And free people, when immigrating (or emmigrating, or just moving around within a country), migrate.You have yet to do more than assert that. The closest you have come to even attempting to support that assertion required you to make up a rule that free people don't migrate. I defy you to find a definition of "migrate" that has that restriction.

What part of the definition of migration excludes free people?

For that matter what part of the definition of immigration excludes enforced immigration?


Which dicktionary do you use? I'd be interested to seek that one out for my collection.

The wording dealing with direct taxes was removed in the 14th amendment:


AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.


Hey, it's a game of constitution tag. You're it!!!

I quite liked that bit.

I wonder if, when the constitution was written, the authors intended to include slaves. We could refer to them as impelled refugees. I'm sure they must have thought about slaves since these men were so insightful that they could write a document which would encompass every single possible challenge the country is/was likely to face.

However, considering slaves are actually people who were forced to move against their will, it would seem that they are not covered in any way under the constitution, unless of course you don't consider them to be people to begin with.

I hope so too. Alcatraz is no longer a working prison. I'd be able to get out.

I don't see anything in there about taxes. The amendment you're looking for is the 16th and it was fraudulently ratified. It's not a legitimate part of the Constitution. Again, this isn't merely my opinion, it's a fact.

Philander Knox was the guy who did it. He slipped it by on Christmas Eve at midnight and he claimed it was ratified, but the papers were not ratified, and were changed by the states prior to signing them.

You may want to read "The law that never was" by Bill Benson. He traveled to each of the states and got original copies of the papers that were signed and he proves that the 16th was not legitimately ratified.

Even if it were ratified, it would become void because it violates several other parts of the Constitution. An amendment may add to the Constitution, or it may repeal part of the Constitution, but it may not contradict another part. The 16th violates many parts.

They were persons but were also slaves. They were treated as livestock.

Well if that's true, then every slave trader and user was acting unconstitutionally through their own ignorance and bigotry.

Why would you like his comments?
You don't really support this wacko do you?

Psssssst! I heard Heywood Jablowmee forged John Hancock's signature on the Declaration of Independance. Don't tell anybody....

:lol2:

Prove that please. You have stated too many times that nothing other than the constitution matters, then when verifiably proven wrong REPEATEDLY you try to slip away with another game of round robin duck and switch. :headshake
Now you want us to believe that another part of "the Constitution" that inarguably proves you are insane and completely WRONG is not valid - yeah right. :right: And we're the wacko's uh huh.
suuuuureee we are. :eyebrow:

Philander Knox for President!

Correction, I liked that particular comment. I disagree with Radar on most things we've ever discussed...and agree with him on a smattering too.

I find your attitude towards illegal immigrants distasteful. To me it is racist. This is not news to you Merc, we've had this discussion ourselves in the past :P