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

     This is an odd comparison since UT and Juju both linked to sites that had court chalenges to Tax cases.      See above.
     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?
     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.
     Oh yeah, and is the 16th amendment listed in the Constitution you keep with you?
     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?
     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.

     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.      So the very first time it was in court the judge referenceces a previous case? Neat!

     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?      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.      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').