would work if they were left to the states. I offered an example of how one state (it was actually the city) chooses tougher food laws than another.
The concept is simple: each state decides on it's own laws (including child labor, food & drug, etc.) I don't see where you are confused.
Posted by John II on October 3, 2007 08:16 PMJohn II, confused, you say? Bologna. You want the states to decide, then use a state, or city, example of what you think is bad, not a Federal example.
I would go with your interpretation if we had some basic laws for children working, food safety etc. Then let the states add on more restrictive laws, if the people there want them.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 3, 2007 09:48 PM"You want the states to decide, then use a state, or city, example of what you think is bad, not a Federal example."
Are you overdosing on benadryl again? I already told you about the New York food law. It's good for New Yorkers because they obviously want the law. It's good for Colorado because we don't want the law, so we don't have it.
If you want basic laws followed by all the states, put the law in the Constitution. See how that works? Review the 10th Amendment.
Posted by John II on October 3, 2007 10:55 PMCL, a legend in his own mind.
Posted by LC on October 4, 2007 08:08 AMHere, we are dealing with a belief-system. It is one of the most narrow, and inherently reactionary and regressive in terms, of all the possible belief-systems around today.
It does not rest upon sound grounds of evidence or facts. Indeed this belief-system is one that most vigorously rejects both evidence and facts that have even the slightest appearance of being critical, or of offering a refutation of the belief-system's dogmatic pronouncements. The more absurd the dogmatic pronouncements are, the greater is the intensity of the belief; and the more vituperative the denunciations of the believer against anyone challenging.
As has been demonstrated, time and again, throughout a host of postings here – and elsewhere on this website - the religion of, “How the Constitution Ought to Be Interpreted, According to John 2” is one of the most "jealous gods" of all. And its founder, proponent, dogmatist, chief hierarch, and principal disciple, is one of the least self-reflecting, and least able to distinguish between objective reality and subjective personal embodiment of both "deity" and dogma.
It is what he says it is, when he says it – never mind 200+ years of reality and Case Law to the contrary.
It reminds me of nothing quite so much as a cartoon showing one of those wild eyed old fanatics, standing on a soapbox in the town square, waving a Bible and loudly proclaiming: “The earth is only 6000 years old; and its flat, not round! And it says so right here in this Book!”
And, YOU better believe it!
Old Grouch,
Once again, Old Grouch, another post that does nothing but lecture me. Was there something specific you are disagreeing with?
Posted by John II on October 4, 2007 09:24 AMThanks, Old Grouch: I read and revisit your posts. I am collecting them along with others and yours dominate my collection.
Posted by JVB on October 4, 2007 09:49 AMJohn II
The concept is simple: each state decides on it's own laws (including child labor, food & drug, etc.) I don't see where you are confused.
and
If you want basic laws followed by all the states, put the law in the Constitution. See how that works? Review the 10th Amendment.
John II - many federal laws regarding food & drugs are justified (rightly or wrongly) by the Commerce Clause.
Given your stance on State's rights, I'm a bit suprised you don't bring this up. One complaint I hear from State's rights supporters (and one I tend to agree with) is that the Commerce Clause has been way too broadly applied ( ie. a product just might somehow possibly get shipped across state lines so the Feds have the power to regulate it ).
Posted by CL on October 4, 2007 10:27 AMCL, you answered your own question to me.
The Commerce Clause is too broadly applied (misapplied).
For example, we cannot buy liquor in Colorado grocery stores yet we can in California. The same would apply to food & drugs: Colorado pharmacies may offer more drugs than a state like California.
Posted by John II on October 4, 2007 10:45 AMJohn II - why do I get the feeling you are being evasive?
The Commerce Clause is too broadly applied (misapplied).For example, we cannot buy liquor in Colorado grocery stores yet we can in California. The same would apply to food & drugs: Colorado pharmacies may offer more drugs than a state like California.
So Colorado has different liquor laws than California - how is that an example of missaplication of the Commerce Clause?
A more relavent example would have been something like California wines which, since they are sold in other states like Colorado, do fall under some Federal regulations under the Commerce Clause.
Because of that, the Feds might very well justify regulating such aspects of how the wine is bottled and the maximum alcohol content the wine is allowed to contain.
I don't know if you would consider something like that to be a missaplication of the Commerce Clause or not. There's a very wide range of what might and might not be subject to Federal regulation based on the Commerce Clause.
Scalia wrote an opinion the subject that makes for an interesting read:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html
and even he says the Commerce Clause can apply to intrastate (within a state, not between states)activites if it has an impact on interstate commerce.
Anyway, my point was that the Commerce Clause has been used to regulate food and drugs and it appears that even Scalia thinks it applies in at least some cases.
So that comes back to what you wrote that prompted me to respond to:
The concept is simple: each state decides on it's own laws (including child labor, food & drug, etc.) I don't see where you are confused.
and
If you want basic laws followed by all the states, put the law in the Constitution. See how that works? Review the 10th Amendment.
So let me put this another way that might seem more relevant to your discussion with Sharon B with a more specific question:
Do the Feds have Costitutional authority to regulate how Califonia wineries bottle their wine, and if not why?
Posted by CL on October 4, 2007 12:59 PM"Do the Feds have Costitutional authority to regulate how Califonia wineries bottle their wine, and if not why?"
No. Explain to me why it should be regulated.
I used the grocery store analogy as a simple example of how each state regulates it's business.
Posted by John II on October 4, 2007 03:02 PMDo the Feds have Costitutional authority to regulate how Califonia wineries bottle their wine, and if not why?"No. Explain to me why it should be regulated.
I didn't say it should.
Care to answer my question of why the Feds don't have the Constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate how California wineries bottle their wine?
No, I don't. You're throwing up random scenarios and asking me to explain it as if you were giving me a homework assignment.
I see no reason why interstate sales of wine needs to be regulated by the Commerce Clause. If you have a specific reason why it should be regulated, post it and I'll let you know what I think.
Posted by John II on October 4, 2007 05:04 PMJohn II - Its nothing more than a hypothetical
I see no reason why interstate sales of wine needs to be regulated by the Commerce Clause. . If you have a specific reason why it should be regulated, post it and I'll let you know what I think.
Again, I'm not asking if it needs or should be regulated, the question is whether Congress has the Constitutional authority to do so.
In the link I posted earlier, even Scalia said the Feds might regulate activity in a state under the Commerce Clause (in this case the Controlled Substances Act).
What I'm trying to get an awswer to is why Congress doesn't have the authority under the Comerce Clause to regulate ,say, wineries (or drug companies or whatever) that sell their products in other states - after all they have done just that.
Posted by CL on October 4, 2007 05:50 PMJohn II - Its nothing more than a hypothetical
I see no reason why interstate sales of wine needs to be regulated by the Commerce Clause. . If you have a specific reason why it should be regulated, post it and I'll let you know what I think.
Again, I'm not asking if it needs or should be regulated, the question is whether Congress has the Constitutional authority to do so.
In the link I posted earlier, even Scalia said the Feds might regulate activity in a state under the Commerce Clause (in this case the Controlled Substances Act).
What I'm trying to get an awswer to is why Congress doesn't have the authority under the Comerce Clause to regulate ,say, wineries (or drug companies or whatever) that sell their products in other states - after all they have done just that.
Posted by CL on October 4, 2007 05:52 PMOf course they have the authority. I'm missing your point.
Posted by John II on October 4, 2007 06:57 PMThat pretty much is the point - so when you told Sharon B. :
The concept is simple: each state decides on it's own laws (including child labor, food & drug, etc.) I don't see where you are confused.and
If you want basic laws followed by all the states, put the law in the Constitution. See how that works? Review the 10th Amendment.
She doesn't need to put anything in the Constitution to get around the 10th Amendment since the power to do so is already delegated to the United States by the Commerce Clause.
As I said before, what I don't understand is why when you argue for state's rights against Federal laws overriding state's rights on things relating to labor (BTW, even things like the minimum wage has been justified using the Commerce Clause) food and drugs laws and such you don't argue that the Commerce Clause is too broadly interpreted since that is where justification for many such laws comes from.
It's the overly broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause that many state's rights advocates I know complain about the most and is one that I agree with to a considerable degree.
Posted by CL on October 5, 2007 07:41 AMCL,
Your point is well taken. In regards to my discussion with Sharon B., I was simply trying to explain to her some basic concepts about federalism. After she understands this concept, we can move to the more complicated Commerce Clause.
Posted by John II on October 5, 2007 07:54 AM