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...