Happy Tax Day!

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

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.

[Whit]

     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?

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.

     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.

[richlevy]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

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.

[Undertoad]

Case law is irrelevant. It's just a way for people to use one bad court ruling as a precident for others.

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?

[Torrere]

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.

Originally posted by Whit
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.

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).

[Whit]

     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.

[Radar]

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

Spelling/Grammer error. BFD

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.

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.

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

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.

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

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 treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

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.

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.

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.

Heh, actually Torrere I did specify, "Lock up". In a citizens arrest the arrested individual is turned over to the police. Not held.

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.

[Whit]

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.

     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....

[Undertoad]

"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.

[Torrere]

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.

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.

[Radar]

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.

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.

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

On that we agree.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Whit]

Sorry if it bothers you, but the 16th amendment IS NOT NOW, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN PART OF THE CONSTITION!

I'm saying it was never legally ratified and no court decisions to the contrary matter. And the 16th amendment goes directly against the body of the constitution and is therefore null and void according to the supreme court. So yes, I'm saying it's not in effect and that all attempts to force people to pay income taxes are voluntary.

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.

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

[Torrere]

Originally posted by Radar
What saves me and others like me in court is our knowledge of the law, courtroom procedures, and rules of evidence.

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.

[wolf]

radar said: No part [of the Constitution] may be legally suspended by government. All of the constitution are applicable at all times.

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?

[juju]

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

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