Two days ago. But I've never been wrong about any part of the constitution and I'm still not.

Not just according to me. According to everyone who knows constitutional law which of course disqualifies you.

The courts are often wrong because they presume to have powers they don't constitutionally have. But they do serve a function. That function just doesn't include interpreting, defining, overruling, ignoring, or violating the constitution or to determine the founders "intent".

The courts have very few duties. The most important is to uphold and defend what is written in the constitution and make sure it's not violated but they have failed in this duty.

99.9% of America is wrong about the constitution, especially the supreme court and congress who seem to think they've got unlimited powers. And the founders made the constitution and we follow what is in it. The constitution is the highest law in the land and the federalist papers are not law and have no bearing what-so-ever on law. We follow what is written and nothing else.

You're damn right me. And others like me. Unlike those who support GWB and his imperialistic war of terrorist aggression against Iraq I am a patriotic American. I support the constitution, freedom, liberty, individualism, non-interventionism, free market capitalism, and the principles this nation was created for. Those who support the war are anti-American scum who are against everything America stands for.

There are millions of people like me all around America and when the time comes for a second American revolution (which might be close if the Patriot Act II passes) I'll be among those who take America back by force and return it to the constitutional republic we started with.

Whit and other ignorant people seem to think the government has unlimited powers and authority. I pity them. They are willing sheep allowing themselves to be sheared.

Quickie then. What do you do when there's a contradiction between different parts of the Constitution?

What were you wrong about two days ago?

     You haven't yet backed up your statement. The 16th Amendment is in effect. The only argument that you have made is that it isn't. That's essentially going "nuh-uh, it is not, it is not!" UT, Juju and myself have looked up things provided reasons for our views. You haven't given us anything to back up your views. Hell, Juju has done a better job backing your side of the argument than you have. I guess that's because he's open to a different viewpoint.
     You have outright called me or inferred that I was ignorant, collectivist, naive, unpatriotic and a sheep. But not once have you backed anything up. Name calling isn't rational discussion. I'm willing to discuss this like an adult, are you?
     You wave Marbury vs. Madison around like a flag, and ignore the fact that the 16th Amendment changed the Constitutional rules. It doesn't apply because this was a change in the Constitution, not a law under it. This has been obvious to anyone that is not intentionally covering their eyes.
     Had you said the 16th Amendment should not be in effect I would agree with you. You say it isn't. Look it up. Wearing blinders does not make your argument stronger.      You say this, or words to this effect often. Yet you also interpret those same words to mean what you want it too. As with the aforementioned Marbury vs. Madison case you twist it to mean what you want. You say it applies but don't back it up. I guess it applies because you want it too.      Actually they determine whether or not the votes were cast improperly. Knox certified it. This was within his power. Let's say he did commit perjury, his doing so hasn't been proven in court so the Amendment still stands. You say it doesn't matter what the court says, but that is their job. To view the facts of a case and make a decision. To my knowledge your argument against this is that they are stupid. Oh, well that settles that.
     Let me show you how backing a point works.      That's right all cases under the Constitution. So, a court case is two individuals or groups in legal disagreement and it's the court, according to the Constitution that decides who is right. What was it you said?      Hmm, so there was a controversy about whether it passed legally or not and the Court unconstitutionally made a decision in the case. I'm reading it, in plain English not Swahili, and this say that is exactly what they are supposed to do. But again your argument is:      Since the court doesn't matter, who do we turn to make a decision when two different people read the same passage of the constitution and take two different meanings? Ah wait, you suggest a "second American revolution." Yes, killing people is always the best answer I suppose. Especially when rational discussion and backing your points isn't something you're interested in.
     By the by, you might look at who the first person to raise an alarm over the patriot act II is on this board. It was me. I've gone off repeatedly about the first patriotic act as well as the Home Security act. These are laws, they are unconstitutional. Nobody has been able to get them into court yet. It'll happen, that's the checks and balances system that the Constitution set up. If you really believe in the Constitution or the ideals this nation is founded on don't you think it's better to use the system to do it's job instead of revolution?
     You call me sheep, you are making an assumption. If you had talked with words like "should" instead of "is" then you would have had my support. Until the day comes when you can see the present as is, not as you say it should be, then we won't agree. The 16th Amendment is in effect. I think Juju linked to a good argument as to why it should not be, but it is still in effect.
     You deny this, and say the courts, congress and all the people are wrong. I say this is a sad denial of reality. If someone slaps you, saying that it's not legal doesn't change the fact that you were slapped. The 16th Amendment is, saying it's not changes nothing. You've still been slapped and it's still the law that you pay your taxes. The IRS being to weak to enforce the law doesn't change what the law is.

The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified 3 February 1913.

Oh sure. Just try and use facts.
 

     Have you not read any of this thread TW??? The 16th Amendment doesn't exist! Radar said so! If the goverment insist's on pretending that it, the courts and 99% of the US population means more than his own unbacked opinions then it's revolution time, baby!
     Oh yeah, if you don't immediately accept that Radar is right about this you are "ignorant, collectivist, naive, unpatriotic and a sheep." There, now you are properly caught up on this thread. Feel free to continue from here.

Hehe. When was the last time you read the Constitution?

Also, you have the allusion of a Political Philosophy professor whom I recall saying during class: "Well, that's an almost Constitutionally vague notion".

It's vague and might become a bit dated. They didn't account for the Internet and other modern realities. That's why the Constitution allows the Court to interpret just what it's supposed to mean (eg; intent) and how it pertains to modern society.

...and the Supreme Court, which is made up of nine of the people currently alive that are best-versed in the Constitution.

Re: Oh sure. Just try and use facts.
 

Quoting the Sixteenth Amendement and giving its ratification date is as close to this thread as I want to get. Just waiting for the one that proves aliens landed in Roswell. Since they've got dead bodies, then there is one I can sink my teeth into.

Good question. Nothing may be added to the constitution that is in contradiction to any other part of the constitution. For instance the 16th amendment contradicts article 1 section 9 of the constitution and therefore can't be added.

I drove an hour and a half to one of the many freedom meetings I attend each month and after I got there I realized I had the wrong day of the month when nobody else was there.

I have absolutely backed it up. I've given you a website that proves irrefutably that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified. That means it's NOT in effect. I've also shown you where the supreme court said that any laws that are in contradiction to the constitution are null and void. What more do you want?

Here's a reminder in case you didn't actually look at the proof I provided. http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com

I don't wave Marbury vs. Madison around, I pointed it out to show you one of the many ways the 16th amendment was illegal. You ignore the fact that the 16th amendment wasn't legally ratified by the required number of states and act as though a court decision can change the number of votes obtained to ratify it.

I do no such thing. I know every part of the constitution and follow all of it. I don't "interpert" it or change any of the meaning. I read it as it was written, not as I want it to be.

Of course it applies. The first supreme court of the United States said that any laws in contradiction to the constitution are null and void. That applies to ALL laws and parts of government.

It's not within his his power to certify it when the required number of votes was never aquired. And yet that's what he did.

The indisputable fact that there were less than 36 votes cast to pass the 16th amendment has been proven dozens of times, but the courts won't address it. No court ruling can make less than 36 votes into 36 votes. And there weren't. Sorry but it's a fact.

The authority to settle disputes doesn't mean they have the authority to rule that an amendment was passed when it had less than the required number of votes to pass. Even the supreme court must abide by the constitution and their rulings can't contradict it. The constitution clearly states that the votes 3/4 of all states are required to pass an amendment and the court DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to violate that part of the constitution by declaring that the amendment passed despite having less than the required number of votes. Try again.

The same is true about getting the supreme court to address the 16th amendment. They won't hear the case. What if they won't hear the case against the Patriot Acts? There is a judicial conspiracy to support the uncosntitutional income taxes.

The government no longer follows the checks and balances designed into the constitution. In fact they violate the constitution so routinely now the checks and balances are virtually non-existant. For instance the Supreme court doesn't challenge unconstitutional laws like the Patriot Act, like the war powers act, and many other things that actually change the powers of the various branches of government. The supreme court has said they can violate the constitution when it's in the interest of government to do so despite them not being granted such power in the constitution. The supreme court members are appointed by presidents they feel beholden to return favors to. Congress is full of collectivists who want to give government more and more power and more of our money even though they have no authority to do so as I've proven several times now. So the checks and balances no longer exist. When was the last time the supreme court shot down an act of congress?

I would like to change the system from within the system but that window of opportunity is closing fast since the government doesn't stick to the rules of the system. If the Patriot Act II passes nearly impossible to make changes peacefully within the system.

I've proven that it is not in effect. Only the illusion that it is in effect is real. Those who believe it is in effect don't know the law, and follow what they're told like sheep. I've done research and understand the law unlike 99.9% of the population. The 16th amendment isn't in effect but the government fraudently acts as though it were.

Not really. It was fraudently claimed to have been ratified but wasn't legally ratified.

Every day. I carry it on me.


The constitution is as fresh and pertinent today as the day it was written. The founders didn't need to know about the internet or modern weapons. Their principles would change even if they did. They believed that the citizens should always outgun the government and that people should be free to express themselves regardless of the medium used.

Actually I know more about the constitution than most Supreme Court Justices who routinely violate it. I'm not bragging, just stating a fact.

Oh my God, TW. You mean they've died!

Everyone else who studies it is concerned with the body of Case law that has resulted from the practical application of it for 213 years.

The reason they study it is because that's the law that is actually applied when you take things to court.

As opposed to the law that doesn't exist in the real world - it only exists in your mind.

The constitution is not law. It's a statement of purpose and methodology. Law is a mutually agreed upon application of those guidelines to insure (more or less) uniform conformance by and to the entire population. Of course pigs are more equal than others.

     I want to see where the courts have said it was unconstitutional. Reality check, dude. The 16th Amendment is. I looked at the site you specified. It was a guy giving a good argument why it should be thrown out, but that doesn't change the fact that it is.
     How 'bout this then? Show me where saying that the 16th amendment is illegitimate has been successfully used in court. I will accept this as proof. Having you or some guy with a web site saying it does not make it so. That's all I'm asking.
     As UT mentioned, until it's a part of case law then it's just what you think it should be. Nothing more.
     Also, I'm very disappointed. When I have a discussion I believe that both parties should be open to what is said. You are not. You are merely using this forum to try and spread your ideas. Guess what? You have a partial success with me. I think it's ratification is crap.
     Guess what else? I look at the Constitution and the 16th is there. All court challenges have failed. There have been many challenges by the way, everyone I could find had the arguements cut down. So, I accept that it is. If it should be is a seperate issue.      This is the only thing I found that you might have been refering to when you say you proved it.      Using this logic then jails are illegal, since it's illegal to lock up a neighbor. Hmm, so are speeding tickets and there's no reason I can't own a nuke. Funny, you had kinda struck me as a pro-death penalty kinda guy. I was obviously wrong about this, since we can't electrocute scum bags that deserve it at home. Maybe I should walk around with a gun on my hip like the cops do. This logic could be fun, if I didn't think it would get me arrested. No, I'd have to say that when the goverment was formed it was given powers of authority beyond that of the common man. The power to govern us specificaly. Maybe that's why they call it 'Goverment'? Root word Govern. Screw it, that must be a word out of swahili.
So, where else did you 'prove it'? You say you did so several times, could you show me?

     Oh yeah. Let's leave the Patriot Act stuff for another thread. We can rant in unison about the evils of that. If you go back a little bit I'm sure you can find a thread I started under the Patriot act II's proper name. That's a more proper thread to talk about it on.

Case law is irrelevant. It's just a way for people to use one bad court ruling as a precident for others. In the end the Constitution is the highest law in the land and judges answer to the Constitution. They don't define it.

Absolutely false. The U.S. Constitution is not only law, it's the highest law in the land. The Supreme Court, President, and Congress are below the Constitution and answer to it and to the people.

I've already said the courts are corrupt and it doesn't matter what the courts say anyway. Case law is irrelevant in Constitutional law. The Constitution means what it says and no court is above it.

See above.

It's not illegal to subdue and lock up your neighbor in your own defense. Even if you were all alone and your neighbor started attacking your family , you would be within your rights to detain them.

Endangering others is a violation of their rights. That's why you can drink but you can't drink and drive.

Again, even if there were no government, if someone killed your family members, you would be within your rights to kill them. But rather than using vigilante justice we have a government to do it for us.

And that is what makes you a collectivist. Government derives its power from the governed and as such can only have the powers that the people would have were there no government at all.

I've offered you sites to read on your own but I can't read it for you. You really aren't the brightest bulb on the Christmas Tree. I'm not trying to be mean or insulting, I'm making a personal observation and I'm being as honest and respectful as I can be with you.

Yeah Whit, you're pretty fucking stupid. You will never be as intelligent as Radar, so you might as well face your reality now.

We already know that Radar is a Grade A Asswipe, but doesn't he sound almost cult-like when he speaks of the Constitution? He sounds scripted...like none of what he writes is actually original.

Don't drink the Kool Aid...

Wrong again, son. If someone kills your family, you have the right to detain them. You can only kill them, when they try to kill you. Not because they might kill you.

Still with the name calling?
 

     I see you haven't given up with the name calling. Sigh.
     Case law does matter unless you can't back-up your arguments. It matters in reality, you are only willing to discuss the world according to you.
     Right, you said the courts are corrupt. Therefore we must all believe. This is your "Proof" time and time again. You "Prove" your point by saying, "They don't count!" Not good enough. It's not proof, it's your opinion. Therefore it's crap as proof.
     Of course it's illegal to detain your neighbors. It's obvious I didn't mean until the police arrive, I meant for years. You are the only one that didn't get that. Actually, I don't think you didn't. I think your response was part of your perpetual cycle of half-truths.
     As Bruce suggested, killing people because they killed your family is vigilante justice. And I thought the gov wasn't supposed to do anything that the individual doesn't?
     No, that's what makes me a realist. I look at the world and see what is, not what I say should be. Calling me a collectivist is like me calling you a retard. Yes, I think a lot of what you say is stupid, but your IQ is obviously above 90 so the title doesn't fit. This is name calling because you have not proven jack, and have to make a personal attack to make yourself feel better.
     I read your sites, and responded to them. You ignored my response so that you could say I was stupid. Very weak.
     Your not being "honest and respectful" you're being openly insulting. This is okay. When the best you can do is say, "You are a stupid-head!" It means you have no solid argument.
     In this case I see you saying that I'm not "the brightest bulb on the Christmas Tree" is saying that you can't do better. By giving any proof based on anything except your opinion. So I accept it. You have a nice day. Maybe someday you'll able to do better, and I'll be open to your words that day.

I'll get in the middle here for a minute. I think there is a distinction here between 'social justice' and 'US Law'. This is why there are sometimes complaints from prosecutors about 'jury nullification'. Many people would feel sympathy for someone who tracked down and killed the people who murdered his or her family, even though such an act is blatantly illegal.

This is why we have judges and juries. It is their job to weigh the merits or each case for 'extenuating circumstances' in order to make the punishment harsher or more lenient. In our legal system, there are various kinds of killing, from pre-meditated homicide down to self-defense, and within that a variety of sentencing options.

Unfortunately, judicial discretion is under attack by Congress. While the original intent was to limit discretion in child abuse cases, the current law appears to limit discretion in many more circumstances than originally intended. This means moving to a 'one size fits all' brand of federal law. Of course, the Supreme Court thinks this is a bad idea and look for a quick strike down on 'due process' grounds.

The word is "precedent" but I'm not surprised you're not familiar with it.

Whether or not the rulings are "bad", i.e., YOU don't like them, all previous rulings stand as precedent for lower court decisions. That judicial power is vested via the Constitution, Article 3 Sections 1 and 2.

In effect, the Supreme Court cannot MAKE an "unconstitutional" decision. All of their decisions on Cases are Constitutional.

How do you answer to Article 3 Sections 1 and 2?

I really want to read the reply to Undertoad's post, but I imagine that, sadly, it won't be anything that we haven't read earlier.
You can arrest a neighbor in a Citizen's Arrest, and I believe that there might be a private citizen who owns (or used to own) a nuke. Larry Niven mentioned the guy in the foreword to one of his short stories.

(edit: Wow. I previewed it several times but failed to notice that I had an open parenthesis).

     Heh, actually Torrere I did specify, "Lock up". In a citizens arrest the arrested individual is turned over to the police. Not held. I guess that I was wrong in telling Radar he was the only one that didn't get that. I will, however, assume that in your case it was a simple misunderstanding. It's cool though.
     The thing about the nuke is interesting, seems unlikely though. We won't even let other country's have nukes if we can help it. (Not that this is an inherently bad idea) I really doubt the Gov would stand by while some guy sits on a nuke. Not inside the US border anyway.

Spelling/Grammer error. BFD

My opinion isn't what makes a court ruling bad. How closely that court ruling sticks to the constitution is what makes it good or bad.

That's complete and utter bullshit. The Supreme Court doesn't define the constitution and just because they make a ruling doesn't make it constitutional. You don't have a single clue about the constitution if you're dumb enough to think that any decision the Supreme makes is automatically constitutional. Nowhere in the constitution (including Article 3 Sections 1 and 2) does it say that the supreme court can re-write or define the constitution through their rulings or that any decisions they make are automatically constitutional but just to be sure, I'll quote those areas so you can point out the particular part you're clearly mistaken about.

Your false and baseless claims that any decision the USSC makes is automatically Constitutional and therefore legal are ludicrous. Why not just say that government has unlimited powers? Because they don't and that includes the USSC.

Actually if I walk in on someone killing my family I can kill them and won't do a day in jail because it wasn't pre-meditated. And we were discussing the powers of individuals were there no government. The point is that government has only the limited powers granted by the people and those powers can never exceed the powers of individual citizens were there no government at all. And that means you'd be free to do business, and defend yourself but you couldn't violate the rights of others. If you do violate someone's rights, they're within their rights to do anything they want to defend themselves and their property including taking your life.

For instance, you may not steal another person's property. That is not your right no matter what your personal needs are. The government also may not steal since this isn't a right of individuals. Income taxation is theft plain and simple. Nobody on earth can prove any difference between armed robbery and income taxes.

Again, were there no government and we were exercising the natural rights we're born with, you would be able to lock someone up indefinitely for murdering your family.

Natural rights are with us at birth. We don't get our rights from government. And when individuals create a government that government derives its powers from those individuals and as such that government can not have any powers that individuals don't have to bestow on it.

     What you are refusing to recognize here is that it's your opinion that the ruling is not sticking to the constitution. The Judges opinion is otherwise. He/she says the judgement is sticking to the constitution. You may even be right, but it's the Judge that makes that call officially
     Okay, this next part, about the killed family, has become a tangled mess. You mentioned government after no government so most of us ran with that idea in mind. Meaning with the existence of government. You say here you were talking with no government. So what you are talking about and what we are talking about are two different things.
     Also, Bruce was saying you can't go kill them later, you are saying if you walked in on the process. You actually make his point. After the fact it becomes premeditated. Which you state as a defining point. So actually near as I can tell, we're all in agreement on this. I think. Maybe we have to discuss it some more to find the disagreement....

"Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and..."

Ergo, the system of courts set up in Section 1 has the power to judge cases.

Can the Supremes make an unconstitutional decision? Their power does not extend above the Constitution. But they have the power to judge all cases arising under it.

So they CAN'T say "The first amendment is null and void." But they CAN most certainly say "The first amendment doesn't apply to this case."

Now, sadly, there is little practical difference. But that's part of why it's a fluid system; we do the best we can, knowing that perfection is impossible.

Oops. I suppose you are correct.

In spite of past mistakes, I will proceed to make blunt statements.

Radar: It seems that you are saying that you have evidence that the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional and therefore you need not pay taxes. I've glanced at the information and it does seem that it may be valid. However, I have not read the supporting information nor the opposing information.

You also seem to be arguing that when the IRS takes you into custody and threatens to throw you in jail, this evidence will save you in court. I believe that this is an invalid assumption because, as you have already recognized, the Supreme Court, Congress, the history of case law, the government, and the majority of the American people disagree with you. Consequently, it seems unlikely to me that you will win your court hearing, and that you will serve a dandy jail sentence for tax evasion.

Have fun.

What you're failing to realize is that opinion has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of fact, not of opinion. If a judge says it's ok for me to enslave someone, they're acting directly against the constitution. Their ruling is unconstitutional in it's face. It's not my opinion of whether it's Constitutional versus theirs, it's a cold hard fact.

On that we agree.

No part of the Constitution ever has a day off. No part may be legally suspended by government. All of the constitution are applicable at all times.

I agree that our system is imperfect, however when the rules are followed it's a lot more perfect. And all branches of government are violating their authority and breaking the rules.

If that's the impression I gave, I was incorrect in how I presented the information. The truthful and factual information I've given about the Constitutionality 16th amendment and the legality of income taxation will never save someone in court because the courts will never rule against income taxes. They are part of a judicial conspiracy to defend and protect them. What saves me and others like me in court is our knowledge of the law, courtroom procedures, and rules of evidence.

If you look at the OJ Simpson case you know that people commit crimes and win in court. How do they do this? Because their lawyers were very good at keeping the prosecutors evidence out and their own evidence in while using tactics to make the prosecuters slip up.

If you're arrested for murder and the judge prevents you from having a lawyer, and decides not to give you a jury but just to send you to death row, you will win because they didn't follow proper procedure or the law.

Nobody will ever win in tax court trying to argue the law with judges because even though most judges know the income tax is unconstitutional they don't want to be the one responsible for such a huge decision. Judges are working for the government and want to get promotions and keep their political careers in tact. They'd never be so bold or honest as to overturn income taxes.

     If it's not in effect, and has never been part of the Constitution then how can it be used in court?

In other words, you're aiming to scam yourself out of court. It doesn't really matter what evidence you have about the 16th amendment being unconstitutional. It doesn't matter whether you're doing tax evasion or murder or burglary, because you are counting on tricky lawyers getting you out, and a bungling prosecution to give fodder to your tricky lawyers.

So by this you mean that for the 2010 census we have to go back to enumerating four-fifths of all other persons excluding Indians not taxed?

Because of the judicial conspiracy! Jesus, haven't you been paying attention?

Well, this is a real, physical event you're referring to. I was referring to your <i>views</i>, your opinions. Have you ever been in a debate and realized that the other person was right? Has anyone ever shown you that you were wrong about a particular political or philosophical ideal? Political conviction is an admirable trait, but realizing that you may be wrong is of equal importance. And I was just wondering if you possessed this ability. It doesn't have to be on the topics we've discussed. It could be any other political or philosophical ideal. Has anyone ever made you realize you'd been wrong about something?

I'm asking you if you possess the ability to admit you're wrong, and to cite an example.

Gee Radar, does the constitution say Big Bubba can't make you his bitch when the IRS and the crooked courts put you away? Don't forget to explain it to him.

No, I don't SCAM myself or anyone else out of anything. There are 3 ways to win in court. The first is by arguing the law and this is impossible since the courts don't abide by the laws or their limited judicial powers. The second is courtroom procedure, and the third is evidence. It's not a scam to win in court based on any of these. Since we can't use the first because the courts won't hear arguments about the validity of the laws (see judicial conspiracy to protect the unconstitutional income tax) we've got to win using the other two methods. That's not a "scam" by any means.

I think the real question you're asking is whether I have the intellectual honesty to change my opinion on a topic when presented with a decent enough argument and enough irrefutable facts to back it up. The answer is absolutely yes. It doesn't happen as often as it did when I was younger because my education and experience are much more vast. In fact there are very few people on earth with a more complete knowledge of the constitution than myself including most supreme court justices as is evident from their violations of the Constitution as it is written.

When I was younger I'd have been arguing along with you, but then I grew up. In fact as a kid I was very conservative and thought people who saw the government as an out of control, draconian monster were nutjobs. I had too many of these arguments to mention or single out at this time; mostly because there were so many they tend to blend together in my memory. I realized I was wrong when I had been presented with actual irrefutable proof of many governmental violations of the constitution, abuses of power, and cover-ups. It really hit home when Peter McWilliams was murdered by the governement for trying to save his own life. That's when I became a vocal activist and I swore to fight any violations of the constitution (especially the drug war) until my dying breath even if it meant taking back the government by force.

Absolutely right and absolutely true.

Actually yes, the law does say that but luckily for me and for Bubba I won't ever have to explain anything to him because I'm in no danger what-so-ever of going to jail. George W. Bush is in far more danger of going to jail than I will ever be.

Sigh.
 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;No, I mean how can it come up in court at all? Radar says it never was in the Constitution so how can it be mentioned if it has never been in effect? Using it in court would be like using that atomaic death penalty for jay-walkers that was never brought up. It doesn't exist.

He choked on his own vomit in his own bathroom. To say that he was "murdered by the government" stretches the boundaries of the concept of "conspiracy" to the breaking point.

I'm way willing to accept the conspiracy explanation, usually.

Your movement needs better martyrs. This is just silly.

The tax court is the perfect example of this. How can someone be imprisoned for violating a law that is only law in the minds of the population, but *is* in fact enforced to perpetuate the myth.

If the police were arresting people for wearing blue shirts, eventually people would think that wearing them was illegal. The fact that there *could not* be a law preventing them from being worn is irrelevant. If the courts then upheld the convictions people would stop wearing blue shirts even though they know the (non)law is bullshit.

So in the case of the tax system, it's not law, it's the *WILL* of the gov't. It's the foundation of the power that they have hijacked and any court that ruled against it would be cutting it's own throat, regardless of the validity of the argument against the (non) law. The dominoes would start falling.

The masses are content with the current level of taxation, which means that if the country felt that it had to reinforce the semantics of the law, it could do so at will.

Such is the nature of power.

To really fight taxation in a country where the government is basically representative, you have to get the voters to desire actual change -- and not just loopholes. If the people WANTED to pay less tax, they would indicate it and the government would respond. The only way to get real change is to work it from the bottom up: get the people to desire it.

Just for the record, I am not really at odds with the amount of the taxation. The Nazi styled system really aggrevates me though. If the system were simpler, people might take more notice of the level they are being taxed. At the same time, the people collectively arent concerned because they *take* so much from the gov't. That trend is not likely to change.

He was kept from the only medicine that could prevent the horrible nausea that he died from. Without his medicine he also couldn't keep his AIDS and cancer medication down even though he was legally allowed to grow and use it. If you have a diabetes and I keep you from your insuline and you die, I have committed murder.

He was also prevented from even mentioning the law, his condition, or the benefits of using the only medicine that could save his life. In short he was murdered by the government. This isn't an exaggeration or even a stretch. It's a cold, hard, indisputable fact.

No, it's not silly when the U.S. government murders citizens who fight against their abuses of power and attacks on civil rights. Irv Rueben was also murdered by the government. I knew him personally.

Need more examples of the U.S. government eliminating people? How about Ruby Ridge or Waco? It happens all the time. Peter McWilliams was a great man, the author of the best book I've ever read, and a thorn in the side of the federal government so they silenced him.

Very well said.

What color is the sky in your world? Here on earth it's blue and nobody is "content" with the current level of taxation.

The people DO want to pay less tax but our representatives don't care about what their constituents want, they care about what wealthy contributers to their campaign want.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If the police started arresting people for wearing blues shirts then those police would be penalized, the arrested individual woud be released, as well as begged not to sue and the case would never make it to court. Why? Because the law doesn't exist. Never has. Thus it can't come up in court. The 16th has come up, because it does exist, it is in effect. Again, if it should be in effect is another issue.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Again I request we not confuse these two issues. If it should be does not determine if it is.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So, I ask again without the connected quotes, how can it come up in court at all? Radar says it never was in the Constitution so how can it be mentioned if it has never been in effect? Using it in court would be like using the no blue shirt law. If it doesn't exist it can't come up.

I am.

Seriously.

The people "want" to pay less tax but they also "want" greater number and quality of government services, and guess which one they demand in a louder voice.

That's exactly what I'm asking, and your answer is really very interesting.

Perhaps this shift in your error ratio has more to do with the fact(*) that you've stopped actively questioning your beliefs because of the confidence your education has given you. Maybe it's not so much that you stopped being wrong, but that you stopped asking yourself if you were wrong. Could this be the case?

It certainly seems logical that complete knowledge would bring about 100% accuracy on a given topic, but I ask you, how can you be 100% sure of your beliefs? How can anyone be 100% sure?

Also, there's a word we've been bandying about quite a bit lately, and none of us seem to agree on what objects match up to this word. That word is 'fact'. Usually, it's described as a 'cold, hard fact'. This gives it that extra push into 110% certainty. It's not a very useful concept, though, when one party is 110% sure of it's certainty, and the other party is 0-20% sure. I'd go so far as to say that it makes the concept basically useless.

What is a fact? What methods are you using to determine it? How do you know when something's a fact, and how do you know when it's only an opinion? What's the difference between the two? What are your standards of proof?


* - this is just an expression

No matter how you slice it, marjuana is not medicine. Also, even in the highly agitated and slanted accounts that i've read ... he didn't die of nausea. He died of an airway obstruction.

If he chose not to take compazine, cannibanol, or some other actual medicine, that was his choice.

I'm still not seeing HOW the federal government silenced someone in this instance. You might want to look up the definition of accident.

Unless you are alleging that the guys in the black helicopter forced him in some mysterious way to vomit and then choke on it, it was still an accident. Not a murder.

The no blue shirt law only threatens the Blue Shirt Manufacturers and it's union, the 16th threatens the powerbase from your local manicipality to the White House.

I think it's clear that no one will fuck with that wide and powerful of a machine by ruling in favor of a tax protestor on the grounds that the non law is unconstitutional. If they did, they would be in jail or dead for some insider corruption or a slip in the shower.

If anyone has more detailed info on this, e-mail me. I love a good conspiracy. :)

This is sad but true. It seems that the world has either become so complicated that we cannot do more for ourselves, or we have lost our ambition and we want more from the gov't. In either case we lose political strength for the reduction of taxes.

What if the courts wouldn't penalize the police who arrested people for wearing blue shirts and the congress and the president wanted to make life tougher for those who wear blue shirts? What if the courts wouldn't even allow cases regarding blue shirts to be heard? There is no law that makes paying income taxes mandatory and the courts don't want to allow challenges to the 16th amendment or other ways income taxes are unconstitutional because it endangers their power and that of the government.

It could be, but it's not. I do question my own beliefs and I am 100% sure of my constitutional beleifs. Some people have a hard time comprehending how a person can be sure of anything but I am. These are the same type of people who have a hard time comprehending that we all live in one reality because there is only one reality. I have gone over my beliefs thousands of times from every angle and discussed them with thousands of people which has fine tuned them.

The Constitution was written. That's a fact. How do I know? Because I have it right here in front of me. And historical records show that it was written, who it was written by, and when it was written. It seems as though you live in a world of uncertainty even of facts. I don't have that problem. I know the difference between truth and lies, facts and fiction, reality and perceptions.

It can come up because Philander Knox fraudently claimed it had been ratified and the courts and politicians have conspired to prevent people from challenging it and have kept evidence proving the fraud out of the courtroom.

And it comes up because judges will say, "Don't you know everyone gets arrested for wearing blue shirts? Why should you be any different?" And the politicans who promote that judge tell him don't even think about overturning the blue shirt thing. So if one judge allowed someone to go to jail for the blue shirt thing, this judge won't even hear the case, he'll just refer to the other one.

You are either a liar, or an idiot. Cannibas has been used as a medicine for thousands of years. It was used in America as a medicine. No matter how you slice it or try to skate the issue, Cannibas (Marijuana) is a medicine and it's an effective one at that.

He choked to death on his own vomit from nausea that could have been prevented if he were given access to his medicine. Saying he died of an airway obstruction is like saying. The guy I shot didn't die because of the bullet ripping through him, he bled to death.

He tried all other medicines for his nausea but they didn't work. How can you take a pill to stop nausea from taking pills? Nothing worked but the natural and LEGAL cannibas medicine he needed to survive but was prevented from taking.

You might want to look up the word "murder". This is no different than if he had diabetes and the courts told him he couldn't take insuline. They prevented him from using his life saving medicine and that is murder.

True. But these services are unconstitutional and the people aren't entitled to them. The huge number of collectivists and authoritarians (socialists, communists, fascists) push these things and they know people will fight to keep their handouts. People wanting services doesn't make those services legal or grant the government the authority to provide them.

Okay, I agree that it was written.

What gives the Constitution its authority?

Hey, let's go a different direction. Some quick questions for you.

- Does the Constitution support a ban on abortion?

- If a State enacts a ban on cross-burning, should the Supreme Court reject the ban on the basis of the first amendment, uphold the ban on the basis of the tenth, or ignore the issue entirely, against the supremacy clause?

- Are "three strikes" laws Constitutional?

cannabis

not cannibas.

~james

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This is an odd comparison since UT and Juju both linked to sites that had court chalenges to Tax cases. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;See above.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I've seen some of your 'discussions' and you use alot of the same words and phrases that didn't convince anyone back then. Why not express your opinions better? I saw a two year old thread where you use that same swahili line that made a lot of us roll our eyes. If you've 'fine tuned' your arguments so much why do at least four or five people on this thread not get it?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Forgive me for not understanding how a case can not be heard in court while it has been heard in court, repeatedly, about a subject that is not in effect.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oh yeah, and is the 16th amendment listed in the Constitution you keep with you?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;How the hell can the Judges say this if it's not in the courtroom??? Either it's in or out of the courts, which is it?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Also, let me reask something. How can a case not be heard in court while it has been heard in court, repeatedly, about a subject that is not in effect?

All of the very LIMITED powers of government are listed in the constitution are given to government by the governed. The people give power to the government and that power is limited to solely what is specifically listed in the constitution and anything else is an illegal usurpation of power.

The constitution doesn't specifically mention abortion so the federal government has no authority in this matter nor could an amendment be created to grant this authority because individuals don't have the authority to tell someone else whether or not they must give birth so the government can't be given this power. Government at any level has no authority to tell anyone what they must or must not do with thier own bodies (abortion, suicide, drug use, prostitution, etc.)

States may not ban cross burning (as long as the cross is burned on your own property) because it's protected under the 1st amendment and the 10th amendment as a right of individuals to express themselves freely.

It's absolutely unconstitutional even though the USSC voted the other way on this issue. It goes against the 8th amendment and removes judicial discretion.

None at the supreme court and as I've said the courts routinely make unconstitutional rulings to support the unconstitutional income tax.

First off you don't speak for everyone else. And if it didn't convince you, it's only because you're beyond convincing. You wouldn't admit you were wrong even though you are on most topics.

It's still a good line and it still makes great sense. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

Because they're idiots.

Yes it is. Does that mean it was legally ratified? Not at all.

Let's go back to the blue shirt example. This is how it can go to court but not be addressed. I am arrested for wearing a blue shirt. While in court I say, "Hey there's no law against wearing a blue shirt!" And the judge mentions another case where a judge said arresting people for wearing blue shirts was just fine and then refuses to hear any evidence or argue about whether or not there is actually a law about wearing blue shirts.

What the hell is with you people and typos or spelling errors? You knew what I meant so shut the hell up. No matter how it's spelled, it's been used as a medication for thousands of years by virtually all cultures on earth.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Please show me a topic I'm wrong on. Know, however, I will not accept your say so that I'm wrong without you backing it up. Saying "You are wrong!" is not proof, it is however all I've seen you do. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So the very first time it was in court the judge referenceces a previous case? Neat!

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I spoke poorly. I should have said, "You didn't convince anyone in that thread, that admitted it anyway." By the by, you often speak for everyone. Isn't this a double standard? &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;That's kind of my point. People have been making fun of that line. I thought you might want to try something more persuasive in the future. It was actully an attempt at being constructive. Sigh. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Of course they do. You are being made fun of. If you have a valid point it's so submerged in name calling and bluster that you've become an object of ridicule. I have tried to see you point and repeatedly been called names for my trouble. Quit acting tough and talk. Answer questions without repeating yourself. Clarify when people don't understand instead of calling them idiots. I'm willing to learn, but your 'proof' has consistently been entirely your say so. That's not good enough. Please give me more than some other guys say so as well.

its not so much the misspelling as it is the fact that i dont like you.

~james

~*yawn*

You're saying that government's authority is given to it by the people. So, are you "the people", or are you "a person"?

If 99.9% of U.S. citizens grant the government the authority to tax them, it's not your place to withdraw that entire collective authority yourself. If you can't convince everyone else to agree with your views, your only recourse is to either submit to the tax, become a criminal, or leave the country.


I disagree. The people will rule themselves as they see fit. The constitution is just a document that everyone agrees to abide by. If the people collectively decide that they want to be ruled in a certain way, no imaginary rule is going to stop them, because the people create and destroy the rules themselves.

'Authority' is defined on dictionary.com as: <blockquote><i>The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.</i></blockquote>
Any person or group who has the ability to force you to do something has authority over you. The government has repeatedly forced people to do certain things with their bodies, because they have lots of guns and the consent of the majority of the public. Therefore, they have the authority to do so.

There is no such entity as "government". The phrase "the people" refers to a collection of individuals but there is no collective that has rights. Only the individual rights of people.

I am a person, but I'm not "the people" and neither is anyone else.

Except 99.9% of people don't grant the government that authority. 1 out of every 3 people in America doesn't file income tax returns. And many of those that do, only do so under duress for fear of being one of the people unjustly attacked by the government for not submitting to thier violation of the constitution.

I don't need to convince anyone of anything. I do my best to show them the truth, but if someone is blind or refuses to look I can't do it for them. I'm also not a criminal if I break an unconstitutional law that the government has no authority to make. If the government suddenly made a law that all girls under the age of 15 must be sterilized and you don't, you are not a criminal. Those who made the law are criminals because they have violated the constitution. If I don't pay income taxes, I'm not a criminal. Those who support the fraudelent 16th amendment are criminals.

Then you need to read the 10th amendment.

The people didn't decide they wanted their income to be taxed. And even if every other person in America other than myself decided they did want thier income to be taxed, it wouldn't give them the authority to tax my income. What I earn is mine and the government isn't entitled to any part of it.

I'm not against taxes, just income based taxes. I'll still pay the excise taxes, tariffs, sales, tax, etc. that everyone else pays.

You CONVENIENTLY left out the more appropriate definitions from that site. Let me help you choose the correct definition.

1.
a. The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
b. One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials: land titles issued by the civil authority.

2. Power assigned to another; authorization: Deputies were given authority to make arrests.

3. A public agency or corporation with administrative powers in a specified field: a city transit authority.

4.
a. An accepted source of expert information or advice: a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority.
b. A quotation or citation from such a source: biblical authorities for a moral argument.

5. Justification; grounds: On what authority do you make such a claim?

6. A conclusive statement or decision that may be taken as a guide or precedent.

7. Power to influence or persuade resulting from knowledge or experience: political observers who acquire authority with age.

8. Confidence derived from experience or practice; firm self-assurance: played the sonata with authority.

If the criteria fits any of the numbered entries, then the word applies. The numbered definititons are separated by logical ORs, not ANDs. Furthermore, entry 1b builds on entry 1a. It's an elaboration (see the phrase 'this power').