NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, and so I am left to wonder how ANY of THIS REFUTES my original premise?

Regards,
Gaar


Why dont you clarify your premise. You didnt include one in your first post.

1) The declaration of independence isnt the constitution, our laws are not bound by it, you learn that in secondary school in the US.

And just what "Right's" is the "Constitution" espousing?

Again, because they didn't enumerate a "Right" that the Declaration espoused, you believe they didn't mean for me to "have it" as a Right?

I am going to stop there, in hopes that you will FINALLY address this question...

Regards,
Gaar

And I believe that it is YOU that would need to show "Constitutional precedence" FOR Term limits...

Since it is YOU that is trying to "limit" my Right's in some manner the onus should be on the one who wants to "take-away" a Right not the one trying to preserve it, shouldn't it?

Regards,
Gaar


the 22nd amendment (to the constitution) establishes as a rule governing our laws and government that no one shall serve more than two terms as president.

The only way to change this is to amend the constitution, the only way to do that is through the proscribed process.

Why dont you clarify your premise. You didnt include one in your first post.

That just because we have an Amendment in the Constitution doesn't make that Amendment Constitutional.

We have "Checks and Balances" that are meant to determine that.

And we are allowed to "challenge" the Laws which stem from an Amendment BECAUSE they may not be Constitutional...

In other words, just because it has been made a Law doesn't mean it is Constitutional, otherwise why would we have Courts that get to Rule on such matters?

Regards,
Gaar

And just what "Right's" is the "Constitution" espousing?

Again, because they didn't enumerate a "Right" that the Declaration espoused, you believe they didn't mean for me to "have it" as a Right?

I am going to stop there, in hopes that you will FINALLY address this question...

Regards,
Gaar


You have a guarantee of the specific rights mentioned in the constitution, you are not gauranteed rights which are not specifically enumerated or implied from the amendments.

Laws can be enacted which limit those rights not specifically enumerated, the supreme court sometimes decides that these laws violate rights to which you have a specific guarantee (such as due process).

The Dec of Independence was written long before the US was a country and it is not a legal document in any sense.

The only way to change this is to amend the constitution, the only way to do that is through the proscribed process.

Nope, sorry...

The Supreme Court can Rule that a Law is UnConstitutional and therefore, through Logical progression, we can then say that the Amendment itself may be UnConstitutional for the reasons prescibed in the Ruling that makes the Law UnConstitutional.

Regards,
Gaar

That just because we have an Amendment in the Constitution doesn't make that Amendment Constitutional.

We have "Checks and Balances" that are meant to determine that.

And we are allowed to "challenge" the Laws which stem from an Amendment BECAUSE they may not be Constitutional...

In other words, just because it has been made a Law doesn't mean it is Constitutional, otherwise why would we have Courts that get to Rule on such matters?

Regards,
Gaar


"consitutional" means "in accordance with the amendments and articles of the constitution"

When an amendment is added, it changes the constitition and changes what it means to be constitutional. It is a contradiction in terms to say that an amendment is unconstituional, it is like a "square circle."

Amendments are the standard against which the constitutionality of lesser laws and acts are judged, there is no standard against which to judge amendments and no branch of government has the power to do so anyways.

Nope, sorry...

The Supreme Court can Rule that a Law is UnConstitutional and therefore, through Logical progression, we can then say that the Amendment itself may be UnConstitutional for the reasons prescibed in the Ruling that makes the Law UnConstitutional.

Regards,
Gaar


Not at all, a law is judged against amendments, an amendment has no higher precedent against which to be judged.

Again, when you amend the constitution you change what it means to be "constitutional."

You have a guarantee of the specific rights mentioned in the constitution, you are not gauranteed rights which are not specifically enumerated or implied from the amendments.

Then perhaps you would be good enough to show me where the Constitution gives them any Right to make Laws which make murder illegal, since the Constitution doesn't "enumerate" my Right to LIVE?!?!

Laws can be enacted which limit those rights not specifically enumerated, the supreme court sometimes decides that these laws violate rights to which you have a specific guarantee (such as due process).

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt9.html

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

RIGHTS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE

Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the
Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution
because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing
that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be
dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on
the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was
unrestrained as to those.\1\ Madison adverted to this argument in
presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ``It
has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating
particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those
rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by
implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended
to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were
consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I
have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this
system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have
attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the
fourth resolution.''\2\ It is clear from its text and from Madison's
statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making
clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to
increase the powers of the national government in areas

[[Page 1504]]
not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee
of a right or a proscription of an infringement.\3\ Recently, however,
the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the
existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless
protected by other provisions.
____________________________________

And that is coming from the people who helped WRITE the DAMN THING!

Get it now?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

And I believe that it is YOU that would need to show "Constitutional precedence" FOR Term limits...

Since it is YOU that is trying to "limit" my Right's in some manner the onus should be on the one who wants to "take-away" a Right not the one trying to preserve it, shouldn't it?

Regards,
Gaar

The Amendment asserts itself. There need be no precedent for its existance because, by definition, it is something new. Its removal as "un-constitutional", however, must be based on some kind of logical arguement that a preceding part of the constitution contradicts it.

Not at all, a law is judged against amendments, an amendment has no higher precedent against which to be judged.

Again, when you amend the constitution you change what it means to be "constitutional."

So when they said "and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Right's" you think they meant "Only until we make a Constitution which enumerates the Right's, then anything not enumerated is "fair game"?!?!

Sorry, there are "Constitutional standards" which will be "looked at" if the Law is challenged.

And if they find it to be "UnConstitutional" then it never was Constitutional, even when it was an Amendment. Or perhaps you would be good enough to explain how something that is found to be UnConstitutional was at one time Constitutional just because it hadn't been ruled on yet?

Regards,
Gaar

The Amendment asserts itself. There need be no precedent for its existance because, by definition, it is something new. Its removal as "un-constitutional", however, must be based on some kind of logical arguement that a preceding part of the constitution contradicts it.

And I would contend that, it MAY be a Right that is "retained by the People" yet not enumerated in the Constitution, so there may be NO precedent within the instrument itself, other than to say that there are Rights which are not enumerated yet are still retained by the People.

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: And there we go with the "circular-Logic" again... Saying the Law is a Law because we made it a Law...

3) On the contrary, you dont understand the difference between an amendment and a law which a legislature passes and which the judiciary can declare unconstitutional and a constitutional amendment or article.

4) the representative government is limited by the constitution - precisely.
the judiciary, as it is pointed out there, is charged with testining the constitutionality of laws.
that is
whether or not laws passed by the legislature and executive are in accordance with the amendments to the constitution.
NOT whether or not amendments are in accordance with Urantia II's Ideas About What Is Correct.

Do you understand any of that?

Yes I did, and I have a question for you...

If, in citing the reasoning for striking down a Law that is deemed UnConstitutional, the Supreme Court cites reasoning that is in direct conflict to an Amendment itself, then that Amendment IS UnConstitutional, is it not?

Let's say, for example, that our Drug Laws come to the Supreme Court under the argument that the Government has no Right to Legislate an Act that doesn't have a direct victim, and therefore ANY Law that is derived in "making-up" a victim (i.e. appointing the "State" as a victim because no one suffered ANY harm due to the actions in question), is an UnConstitutional Law and must be struck down, and let's say they actually agree with that argument... Because it is cited that the RIGHTS of an Individual are to be FIRST AND FOREMOST in our Constitution, is it not?

Now let's use that same Logic with Regards to MY Right to Free Will choice...

Since the first "test" of Constitutionality should be for the "Individual's Right" please explain what Right ANY Individual derives from the Constitution to "limit" my choices in ANY way? You see, YOU NEED to make an argument that the Constitution GIVES YOU some Right to make a Law, do you not? Otherwise, isn't it the Government and NOT the People you are giving the "ultimate Authority" to?

So please, explain to me how you can make something a crime when no one's Right's have been infringed upon? Is THAT not the "test" of TRUE Constitutionality? And if you don't believe so, perhaps you would be good enough to describe for me, in the type of detail I have just described for you, how YOU believe the Constitution is "supposed" to work... I am especially interested in how you believe it considers an Individuals Right's first and foremost, as that is what it is for, is it not?

Perhaps some should actually READ the WHOLE of the "Declaration of Independence" if they don't believe it to hold any validity with regards to Right's within our Constitution... After all, they were BOTH "written" by the same "Congress", over a number of years, were they not?...

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

Hmmmm....

Sounds like they are complaining about a number of things people are complaining about TODAY!?!?

Why is that you suppose? :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

An Amendment is not a Law, is it? How do you "enforce" an Amendment?

Good Morning! You can enforce it by invoking it. I've seen many cases where law enforcement officials just say that they are in violation of the XIII (that'll be the Abolishion of slavery)! Not to mention that cases have been tossed out on the IV amendment (Illegal Search and Seizure)

Didn't you say that YOU were a Poli Sci Major yourself?

I'm majoring in Political Science yes. Currently taking classes in Intro to Global Politics and The American Presidency.

And just what Issue have I not addressed? Maybe they didn't like the answer, but I believe I have addressed everything they asked, if not please feel free to point any out that you believe I have not addressed.

I'm not going to dig around in this thread because I really don't have the time. However, what those people said was true and you have constently told them they were wrong and five different people said the samething.

Really!?!?

Then why am I asking how an Amendment might be "enforced" without a "Law"?!?!

By envoking the Amendment itself.

Perhaps to you, since YOU seem to believe that you are able to declare yourself the "Victor" while citing others "opinion" on the matter, as if you know what everyone else feels on the matter. I don't presume to know such things...

I presume because they are R-I-G-H-T!!! Everything other people have told you was correct. You just refuse to accept it.

I have explained, in detail, on more than one occasion in this Thread, if it continues to stump you, perhaps you should re-read those posts...

Detail yes but your details don't pass muster. Every point you've made has been knocked around using the US Constitution (Article I Section 8 point 3 for your drug laws! Amendment XXII for your presidential issue!)

Do you need me to look them up and cite the posts numbers for you?

Do you need me to write out the Constitution for ya or do you want me to link it?

Perhaps YOU could also point out just ONE of MY circular-Logic arguments, as I have yours?

How about running around in Circles regarding the XXII Amendment that you said "IN Fact" that Congress will declare unconstitutional when challenged, when in fact they cant. Then you ran around the bush to regarding laws about it. I've just bookmarked the US Code. Care to place bets that there aren't any laws backing up this amendment?

I will not accept circular-Logic as a reason for ANY Law...

Then I guess you never be a good debator because the object of debate is to get both sides out there and you haven't listened to ANYONE from the otherside.

Again, since you obviously lack the understanding it takes to resolve the arguments I have made, for yourself, I am left with letting the readers decide for themselves, unlike you...

Oh brother. I have an understanding on how the Constitution Works. Read Article III of the US Constitution. Might give you some insight on how the Judiciary is supposed to work.

Forget that you said you were a Poli Sci Major? Why, did you lie about it so you could be viewed as some type of Authority on the matter?

Ain't lying that I'm studying it. I just thought I let you know where I was coming from.

Does this mean that, since they weren't enumerated they were UnConstitutional until they were?

There are many rights that we have that aren't in any law book. The right to travel between states, we had the right to drink prior to the XVIII and then again when the XXI amendment repealed the XVIII. There probably others but alas I can't think of them.

Do YOU believe in Moral Absolutes or Reasoned Absolutes?

I have no idea what your stating here.

And yet again you so skillfully avoid MY QUESTION...

The question was about people who do nothing but cultivate and use personally? YOU cited the Constitutional Right to make Drug Laws as the Laws regarding trade and transport over State lines, did you not?

To cultivate and use personally goes under State Law, not Federal law.

Wow, even Corneliu isn't with Urantia II on this one.

(Not meant as an insult)

Originally posted by Urantia II
EDIT: And there we go with the "circular-Logic" again... Saying the Law is a Law because we made it a Law...

How else is a law a law? I seem to remember a mathematical principle that goes a = a. A law is a law because it was made into a law. It may be more precise to say that a bill is a law because we made it a law, but the point stands. It isn't circular logic to state that something is itself.

An Accuser...

And when NO ONE ELSE'S Right have been harmed in ANY WAY, what is the crime? Why can't YOU answer that?

Again. If you violate the law that is on the books, wether you harm someone or not, is irrelevant. Do you understand what I'm saying? You don't have the right to speed. Cops will pull you over for that. You HAVE to wear a seatbelt. Cops will pull you over for that too.

In order for there to be a "crime" SOMEONES Right's have to have been infringed upon... If we cannot agree on that, then the rest of the discussion is Moot.

Wrong! Speeding is a crime. Not wearing a seatbelt is a crime. Talking on a cell phone while driving is illegal in a few states.

Because YOU believe that the Government can just "make-up" an accuser (i.e. that someone has been harmed) when in FACT my Right is to "face" an accuser (i.e. some SPECIFIC person that I have done harm to). And if YOU cannot see that as a BASIC behind how a Law is to be made then your Education has failed you somewhere...

Didn't say that and I love how your getting very defensive. Shows that I'm scoring points. 1) you don't have to infringe on someone else's rights for something to be a crime. 2) If you are caught speeding, you have the right to fight it in court or just pay the fine and be on your merry way. The cop accused you of speeding and therefor, you'll face him in a court. So now I'll ask you, what accuser am I making up? I may not be fluent in Law, I'm not a lawyer, but I do know the basics of the law.

What about a person who is discovered only because something happens that had nothing to do with anyone breaking a Law? For example... Someone is caught cultivating because a car hit their Garage where they were growing?

They still go to jail. If what they are doing violates the law, they'll be arrested. This happens alot. Something happens and they stumble over something else. Marijuana busts occur like this sometimes.

And are you really going to try and relate a case of rape, where there is definitely a victim, to our Drug Laws?

You still on the Drug Law kick? I've already explained this. As for rape, yes I can actually, Date Rape Drugs ring a bell?

So because I don't AGREE with what you are saying you are going to say I don't understand? I understand perfectly what you are saying, I just don't AGREE with it...

Nope. I'm saying you don't understand because you don't. There have been several people on here that have explained it to you and you said that they were wrong.

It is obvious that you believe that the Governments Right to make Laws is “Absolute”, where I believe that the Individuals Right to not have Laws made that are not “crimes” is “Absolute”…

Its is the Congress's job to make laws. Something about Article I you don't understand on that? Congress Makes the Laws, the President signs them. If someone thinks its wrong, they bring it up in Federal Court. If its worthy and the parties pursue it to the Supreme Court, then the Supreme Court makes a final decision on it. Not every case brought before the Supreme Court is heard.

In other words… You believe that the Constitution was written to ensure the Governments Right to make Laws, and I believe that the Constitution was written to ensure MY Right’s as an Individual.

Article I seems to go inline with it. As does the first ten Amendments and subsequent ones seem to agree with your last part as well.

And I believe that it is YOU that would need to show "Constitutional precedence" FOR Term limits...

May not be Constitutional Precedence but traditionally, most presidents stepped down after 2 terms in office. Only FDR ran more than twice and thus Congress passed the XXII Amendment.

That just because we have an Amendment in the Constitution doesn't make that Amendment Constitutional.

WTF? You are really out to lunch. An Amendment in the Constitution is ALWAYS CONSTITUTIONAL!!!!

We have "Checks and Balances" that are meant to determine that.

For laws and to make sure NO BRANCH is overstepping its own power.

And we are allowed to "challenge" the Laws which stem from an Amendment BECAUSE they may not be Constitutional...

Only the laws, not the Amendment.

In other words, just because it has been made a Law doesn't mean it is Constitutional, otherwise why would we have Courts that get to Rule on such matters?

Courts rule on the letter of the law which corresponds with the Constitution of the United States. No Amendment is unconstitutional. Only a law can be declared as such.

You have a guarantee of the specific rights mentioned in the constitution, you are not gauranteed rights which are not specifically enumerated or implied from the amendments.

Laws can be enacted which limit those rights not specifically enumerated, the supreme court sometimes decides that these laws violate rights to which you have a specific guarantee (such as due process).

The Dec of Independence was written long before the US was a country and it is not a legal document in any sense.

Nice post New Granada! Short sweet and to the point.

Nope, sorry...

The Supreme Court can Rule that a Law is UnConstitutional and therefore, through Logical progression, we can then say that the Amendment itself may be UnConstitutional for the reasons prescibed in the Ruling that makes the Law UnConstitutional.

Regards,
Gaar

Read up on Article V of the Constitution of the United States. It describes how to Amend the Constitution.

So when they said "and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Right's" you think they meant "Only until we make a Constitution which enumerates the Right's, then anything not enumerated is "fair game"?!?!

I thought "and are endowed by their Creator with Certain inalienable rights" was in the Declaration of Independence and NOT in the Constitution of the United States.

Sorry, there are "Constitutional standards" which will be "looked at" if the Law is challenged.

Constitutional Standards=US Constitution

And if they find it to be "UnConstitutional" then it never was Constitutional, even when it was an Amendment. Or perhaps you would be good enough to explain how something that is found to be UnConstitutional was at one time Constitutional just because it hadn't been ruled on yet?

If its an Amendment, it'll be Constitutional because the Constitution allows or prohibits it.

Wow, even Corneliu isn't with Urantia II on this one.

(Not meant as an insult)

Non take :)

I just wish Urantia II understands that a Constitutional Amendment CANNOT be declared unconstitutional.

That just because we have an Amendment in the Constitution doesn't make that Amendment Constitutional.


This is where you are simply wrong, mistaken and incorrect.

"constitutional" means "in the constitution."

This is where you are simply wrong, mistaken and incorrect.

"constitutional" means "in the constitution."

Here here New Granada.

BTW: Nice Signature!

Here here New Granada.

BTW: Nice Signature!


It's just such a fine and concise summation of all his ideas, I couldnt resist.

It's just such a fine and concise summation of all his ideas, I couldnt resist.

I wish I thought of it!

I wish I thought of it!

I will grant though, yours is itself fantastic :)

I will grant though, yours is itself fantastic :)

Why ty my friend. :)

Good Morning! You can enforce it by invoking it. I've seen many cases where law enforcement officials just say that they are in violation of the XIII (that'll be the Abolishion of slavery)! Not to mention that cases have been tossed out on the IV amendment (Illegal Search and Seizure)


Cite ONE, please... Just one where an Arresting Officer was using ONLY a Constitutional Amendment to invoke his Authority.


I'm majoring in Political Science yes. Currently taking classes in Intro to Global Politics and The American Presidency.

So this makes YOU an Authority on Constitutional Law? And to think, even Constitutional Scholars don't agree on many things, let alone a STUDENT!


I'm not going to dig around in this thread because I really don't have the time. However, what those people said was true and you have constently told them they were wrong and five different people said the samething.

Perhaps because I HAVE addressed EACH and many of the points I have made have not...

I believe we may need to go to ONE SUBJECT per post, so as not to confuse anyone.

By envoking the Amendment itself.

Again, perhaps YOU wouldn't mind SHOWING ME even ONE instance where this has happened, where an AUTHORITY has invoked JUST an Amendment to invoke their Authority over someone...

And NOT the other way around, as you have with invoking the Fifth, because we ALL KNOW (Hopefully, since I have YET to see ANY of you admit the Constitution is first and foremost a Document to secure an INDIVIDUALS Right's) that the Constitution is meant to protect ME and only give THEM Authority over me when I have infringed on someone elses Right...



I presume because they are R-I-G-H-T!!! Everything other people have told you was correct. You just refuse to accept it.

Because YOU say they are correct?!?! Again, decaring yourself a Victor, without having addressed the WHOLE of the Argument against you is in very poor taste, but why would I not expect that of you, yet again...

Detail yes but your details don't pass muster. Every point you've made has been knocked around using the US Constitution (Article I Section 8 point 3 for your drug laws! Amendment XXII for your presidential issue!)

Ok, but how about YOU go take a loook at the the 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments and use them to look at my argument, so we are taking the Constitution as a WHOLE, and not just those Amendments that "suit" YOUR need!?!?

Because I HAVE ADDRESSED your "Presidential Issue" with regards to THOSE Amendment and have YET to see anyone address them, why is that?

Do you need me to write out the Constitution for ya or do you want me to link it?

No, do I for you? So that you will look at the WHOLE of the Instrument and not just that which supports YOUR SIDE?!?!



How about running around in Circles regarding the XXII Amendment that you said "IN Fact" that Congress will declare unconstitutional when challenged, when in fact they cant. Then you ran around the bush to regarding laws about it. I've just bookmarked the US Code. Care to place bets that there aren't any laws backing up this amendment?

The QUESTION was stated as an "in fact" so that you would address it as such instead of just disregarding the question, which you DID anyway!


Then I guess you never be a good debator because the object of debate is to get both sides out there and you haven't listened to ANYONE from the otherside.

Not only HAVE I addressed them, I have cited the reasoning behind why I believe you are wrong, looking at the WHOLE of the discussion instead of relying strictly on a "circular-reasoning" trying to get people to believe that since it was made a Law it must be a Law!

Oh brother. I have an understanding on how the Constitution Works. Read Article III of the US Constitution. Might give you some insight on how the Judiciary is supposed to work.

I have, and have cited the proceedures here even... Something about their ability to Rule a Law, and therefore the "concept" behind the Law UnConstitutional that YOU don't understand?

Ain't lying that I'm studying it. I just thought I let you know where I was coming from.

Ok, and I have also studied it myself, as well as studied the circumstances in which it, as well as the Declaration of Independence an many of the "papers" that were written during, and just after the process, which brought about the writting of the Bill of Right's.

So does YOUR "studying" the subject somehow "trump" my understanding, just bevause YOU say it does? If not, why are you continually bringing it up? Why do you constantly need to change the Subject when there are a few things you have yet to address in the actual discussion?

There are many rights that we have that aren't in any law book. The right to travel between states, we had the right to drink prior to the XVIII and then again when the XXI amendment repealed the XVIII. There probably others but alas I can't think of them.

Again, you do not answer a direct question, just divert it... Why is that?

I have no idea what your stating here.

It's a simple question... Do you believe in Moral Absolutes? And if you don't believe in "Morals" per se, do you believe in Reasoned Absolutes? That SOME THINGS will ALWAYS be Right or Wrong, regardless of how the Society "feels" about it at any given Time, like the Right to Life?

To cultivate and use personally goes under State Law, not Federal law.

And yet, many States have made it "Legal" in some manner and regardless of that the Fed's are still pushing their Authority in the matter, why do YOU suppose that is?

Regards,
Gaar

Again. If you violate the law that is on the books, wether you harm someone or not, is irrelevant. Do you understand what I'm saying? You don't have the right to speed. Cops will pull you over for that. You HAVE to wear a seatbelt. Cops will pull you over for that too.

Wrong! Speeding is a crime. Not wearing a seatbelt is a crime. Talking on a cell phone while driving is illegal in a few states.

And here is where we will "switch" to ONE SUBJECT at a time...

It seems that the more subjects discussed the more times you feel a need to change the subject.

So, we will start here, because THIS is a VERY GOOD POINT to make because YOU don't seem to understand the difference between a "crime" and the "breaking of Rules"...

I have NEVER said that the State doesn't have the Right to "Regulate" anything they see fit, as long as they are citing the Public safety, or some other reasoning regarding the Public interest... Like YOUR example of speeding. While it is true that you are not actually harming people by doing it, you definitely have increased your potential to do someone harm and, as we can prove through statistics, people often DO HARM another person when doing it. Also, you have a Right to move about freely, but you have NO Right to drive, it is a privilege. So we restrict it's use in some manners...

But it would be UnConstitutional for the Government to make illegal your ability to move about freely, would it not?

So, while the Government may feel Free to "restrict" the use of anything they see fit, they do NOT have a Right to make those things absolutely illegal, do they? Don't they FIRST have to SHOW where they have garnered the Right, under the Constitution, to restrict my Individual Right to do something in order to OutLaw it completely?

Regards,
Gaar

Gaar, have you ever heard of the elastic clause? To quote the Constitution itself: Originally posted by the Constitution of the United States of America
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department of Officer thereof.

Congress can pass any laws, granting any power deemed necessary that are not enumerated (expliciately stated) by the Constitution (this works both ways: for powers that cannot be had, and powers that must be had). Prime example: the Bank of the United States. There no longer is one, as Jackson destroyed it, but at its conception there was much argument between Hamilton, its supporter, and Jefferson, one of many detractors. The question was whether or not the Bank was "necessary and proper." It really doesn't matter, then, what laws Congress passes--unless it is specifically stated that they cannot. This includes all Amendments to the Constitution, too--Congress couldn't, for example, count African Americans for three fifths of a vote, even though they one could.

Cite ONE, please... Just one where an Arresting Officer was using ONLY a Constitutional Amendment to invoke his Authority.

Sex Slavery busts that take place in the Country. They all use the XIII Amendment to make the arrests. Slavery is against the Constitution. Read Amendment XIII.

So this makes YOU an Authority on Constitutional Law? And to think, even Constitutional Scholars don't agree on many things, let alone a STUDENT!

No it doesn't make me an authority on Constitutional Law. I just happen to know what the Constitution says.

Perhaps because I HAVE addressed EACH and many of the points I have made have not...

If you addressed them then people hammered them because your points were wrong. You've stated crap on here that have been debunked by using the Constitution of the United States. This people have done and you have yet to acknowledge it.

I believe we may need to go to ONE SUBJECT per post, so as not to confuse anyone.

Here I will agree with you.

Again, perhaps YOU wouldn't mind SHOWING ME even ONE instance where this has happened, where an AUTHORITY has invoked JUST an Amendment to invoke their Authority over someone...

Again, sex slavery busts in the US. It violates the XIII Amendment of Constitution of the United States.

And NOT the other way around, as you have with invoking the Fifth, because we ALL KNOW (Hopefully, since I have YET to see ANY of you admit the Constitution is first and foremost a Document to secure an INDIVIDUALS Right's) that the Constitution is meant to protect ME and only give THEM Authority over me when I have infringed on someone elses Right...

*Sighs* The Constitution protects the rights of people sure. No one is disputing that. No one on here has been disputing it and neither have I. However, the Constitution is the document that all laws are to uphold. However, your right to speed infringes upon others and therefore your right to speed is eliminated. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater. An individual has rights but those rights are only granted by the Federal Government. The Constitutional Convention gave you the right of free speech, assemble, religion, press, the right to bear arms, protects you from illegal search and seizures, your right to stay silent, your right to a speedy trial. These are the rights given in the first ten amendments. These the Government gave to the people. All of your precious rights comes from the Government.

Because YOU say they are correct?!?! Again, decaring yourself a Victor, without having addressed the WHOLE of the Argument against you is in very poor taste, but why would I not expect that of you, yet again...

They are correct. I've read this whole thread and they have been right. You haven't acknowledged them as being right but dismissed them because they didn't agree with you. I am not declaring myself a victor because my victory hasn't been achieved. That victory is for you to see reason.

Ok, but how about YOU go take a loook at the the 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments and use them to look at my argument, so we are taking the Constitution as a WHOLE, and not just those Amendments that "suit" YOUR need!?!?

the V? The right to NOT criminate yourself. The IX is that the people do have rights that are not enumerated in the constitution (the right to travel from state to state without a passport for instence), the X is that powers not reserved by the Federal Government are given to the states.

Because I HAVE ADDRESSED your "Presidential Issue" with regards to THOSE Amendment and have YET to see anyone address them, why is that?

Because your scenerio is so stupid that it isn't even worth responding too by those that know the Constitution and know that no president can serve a third term without a Constitutional Amendment repealing Amendment XXII of the Constitution of the United States. Not even the Supreme Court can undo a Constitutional Amendment.

No, do I for you? So that you will look at the WHOLE of the Instrument and not just that which supports YOUR SIDE?!?!

Nope, I actually have it right here infront of me. Its how I've been basing my arguements. The whole Constitution supports my arguement. It doesn't support all of yours however.

The QUESTION was stated as an "in fact" so that you would address it as such instead of just disregarding the question, which you DID anyway!

Because the question shouldn't have been proposed. You opened yourself up the minute you posted this question. It has been answered many times. You've choose to ignore the answers.

Not only HAVE I addressed them, I have cited the reasoning behind why I believe you are wrong, looking at the WHOLE of the discussion instead of relying strictly on a "circular-reasoning" trying to get people to believe that since it was made a Law it must be a Law!

My "Circular Reasonings" is based on the Constitution of the United States. My whole arguement has been based from the Constitution of the United States.

I have, and have cited the proceedures here even... Something about their ability to Rule a Law, and therefore the "concept" behind the Law UnConstitutional that YOU don't understand?

Show me where you posted the proceedures. You haven't I've read this whole thread, worthless in the extreme, and you haven't posted the proceedures. The US Supreme Court can only rule on a law not the amendment that law is based on. If a Bill is declared unconstitutional, there is more than one bill to back up those that require additional legislation, not just one.

Ok, and I have also studied it myself, as well as studied the circumstances in which it, as well as the Declaration of Independence an many of the "papers" that were written during, and just after the process, which brought about the writting of the Bill of Right's.

I have too. I also have the Federalist papers. I have the Declaration of Independence in the back of my history text book myself. I also have the US Code bookmarked as well.

So does YOUR "studying" the subject somehow "trump" my understanding, just bevause YOU say it does? If not, why are you continually bringing it up? Why do you constantly need to change the Subject when there are a few things you have yet to address in the actual discussion?

I love the quotes around studying. I'm saying it does because I've been basing my whole arguement from the Constitution of the United States. I told you why I brought it up because I wanted you to know that I am studying poli sci. How many times do I have to say it? I'm not saying it trumps anything you have said or done. It doesn't but you assume that it does. Stop it because your just flat out wrong.

Again, you do not answer a direct question, just divert it... Why is that?

I did answer it directly.

It's a simple question... Do you believe in Moral Absolutes? And if you don't believe in "Morals" per se, do you believe in Reasoned Absolutes? That SOME THINGS will ALWAYS be Right or Wrong, regardless of how the Society "feels" about it at any given Time, like the Right to Life?

Somethings are right and wrong. Those are obvious but the world isn't like that. What maybe wrong for us, isn't wrong for someone else.

And yet, many States have made it "Legal" in some manner and regardless of that the Fed's are still pushing their Authority in the matter, why do YOU suppose that is?

Because of Federal law. It is illegal to have marijuana under federal law and no state law can trump it. I may not agree with it, and sometimes I dont, but that is the cold honest truth. Somethings the Federal government stays out of and other things it doesn't. Some laws are also older than dirt and haven't been brought up to modern times. In time, it'll change.

And here is where we will "switch" to ONE SUBJECT at a time...

OK

It seems that the more subjects discussed the more times you feel a need to change the subject.

Could be my ADHD kicking. Arguing to many points at once isn't healthy.

So, we will start here, because THIS is a VERY GOOD POINT to make because YOU don't seem to understand the difference between a "crime" and the "breaking of Rules"...

There is no difference in the eyes of the law. You break the rules you do the time. In this case the rules are the laws and the laws have punishments that go with them so what aren't I getting?

I have NEVER said that the State doesn't have the Right to "Regulate" anything they see fit, as long as they are citing the Public safety, or some other reasoning regarding the Public interest... Like YOUR example of speeding. While it is true that you are not actually harming people by doing it, you definitely have increased your potential to do someone harm and, as we can prove through statistics, people often DO HARM another person when doing it. Also, you have a Right to move about freely, but you have NO Right to drive, it is a privilege. So we restrict it's use in some manners...

Now your starting to use your brain. What a horrifing thought. I can actually agree with this line of LOGIC!!

But it would be UnConstitutional for the Government to make illegal your ability to move about freely, would it not?

You are absolutely 100% Correct thanks to the thing we call the IX Amendment.

So, while the Government may feel Free to "restrict" the use of anything they see fit, they do NOT have a Right to make those things absolutely illegal, do they? Don't they FIRST have to SHOW where they have garnered the Right, under the Constitution, to restrict my Individual Right to do something in order to OutLaw it completely?

Depending on what it is they do. Drugs? Oh you better believe they'll regulate its travel. Criminals? Them too. You don't want your suspect fleeing town. In certain cases they have the right to restrict movements such as a time of national emergency. I would support the restriction of travel if it ment that our military can move faster. As for showing where they got the right, all they have to do is declare martial law thus the Constitution is suspended. The military then has control of certain areas till the Martial Law decree is lifted. It must be noted however, that martial law has never been declared nation wide so the Constitution has never been totally suspended though you could make a case that Lincoln did when he was in the process of fighting the Confederacy.

Nice posting Urantia II. I liked this post better than your other ones.

Gaar, have you ever heard of the elastic clause? To quote the Constitution itself:

Congress can pass any laws, granting any power deemed necessary that are not enumerated (expliciately stated) by the Constitution (this works both ways: for powers that cannot be had, and powers that must be had). Prime example: the Bank of the United States. There no longer is one, as Jackson destroyed it, but at its conception there was much argument between Hamilton, its supporter, and Jefferson, one of many detractors. The question was whether or not the Bank was "necessary and proper." It really doesn't matter, then, what laws Congress passes--unless it is specifically stated that they cannot. This includes all Amendments to the Constitution, too--Congress couldn't, for example, count African Americans for three fifths of a vote, even though they one could.

"necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government "

Hmmmm....

Looks to me like they are saying that Government HAS to consider ALL of the "Powers vested by the Constitution", does it not?

And again, is ANYONE going to ADMIT that the Constitution is FIRST AND FOREMOST a Document SECURING an INDIVIDUALS Right's?!?!

ANYONE!?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

There is no difference in the eyes of the law. You break the rules you do the time. In this case the rules are the laws and the laws have punishments that go with them so what aren't I getting?

That there IS a BIG Difference between a Federal crime and a Regulated crime...

There is a HUGE difference between OutLawing something outright and restricting its use, is there not?

(let's just cover this one subject for now)

Regards,
Gaar

That there IS a BIG Difference between a Federal crime and a Regulated crime...

You mean a federal crime and a state crime right?

There is a HUGE difference between OutLawing something outright and restricting its use, is there not?

There is a deference yes.

You mean a federal crime and a state crime right?

There is a deference yes.

So, while making something absolutely illegal, we make Laws that are much harsher than those that are strictly for Regulating and not outright OutLawing, do we not?

So again, while the State should feel free to "restrict" somethings use when that use may cause another harm or infringe on their own Right's in some manner, they are NOT Free to OutLaw something without citing Constitutional reasoning why they are suspending "some" of my Right's in order to secure others, are they not?

So it is NOT that they can just say we are making it a Law so it is a Law, they have to SHOW what Right it is they are securing in doing so, do they not?

Regards,
Gaar

So, while making something absolutely illegal, we make Laws that are much harsher than those that are strictly for Regulating and not outright OutLawing, do we not?

If we outlaw something, we make penalties harsher yes but now your getting into the criminal code and that has different degrees of crimes and therefore, different levels of penalties. Murder for instance is Murder 1, 2, 3, involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, vehicular homicide. They all have different penalties but you cannot commit murder. I'm not really sure how to phrase it perse but if you do it at the state level, you go to the State Pen and if you do it on the Federal level, you go to a Federal Pen. There is a dividing line between State level and Federal Level but since I'm not a lawyer, I'm not 100% sure were all the lines are drawn. Only on Murder and kidnapping do I know the lines.

So again, while the State should feel free to "restrict" somethings use when that use may cause another harm or infringe on their own Right's in some manner, they are NOT Free to OutLaw something without citing Constitutional reasoning why they are suspending "some" of my Right's in order to secure others, do they not?

Partly true. There are things that they can't outlaw but outside of that, they can outlaw whatever they want.

So it is NOT that they can just say we are making it a Law so it is a Law, they have to SHOW what RIght it is they are securing in doing so, do they not?

Depending on the bill being considered, yea your right. Like the Civil Rights Bill of the 1960s. It increased the civil rights of African Americans. On a state level though, its different. Since I'm not a lawmaker, I can't explain it in a way that'll make sense.

*snip*

We can agree that the Constitution is a document that is meant to secure an Individuals Right's over all others, can we not?

Regards,
Gaar

We can agree that the Constitution is a document that is meant to secure an Individuals Right's over all others, can we not?

Regards,
Gaar

I said that in one of my posts I think.

Originally posted by Urantia II
And NOT the other way around, as you have with invoking the Fifth, because we ALL KNOW (Hopefully, since I have YET to see ANY of you admit the Constitution is first and foremost a Document to secure an INDIVIDUALS Right's) that the Constitution is meant to protect ME and only give THEM Authority over me when I have infringed on someone elses Right...

I'm afraid that it doesn't quite work like that. What about the federal income tax? Everyone, not just criminals, pays the tax. This doesn't involve you infringing on someone's rights, just that it is "necessary and proper" for the government to collect money so it can keep running.

Frankly, the point of the Constitution was to provide a system of government for the United States. It did other things, too, but that was its main purpose. The protection of an individual's rights is a nicety.

I said that in one of my posts I think.

So can we also agree that, when the Government is attempting to "change it" in some manner, it is incumbent upon the Government to "make their case" as it were...

In other words, don't they HAVE to show which "Individual Right" they are addressing and further show how their "changing it" is making it "more secure" for the Individual's interest?

Regards,
Gaar

I'm afraid that it doesn't quite work like that. What about the federal income tax? Everyone, not just criminals, pays the tax. This doesn't involve you infringing on someone's rights, just that it is "necessary and proper" for the government to collect money so it can keep running.

Frankly, the point of the Constitution was to provide a system of government for the United States. It did other things, too, but that was its main purpose. The protection of an individual's rights is a nicety.

Income Tax Amendment is Amendment number XVI.

So can we also agree that, when the Government is attempting to "change it" in some manner, it is incumbent upon the Government to "make their case" as it were...

They have too if the want it to pass 1) Congress (Both houses) and 2) the states.

In other words, don't they HAVE to show which "Individual Right" they are addressing and further show how their "changing it" is making it "more secure" for the Individual's interest?

Same question repeated. See Above.

I know that income tax was added as an amendment. However, it is part of the Constitution, which is where my argument regarding that the purpose of the Constitution is not to protect the rights of an individual. It is to provide and maintain a system of government. I should have said that, "the purpose of the Constitution is..." not "the purpose of the Constitution was..."

However, my points remain. 1.) The Constitution was created to provide a system of government, not to protect individual rights. 2.) Our system of law, and the Constitution, are not designed so that individuals can only be acted upon by the government if they "infringe" upon someone else's rights.

I know that income tax was added as an amendment. However, it is part of the Constitution, which is where my argument regarding that the purpose of the Constitution is not to protect the rights of an individual. It is to provide and maintain a system of government. I should have said that, "the purpose of the Constitution is..." not "the purpose of the Constitution was..."

However, my points remain. 1.) The Constitution was created to provide a system of government, not to protect individual rights. 2.) Our system of law, and the Constitution, are not designed so that individuals can only be acted upon by the government if they "infringe" upon someone else's rights.

Yep absolutely correct. I couldn't have said it any better myself. :)

I'm afraid that it doesn't quite work like that. What about the federal income tax? Everyone, not just criminals, pays the tax. This doesn't involve you infringing on someone's rights, just that it is "necessary and proper" for the government to collect money so it can keep running.

So what Individual Right of mine have they infringed upon by collecting Taxes to run the System of Government which the Constitution sets up?

It IS a responsibility of MINE, as an Individual, to do all those thing deemed necessary to "run" the Government to which we have granted "certain" Powers to Govern, is it not?

So again, exactly WHICH Right, as an Individual, is being subverted by doing this?

I have never suggested that a Government didn’t have the Right to make Laws to help it do its job, have I? Just that they NEED to show, if they are going to “change” the Constitution, how it is they are changing it in the Interest of the People it serves.

Frankly, the point of the Constitution was to provide a system of government for the United States. It did other things, too, but that was its main purpose. The protection of an individual's rights is a nicety.

A "nicety"?!?!?

So YOU ARE denying that the Individuals Right's come first and foremost in our Society, right?!?!

And I will say that, it ISN'T our Governments fault that People ACTUALLY BELIEVE that!

It is the People's fault who BELIEVE IT themselves for not becoming "fully informed" about the Right's of the citizens of the United States of America...

And THAT is exactly what some of our Forefather meant when they said it was the citizens RESPONSIBILITY to be VIGILANT in watching over their Government. They KNEW that People would become less and less caring of their Government, to the point where they could just "take away" Right's while the People just look the other way.

We are in a sad state of affairs in this Country if THIS is the prevailing thought of our citizenry.

Regards,
Gaar

They have too if the want it to pass 1) Congress (Both houses) and 2) the states.


Ok, so perhaps you would be good enough to explain how the 22nd Amendment "protects" any of MY Right's as an Individual?

Or can we agree that this was an "over reaction" by a Legislature and citizenry that had just lived through a 4 term President for the first time in American History?

I would argue that we HAD "Term Limits" long before there was a 22nd Amendment... They are called ELECTIONS!

Regards,
Gaar

[QUOTE=Corneliu]They have too if the want it to pass 1) Congress (Both houses) and 2) the states.

Ok, so perhaps you would be good enough to explain how the 22nd Amendment "protects" any of MY Right's as an Individual?

It doesn't but prevents you from serving no more than 2 terms as president or no more than 10 years in the nation's highest office. Its to prevent another FDR.

Or can we agree that this was an "over reaction" by a Legislature and citizenry that had just lived through a 4 term President for the first time in American History?

Nope. I happen to agree with the amendment. Because it prevents someone from holding office indefinitely. The only way that'll happen is by suspending the elections and the US Constitution but the People will not tolerate it.

I would argue that we HAD "Term Limits" long before there was a 22nd Amendment... They are called ELECTIONS!

But a person can run for the nation's Highest Office and win it as along as he was alive. The XXII Amendment prevents it from every occuring again.

John Locke. Know who he is? The man greatly responsible for the Declaration of Independence. He said that people have the rights to "life, liberty, and property." This was changed to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Income tax deprives you of property. Doesn't that, then, violate a "human right?" And if it doesn't, then how do drug laws?

You could argue that it is for the good of all that you pay taxes. I could argue that it is for the good of all that you cannot legally drive stoned.

It doesn't but prevents you from serving no more than 2 terms as president or no more than 10 years in the nation's highest office. Its to prevent another FDR.

And how is that securing ANY Right for ANYONE?

Nope. I happen to agree with the amendment. Because it prevents someone from holding office indefinitely. The only way that'll happen is by suspending the elections and the US Constitution but the People will not tolerate it.

And so do Elections if the People choose to make a change. But YOU seem to think that YOU are a better Judge about that because insteed of making your case every time there is an Election, YOU have choosen to disallow an otherwise "legitimate choice" based soley on whether they have held the Office twice before, NOT whether they may be the best man available for the job...

But a person can run for the nation's Highest Office and win it as along as he was alive. The XXII Amendment prevents it from every occuring again.

The only reason you are currently able to say such things is because it has YET to be challenged in Court.

And it is a sad state of affairs that such things are thought to be Constitutional...

You are unable to make your case during an Election, so you have found a way to FORCE YOUR WILL on OTHERS... Not real sure how you feel that has ANY Basis in Constitutionality.

Regards,
Gaar

And how is that securing ANY Right for ANYONE?

Its not.

And so do Elections if the People choose to make a change. But YOU seem to think that YOU are a better Judge about that because insteed of making your case every time there is an Election, YOU have choosen to disallow an otherwise "legitimate choice" based soley on whether they have held the Office twice before, NOT whether they may be the best man available for the job...

Why are you attacking me when I made a statement? This is all you do is attack someone when they come up with a point. Why?

The only reason you are currently able to say such things is because it has YET to be challenged in Court.

Now I have you. Right here is where you are stating that an Amendment can be challenged when IN FACT IT CANNOT BE CHALLENGED!!!!! An Amendment of the Constitution of the United States MAKES IT CONSTITUTIONAL! Is that clear enough?

And it is a sad state of affairs that such things are thought to be Constitutional...

Your opinion though it does make sure that no one person can rule till the day he dies which is a good thing.

You are unable to make your case during an Election, so you have found a way to FORCE YOUR WILL on OTHERS... Not real sure how you feel that has ANY Basis in Constitutionality.

Where the hell did this come from?

Income tax deprives you of property. Doesn't that, then, violate a "human right?" And if it doesn't, then how do drug laws?

No, because a citizen has a RESPONSIBILITY to the Society also, do they not?

I am also FREE to leave and find another Society that may have less of a personal "burden" on the Individual, but one would be hard pressed to find ANY Society that didn't have some "cost" to being a citizen, wouldn't they?

And how does depriving someone of their "pursuit of happiness" relate in ANY WAY to a persons responsibility to Society as a whole?

You could argue that it is for the good of all that you pay taxes. I could argue that it is for the good of all that you cannot legally drive stoned.

Yep and AGAIN, YOU may feel free to REGULATE Anything you deem necessary, but making it illegal ALL TOGETHER is another matter entirely, is it not?

I believe we have ALREADY covered this.

Regards,
Gaar

Why are you attacking me when I made a statement? This is all you do is attack someone when they come up with a point. Why?

I am asking you to defend your position and explained why I believe you are wrong.

And you didn't even answer the question. Just complained about being "attacked" for your position, like I haven't been for mine.

Now I have you. Right here is where you are stating that an Amendment can be challenged when IN FACT IT CANNOT BE CHALLENGED!!!!! An Amendment of the Constitution of the United States MAKES IT CONSTITUTIONAL! Is that clear enough?

We'll get to the Supreme Court AGAIN, when you have ADDRESSED the question above...

Regards,
Gaar

In the year 1850, it was Constitutional for women to not be able to vote.

In the year 1800, it was Constitional for blacks to not be able to vote.

In the year 1925, it was Constitutional for the production of alcohol to be illegal.

Are any of these right? Well, I would say no. However, during the years listed, they were Constitutional. They may be unconstitutional today, but back then, it was perfectly alright.

Relating back to your original point, even if George W. Bush was written in by 70% of all eligible voters in 2008, he still wouldn't win. If a woman in 1914 voted, her vote would not be counted, precisely because it would not be allowed by the Constitution. It took decades for women to get the vote, and before they did, they could not. Likewise, if the 22nd Amendment is still in effect in 2008, Bush could not win.

I am asking you to defend your position and explained why I believe you are wrong.

I did. Its called using the Constitution to defeat your arguements.

And you didn't even answer the question. Just complained about being "attacked" for your position, like I haven't been for mine.

I've answered your question. Elections can change yes but it doesn't prohibit any one person from running as many times as he/she wants to for the highest office. The XXII Amendment prohibits a person from being in office for more than 10 years.

We'll get to the Supreme Court AGAIN, when you have ADDRESSED the question above...

The only reason you are currently able to say such things is because it has YET to be challenged in Court.

And I'm telling you a Constitutional Amendment CANNOT BE CHALLENGED IN COURT!!!!!!!

I did. Its called using the Constitution to defeat your arguements.

And in more specific terms it is known as having the Law codify itself...

Or, as mentioned before, "circular-reasoning". Which is not a valid argument.

Didn't we ALREADY agree that an Amendment MUST cite Constitutional REASONING for its "being/becoming" an Amendment?

I've answered your question. Elections can change yes but it doesn't prohibit any one person from running as many times as he/she wants to for the highest office. The XXII Amendment prohibits a person from being in office for more than 10 years.

No, you have "defrayed" my question with the use of circular-Reasoning...

An Election can prevent a person from serving for Life if THAT IS the WILL of the PEOPLE, you know, the People that the Constitution is SUPPOSED to SERVE!?!?

And I'm telling you a Constitutional Amendment CANNOT BE CHALLENGED IN COURT!!!!!!!

Again, one subject at a time... It seems we still have some work to do with the subject already being discussed.

Regards,
Gaar

And in more specific terms it is known as having the Law codify itself...

Or, as mentioned before, "circular-reasoning". Which is not a valid argument.

You are now officially testing my limits. Is it circular reasoning because it makes sense or is it circular reasoning because what I am saying is what you don't agree with?

Didn't we ALREADY agree that an Amendment MUST cite Constitutional REASONING for its "being/becoming" an Amendment?

Was there a Constitutional Reason to give the Women a right to vote? Was their a Constitutional Reason to ban Slavery? Was there A constitutional Reasoning to lower the voting age to 18?

No, you have "defrayed" my question with the use of circular-Reasoning...

I guess that answered my previous question. I told you my answer and you call it circular reasoning. Tell me why!

An Election can prevent a person from serving for Life if THAT IS the WILL of the PEOPLE, you know, the People that the Constitution is SUPPOSED to SERVE!?!?

Now your using circular reasoning!

Again, one subject at a time... It seems we still have some work to do with the subject already being discussed.

Which happens to coincide with everything else we've been talking about.

You are now officially testing my limits. Is it circular reasoning because it makes sense or is it circular reasoning because what I am saying is what you don't agree with?.

Because when you say... It is an Amendment so therefore it is Constitutional... Which is akin to saying that it was made a Law, therefore it is Lawful. You are having the Law codify itself, which IS circular-reasoning.

The Law MUST be codified by a Right, not itself.

And here I had thought we had ALREADY agreed to this point, I guess not.

Was there a Constitutional Reason to give the Women a right to vote? Was their a Constitutional Reason to ban Slavery? Was there A constitutional Reasoning to lower the voting age to 18?

No, and hence MY ASSERTION that these things were NEVER Constitutional!

Because we eventually got it Right, which AGAIN, is the intent of having Amendments in the Constitution, right? To make our Union "more perfect", as it were...


Now your using circular reasoning!


You wouldn't mind actually CITING how it is I am using "circular-reasoning" as I have for you, would you?

It isn't true just because you say it, is it?

Regards,
Gaar

The idea of the 22nd Amendment was proposed long before it was implemented. Do you know who suggested it?

Thomas. Jefferson.

The fellow who wrote the Declaration of Independance also supported the idea of Presidential term limits, because he was afraid without them the President might as well become King.


But I digress. Just an interesting ancedote.


An Constitutional Amendment by definition is part of the Constitution, and therefore cannot be challenged as unconstitutional, because in and of itself it is part of the Constitution! You can't challenge one part of the Constitution with another, because they are both equally valid!

EDIT: Blast, typo'd.

An Constitutional Amendment by definition is part of the Constitution, and therefore cannot be challenged as unconstitutional, because in and of itself it is part of the Constitution! You can't challenge one part of the Constitution with another, because they are both equally valid!.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt9.html

The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that
the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional
fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which
exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the
first eight constitutional amendments. . . .

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: I'm pretty sure that is why they decided to call those first 10 Amendments the "Bill of Rights" instead of just simply adding them as Amendments without citing them as special in some way...

Why would YOU think they would do such a thing?

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt9.html

The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that
the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional
fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which
exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the
first eight constitutional amendments. . . .

Regards,
Gaar

Do you know what those rights are that they are talking about?

Do you know what those rights are that they are talking about?

Let's YOU and I stick to OUR discussion...

So we don't miss something...

You can bring this up again, once we get through this other stuff.

Why is it you are trying to change the Subject AGAIN?

Regards,
Gaar

You changed it first.

You changed it first.

Thanks! :D

You changed it first.

What? :confused:

I changed what?

You, not Corneliu, decided to respond to me. You didn't have to, and by your own admission it was changing the subject.

Thanks! :D

What?

You going to find it difficult finding the posts that respond to you versus those that don't?

Sorry, I will stop answering "other" questions for now, since it seems to be confusing some.

Are you going to address my questions to you, or continue to dodge it by changing the subject?

Regards,
Gaar

What?

You going to find it difficult finding the posts that respond to you versus those that don't?

Sorry, I will stop answering "other" questions for now, since it seems to be confusing some.

Are you going to address my questions to you, or continue to dodge it by changing the subject?

Regards,
Gaar

Every point that I stated corresponds to what you've been asking me and you have accused me of changing the subject. However, it has been you that has been changing the subject constently when someone comes up with an answer you don't like. Since you've ran out of options, you've labeled all of my arguements circular reasoning when I use the law to back up my claims.

So now I'll ask you,

Do you know what those rights are that they (The Founding Fathers) are talking about?

If you can't answer my question then I won't answer yours.

You, not Corneliu, decided to respond to me. You didn't have to, and by your own admission it was changing the subject.

Well, not really... Since YOU and I didn't really have a subject going.

But if answering you makes things difficult for others, then I will gladly stop.

This will be my last response to you... So I can't be accused of that, in order to YET AGAIN change the Subject.

Regards,
Gaar

Well, not really... Since YOU and I didn't really have a subject going.

But if answering you makes things difficult for others, then I will gladly stop.

Thiswill be my last response to you... So I can't be accused of that, in order to YET AGAIN change the Subject.

Regards,
Gaar

There goes debate on this topic now.

Every point that I stated corresponds to what you've been asking me and you have accused me of changing the subject. However, it has been you that has been changing the subject constently when someone comes up with an answer you don't like. Since you've ran out of options, you've labeled all of my arguements circular reasoning when I use the law to back up my claims.

Yes, the Law to justify the Law, without citing ANY Rights...

Again, that IS circular-reasoning, something about that you don't understand? (asking because I would like a response)

So now I'll ask you,

Do you know what those rights are that they (The Founding Fathers) are talking about?

If you can't answer my question then I won't answer yours.

Sorry, mine was asked first...

And I will gladly move on to a Subject YOU would like an answer to ONCE you have done it yourself. You don't get to expect something from me that you are unwilling to do yourself, do you?

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, the Law to justify the Law, without citing ANY Rights...

The Government gives the rights to the People. The people can only go as far as the government allows them too. Do you understand that concept?

Again, that IS circular-reasoning, something about that you don't understand? (asking because I would like a response)

Something about the fact that the government gives its citizens their rights? The Constitution gave the people the right to free speech, peaceful assembly, free press and freedom of Religion. It also gives it populace the right to bear arms, keeps troops from being quartered in private homes, protects us from illegal search and seizures, gives us the right to not incriminate ourselves and a right to a speedy trial. Is this still circular reasoning? No. Why? Because it does answer your damn question.

Sorry, mine was asked first...

And I will gladly move on to a Subject YOU would like an answer to ONCE you have done it yourself. You don't get to expect something from me that you are unwilling to do yourself, do you?

I have answered it numerous times. You can add this answer ontop of all the others.

The Government gives the rights to the People. The people can only go as far as the government allows them too. Do you understand that concept?

Actually it is the other way around...

And it is actually quite scary to think THAT IS what is being TAUGHT in our Schools these days! Especially in our Poli Sci courses.

Something about a Government By and for the People that YOU don't understand?

Perhaps YOU should re-read the 9th and 10th Amendments again?


Something about the fact that the government gives its citizens their rights? The Constitution gave the people the right to free speech, peaceful assembly, free press and freedom of Religion. It also gives it populace the right to bear arms, keeps troops from being quartered in private homes, protects us from illegal search and seizures, gives us the right to not incriminate ourselves and a right to a speedy trial. Is this still circular reasoning? No. Why? Because it does answer your damn question.

I have answered it numerous times. You can add this answer ontop of all the others.

Actually, I am pretty sure that those “Rights” are said to “come from” someplace OTHER than the Government and the Constitution is merely the Governments way of “affirming” them.

But If THIS IS what YOU believe then I guess you and I have nothing left to discuss, since one of us obviously doesn't understand the premise behind the Society in which we live.

Regards,
Gaar

Actually it is the other way around...

This is definitely ignorant.

And it is actually quite scary to think THAT IS what is being TAUGHT in our Schools these days! Especially in our Poli Sci courses.

The government can strip you of your rights at anytime and for no reason.

Something about a Government By and for the People that YOU don't understand?

Something about the Government can take away your rights without notice you don't understand? The government giveth the government taketh away.

Perhaps YOU should re-read the 9th and 10th Amendments again?

I know what it says! I have it here infront of me. However, something you fail to realize is that the Government can take away your rights for no apparent reason. The Constitution was passed to make sure that doesn't happen but then again, the Constitution can be suspended and all of our rights can be gone faster than you can snap your fingers.

Actually, I am pretty sure that those “Rights” are said to “come from” someplace OTHER than the Government and the Constitution is merely the Governments way of “affirming” them.

What the government can affirm it can unaffirm. The government still has the right to take away your rights. It doesn't because of the outcry and that the Constitution gurantees certain things but all this can be undone.

But If THIS IS what YOU believe then I guess you and I have nothing left to discuss, since one of us obviously doesn't understand the premise behind the Society in which we live.

Someone here doesn't understand POLITICS! It ain't me. I know what the government can do. Hence Checks and Balances. It keeps on branch from overstepping its bounds but if the Constitution, which has these checks and balances, is suspended....

*snip*

Very, very scary...

It is no wonder we are in the mess we are in.

Regards,
Gaar

Very, very scary...

It is no wonder we are in the mess we are in.

Regards,
Gaar

Hence why the people use the Constitution so much to protect themselves. However, because of this, the Constitution has been abused from its original purpose. Which is to make sure that the Government cannot become to powerful and that the people's rights are protected. The rights given to the people were given up by the government to the people.

Hence why the people use the Constitution so much to protect themselves. However, because of this, the Constitution has been abused from its original purpose. Which is to make sure that the Government cannot become to powerful and that the people's rights are protected. The rights given to the people were given up by the government to the people.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt9.html

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

RIGHTS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE

Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the
Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution
because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing
that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be
dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on
the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was
unrestrained as to those.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt9.html

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

RIGHTS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE

Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the
Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution
because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing
that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be
dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on
the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was
unrestrained as to those.

Oh for the love of GOD!!!!!!!! ANSWER MY DAMN POST IN YOUR OWN DAMN WORDS!!!!!!! NOT BY A WEBSITE!!!!

I also suggest you read the Federalist Papers.

Oh for the love of GOD!!!!!!!! ANSWER MY DAMN POST IN YOUR OWN DAMN WORDS!!!!!!! NOT BY A WEBSITE!!!!

I also suggest you read the Federalist Papers.

So again, instead of addressing the subject you change the subject...

I have read them, you obviously have not.

And how would my argument apply any differently if I use my own words or the words of those WHO MADE THE DAMN DOCUMENT and how they regarded the subject we are discussing?

And that first part is a QUOTE from the Constitution, which DIRECTLY conflicts with YOUR Statements, does it not?

And why did you not address that?

Regards,
Gaar

So again, instead of addressing the subject you change the subject...

I have read them, you obviously have not.

And how would my argument apply any differently if I use my own words or the words of those WHO MADE THE DAMN DOCUMENT and how they regarded the subject we are discussing?

And that first part is a QUOTE from the Constitution, which DIRECTLY conflicts with YOUR Statements, does it not?

And why did you not address that?

Regards,
Gaar

Why didn't you address my post?

Why didn't you address my post?

Because, like I said before, if you are unwilling to address my questions, yours will be ignored as well...

Kinda makes you a bit annoyed when people don't address your point, doesn't it!

:rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

Because, like I said before, if you are unwilling to address my questions, yours will be ignored as well...

Kinda makes you a bit annoyed when people don't address your point, doesn't it!

:rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

I have constently addressed yours but you cried circular reasoning. :rolleyes:

My arguements are valid but you decided that it didn't match what you wanted to hear so you got defense and attacked me and then said that my valid arguements were circular reasoning.

Sorry dude but as to being annoyed, I've addressed your points but you failed to recognize it.

Not sure if it's been brought up throughout the last 23 pages, but I'd like to address the question of the write-in George W. Bush getting 70% of the popular vote.

Someone mentioned the Supreme Court swearing in the person with the next-highest number of electoral votes.

I would think that if that happened, electors (not the populace) would cast electoral votes not in favor of the popular vote, therefore circumventing the problem altogether, while still not doing anything illicit or illegal in any way.

I have constently addressed yours but you cried circular reasoning. :rolleyes:

My arguements are valid but you decided that it didn't match what you wanted to hear so you got defense and attacked me and then said that my valid arguements were circular reasoning.

Sorry dude but as to being annoyed, I've addressed your points but you failed to recognize it.

Again, you cannot have something Justify itself and have anyone regard that as an acceptable answer with Logical Reasoning. If you can't accept that, I am left with nothing else I can do to help you understand...

It is because people use reasoning in the manner that you do, and accept it as correct, that we come up with Laws that are so "unreasonable". We then have a Society which looks at some of the Laws and sees just how ridiculous they are and then use the same reasoning as you to say that all Laws are ridiculous and therefore we don't really need to follow them.

If I were to present YOU with an argument about anything, and MY justification of my position to you is it is that something IS something just because it is that or that I am correct because I am correct, how would YOU try and argue against such Logic?

It IS because it IS! :confused:

:rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

Nope, sorry...

The Supreme Court can Rule that a Law is UnConstitutional and therefore, through Logical progression, we can then say that the Amendment itself may be UnConstitutional for the reasons prescibed in the Ruling that makes the Law UnConstitutional.

Regards,
Gaar

You're missing a crucial element of this, Gaar. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in only a few Constitutionally-specified areas. It's possible in your original scenario that a law in support of the 22nd Amendment might be challenged in lower courts and come by appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, yes. However, in that case, the Supreme Court would be ruling on the constitutionality of that specific law, not the intent or overall content of the Amendment itself. I would assume that given that the relevant federal and state election laws exist as they are in support in the Amendment, the Court would likely uphold those aws that would have invalidated the votes cast for someone ineligible--in your example, George W. Bush, voted in overwhelmingly for a third term. So yes, it's theoretically possible that specific elcetion laws would be challenged, but the Court doesn't and can't proactively rule on the "constitutionality" of an Amendment itself.

Someone mentioned the Supreme Court swearing in the person with the next-highest number of electoral votes.

I would think that if that happened, electors (not the populace) would cast electoral votes not in favor of the popular vote, therefore circumventing the problem altogether, while still not doing anything illicit or illegal in any way.

And you don't think those actions would ever come to be challenged in the Supreme Court?

And if they were, and it is found that "most" if not nearly ALL of the States had provisions that MADE their Electoral College Rep's vote according to the "Will" of the People that assigned them, what and or "how" do you believe the Supreme Court would Rule?

And no matter what they “Rule” doesn’t this just “prove” that the Supreme Court really DOES have the “final say” in nearly ALL MATTERS Constitutional?

Regards,
Gaar

Again, you cannot have something Justify itself and have anyone regard that as an acceptable answer with Logical Reasoning. If you can't accept that, I am left with nothing else I can do to help you understand...

Again, in order to explain it, you have to use it. Therefore, it isn't circular reasoning when I use a Law or the Constitution to back up my arguements. Sorry that you can't comprehend it. You must've gone to public school.

It is because people use reasoning in the manner that you do, and accept it as correct, that we come up with Laws that are so "unreasonable". We then have a Society which looks at some of the Laws and sees just how ridiculous they are and then use the same reasoning as you to say that all Laws are ridiculous and therefore we don't really need to follow them.

You actually thought this up yourself? Some laws are rediculous but they stay on the books because they don't want to touch them. That is why the US Code is so big. There are outdated laws that are still on the books but no one bothers to take them out because they feel, though they may be rediculous, must've been important to make things run smoother.

If I were to present YOU with an argument about anything, and MY justification of my position to you is it is that something IS something just because it is that or that I am correct because I am correct, how would YOU try and argue against such Logic?

If what you say is correct then it is correct. However, if I have proof that you are wrong and I present something to you that what you said was infact incorrect, how would you respond?

It IS because it IS! :confused:

:rolleyes:

First thing I can agree with in this post.

You're missing a crucial element of this, Gaar. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in only a few Constitutionally-specified areas. It's possible in your original scenario that a law in support of the 22nd Amendment might be challenged in lower courts and come by appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, yes. However, in that case, the Supreme Court would be ruling on the constitutionality of that specific law, not the intent or overall content of the Amendment itself. I would assume that given that the relevant federal and state election laws exist as they are in support in the Amendment, the Court would likely uphold those aws that would have invalidated the votes cast for someone ineligible--in your example, George W. Bush, voted in overwhelmingly for a third term. So yes, it's theoretically possible that specific elcetion laws would be challenged, but the Court doesn't and can't proactively rule on the "constitutionality" of an Amendment itself.

Why not? Are you saying I can't challenge it on such grounds?

Regards,
Gaar

Again, in order to explain it, you have to use it. Therefore, it isn't circular reasoning when I use a Law or the Constitution to back up my arguements. Sorry that you can't comprehend it. You must've gone to public school.

Yes I did, and just what does that prove? That because I went to Public School and you didn't that you can use circular Logic to explain your position because you went to a Private School?

Or are we back to changing the subject in order to not address the original one. If you want to prove that circular Logic actually WORKS in this ONE CASE, please feel free! But using MY Education level versus your own, or anyone else's for that matter, isn't really germane to the point, is it?


You actually thought this up yourself? Some laws are rediculous but they stay on the books because they don't want to touch them. That is why the US Code is so big. There are outdated laws that are still on the books but no one bothers to take them out because they feel, though they may be rediculous, must've been important to make things run smoother.

Really!?!?! So it couldn't be that they were founded in BAD interpretation of, or no consideration for the Constitutionality of them, could it?

If what you say is correct then it is correct. However, if I have proof that you are wrong and I present something to you that what you said was infact incorrect, how would you respond?

Well, if you use circular-Logic I will point it out explicitly (as I have done several times now) and explain how I don't accept circular-Reasoning and ask if you wouldn't mind either making a well "reasoned" argument or not make one at all.

First thing I can agree with in this post.

Of course YOU can, YOU ACCEPT circular-Reasoning, I DO NOT! That WAS THE POINT!

:rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

Oh for...


It is NOT circular reasoning. You cannot make an effective explanation of it without using it to justify your point. Why? Because it's the Constitution, the highest legal authority of the nation. There's nothing else to cite to explain it, because it's the highest, and therefore alone in it's authority, meaning there is no other system to compare to.

Oh for...

It is NOT circular reasoning. You cannot make an effective explanation of it without using it to justify your point. Why? Because it's the Constitution, the highest legal authority of the nation. There's nothing else to cite to explain it, because it's the highest, and therefore alone in it's authority, meaning there is no other system to compare to.

So you don't believe there is a "Judiciary" ability to "test" the Constitutionality of a Law coming from an Amendment, and which Ruling may render an Amendment "UnConstitutional"?

Regards,
Gaar

So you don't believe there is a "Judiciary" ability to "test" the Constitutionality of a Law coming from an Amendment, and which Ruling may render an Amendment "UnConstitutional"?

Regards,
Gaar

No, an amendment is by definition constitutional because "constitutional" is a term which refers to whether or not lesser laws pass muster against amendments.

By DEFINITION an Amendment cannot be unconstitutional! As an Amendment, it is PART of the Constitution by definition! You cannot make the Constitution fight itself, because both clauses would be equally valid!

Aw damn, now you've got me doing IT!

Yes I did, and just what does that prove? That because I went to Public School and you didn't that you can use circular Logic to explain your position because you went to a Private School?

Actually I was homeschooled. I was smarter than my peers and smarter than half of my teachers. Not cool! That was when I was in HS for a month. And the only reason I was there was because I wanted to go back to school. After a month, I was climbing the walls and went back to homeschooling.

Or are we back to changing the subject in order to not address the original one. If you want to prove that circular Logic actually WORKS in this ONE CASE, please feel free! But using MY Education level versus your own, or anyone else's for that matter, isn't really germane to the point, is it?

I'm not changing the Subject. I've answered you several times but you wrote it off as circular reasoning.

Really!?!?! So it couldn't be that they were founded in BAD interpretation of, or no consideration for the Constitutionality of them, could it?

Again, they are constitutional till they are challenged and are declared unconstitutional.

Well, if you use circular-Logic I will point it out explicitly (as I have done several times now) and explain how I don't accept circular-Reasoning and ask if you wouldn't mind either making a well "reasoned" argument or not make one at all.

And I'm telling you that my arguement isn't circular reasoning since it is based on the Constitution of the United States. Unless of course you want to tell me that the Constitution is Circular Reasoning.

Of course YOU can, YOU ACCEPT circular-Reasoning, I DO NOT! That WAS THE POINT!

:rolleyes: [/quote]

I don't accept Circular Reasoning either but I'm not using circular reasoning when I use the Constitution of the United States as my source and the bases for my responses to you.

By DEFINITION an Amendment cannot be unconstitutional! As an Amendment, it is PART of the Constitution by definition! You cannot make the Constitution fight itself, because both clauses would be equally valid!

Aw damn, now you've got me doing IT!

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt9.html

Annals of Congress 439 (1789). Earlier, Madison had written
to Jefferson: ``My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of
rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be
included in the enumeration. . . . I have not viewed it in an important
light--1. because I conceive that in a certain degree . . . the rights
in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are
granted. 2. because there is great reason to fear that a positive
declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained
in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in
particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much
more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power.

Oh for...


It is NOT circular reasoning. You cannot make an effective explanation of it without using it to justify your point. Why? Because it's the Constitution, the highest legal authority of the nation. There's nothing else to cite to explain it, because it's the highest, and therefore alone in it's authority, meaning there is no other system to compare to.

Thank you. I've been trying to tell him this but you put it better than I ever could. Probably because I'm getting irritated because he isn't understanding what I'm saying.

By DEFINITION an Amendment cannot be unconstitutional! As an Amendment, it is PART of the Constitution by definition! You cannot make the Constitution fight itself, because both clauses would be equally valid!

Aw damn, now you've got me doing IT!

I think that is his purpose so that he can say your using circular-reasoning. LOL :D

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt9.html

Annals of Congress 439 (1789). Earlier, Madison had written
to Jefferson: ``My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of
rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be
included in the enumeration. . . . I have not viewed it in an important
light--1. because I conceive that in a certain degree . . . the rights
in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are
granted. 2. because there is great reason to fear that a positive
declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained
in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in
particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much
more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power.

What does that have to do with the subject? Wow, Amendment 9. And?

No, an amendment is by definition constitutional because "constitutional" is a term which refers to whether or not lesser laws pass muster against amendments.

So far the evidence is pointing my way Urantia. I suggest you rest your case and settle out of court before closing arguements. :D

What does that have to do with the subject? Wow, Amendment 9. And?

The Same trouble I've been having with him. He posts something and gives no explanation for it.

Again, they are constitutional till they are challenged and are declared unconstitutional.

It IS until it ISN'T, even though it never changed...

Again, very interesting Logic there.

And I'm telling you that my arguement isn't circular reasoning since it is based on the Constitution of the United States. Unless of course you want to tell me that the Constitution is Circular Reasoning.

Actually I AM the one making the "Constitutionality" argument, in that I have described how I believe it needs to pass a Constitutional "test" in order to be considered an Amendment to the Constitution...

You are making the "circular-Logic" argument that it is Constitutional because it's IN the Constitution... It IS because it IS.

Which doesn't work for me.

I don't accept Circular Reasoning either but I'm not using circular reasoning when I use the Constitution of the United States as my source and the bases for my responses to you.

Yes, in defending ITSELF without giving ANY FURTHER Constitutional Reasoning behind your assertion other than "it is Constitutional"...

It IS because it IS!?!? :rolleyes:

Again, you may buy this type of argument but that doesn't mean I have to.

Regards,
Gaar

What does that have to do with the subject? Wow, Amendment 9. And?

YOU made the assertion...

By DEFINITION an Amendment cannot be unconstitutional! As an Amendment, it is PART of the Constitution by definition! You cannot make the Constitution fight itself, because both clauses would be equally valid!

And I point out that the Framers actually said something that refutes that assertion, did I not?

"because there is great reason to fear that a positive
declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained
in the requisite latitude."

What is that about "most essential Right's"?!?! Weren't YOU saying they were ALL EQUAL?!?!

That's what I thought...

Regards,
Gaar

It IS until it ISN'T, even though it never changed...

Again, very interesting Logic there.

Considering that the logic is true.

Actually I AM the one making the "Constitutionality" argument, in that I have described how I believe it needs to pass a Constitutional "test" in order to be considered an Amendment to the Constitution...

Which in turn Violates Article V of the US Constitution which outlines how to get an Amendment into the Constitution.

You are making the "circular-Logic" argument that it is Constitutional because it's IN the Constitution... It IS because it IS.

It is because it is. If its in the Constitution, then its Constitutional. How hard is that? How is that Circular Reasoning?

Which doesn't work for me.

To bad considering that is how it is.

Yes, in defending ITSELF without giving ANY FURTHER Constitutional Reasoning behind your assertion other than "it is Constitutional"...

No other defense is necessary. The Constitution is the Constitution and everything in there is Constitutional by nature.

It IS because it IS!?!? :rolleyes:

Yep!

Again, you may buy this type of argument but that doesn't mean I have to.

Sorry bud, but its the truth.

So far the evidence is pointing my way Urantia. I suggest you rest your case and settle out of court before closing arguements. :D

Evidence? What "evidence" have YOU offered besides your "circular-Reasoning"?!?!

I believe I am the ONLY ONE citing anything like what may be called evidence in this discussion.

And again, declaring yourself a "Victor" is just a bit "uncouth", is it not?

Regards,
Gaar

*snip*

Ok, since circular-Logic is something YOU admire...

You are wrong because you are not right. :p

:rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

You are making the "circular-Logic" argument that it is Constitutional because it's IN the Constitution... It IS because it IS.

Which doesn't work for me.





He is using the same criteria by which one would argue that a square is a square because it has four sides of equal length meeting at 90 degree angles.

You see, the definition of "constititonal" is "in the constitution" just like the definition of square is "four sides of equal length meeting at 90 degree angles".

Let us try using logic.

First: A = A. This statement is true. Something always equals itself.

Second: A > B. Ok, A is greater than B. So A is larger, or in this case, has more worth.

B < A. Once again, this is true, according to the above statement.

B + A > A. This assumes that B is positive, but that should work.

B + B < A. So A is more than twice as large as B.

C < A. So C is also smaller than A.

D < A. So D is smaller than A.

E. < A. So E is smaller than A.

B + C + D + E < A. So A is larger than all of these combined.

How does this apply? A is the Constitution. B through E are laws.

The Constitution is the Constitution, which, according to my dictionary, is "the basic principles used to govern a state, country, or organization."

By the way, constitutional is defined as "having to do with the constitution." As amny others have repeatedly said, an Amendment cannot be unconstitutional, as it is part of the Constitution.

Laws support the Constitution, which makes the Constitution plus a law stronger than the Constitution is alone. However, no law, whether doubled, or added in combination with other laws, is greater than the Constitution. Laws derive their power from the Constitution.


Is this circular logic?

Should the Supreme Court have this much power? The ability to in effect, make constitutional amendments meaningless? The Supreme Court is nothing but a group of 9 human beings; lawyers. What makes their decisions more important than the ruling of the US Congress through a constitutional amendment, who represents the people, while the supreme court represents nothing but their own personal opinion as to how things should be interpreted?

Now don't get me wrong, I am NOT advocating the abolition of the Supreme Court as a whole, and I wholey support the system of checks and balances. I just think that Supreme Court has overstepped their bounds one too many times, and have somehow obtained god-like status in many peoples' minds.

He is using the same criteria by which one would argue that a square is a square because it has four sides of equal length meeting at 90 degree angles.

You see, the definition of "constititonal" is "in the constitution" just like the definition of square is "four sides of equal length meeting at 90 degree angles".

No sorry...

You gave an explanaitoin for how it IS a square, you know, the "rules" by which it met to be considered such.

He is simply saying it IS a Square, because it IS a square, while offering no proof that it meets the criteria. I am left to either just take his word or not... But if I am actually able to "Judge" for myself, I just may find that it really doesn't meet all of the criteria and, despite what others say, realize that it IS actuall NOY a Square, no matter what others have to say.

Besides, you are wrong because you are not right. :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

No sorry...

You gave an explanaitoin for how it IS a square, you know, the "rules" by which it met to be considered such.

He is simply saying it IS a Square, because it IS a square, while offering no proof that it meets the criteria. I am left to either just take his word or not... But if I am actually able to "Judge" for myself, I just may find that it really doesn't meet all of the criteria and, despite what others say, realize that it IS actuall NOY a Square, no matter what others have to say.

Besides, you are wrong because you are not right. :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar


There is not one hair of difference between the example of the square and of a constitutional amendment being constitutional.

Ok, since circular-Logic is something YOU admire...

You are wrong because you are not right. :p

:rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

And you have failed to see my arguements because I'm using the Constitution as the bases for my arguements that you have consistently wrote off as Circular Reasoning.

*snip*

No, why would you ask? It obviously is not...

But YOU DID seem to leave a little something out, didn't you?

What happens when a Law is challenged on its "Constitutionality" and reasoning behind the Ruling directly challenges an Amendment or Amendments in the Constitution?

Regards,
Gaar

Please, concede that all amendments are constitutional! I don't know how many people have defined constitutional how many times, and I have yet to see any circular logic.

Was my pretty little math not enough? What proof do we need to convince you?

There is not one hair of difference between the example of the square and of a constitutional amendment being constitutional.

Sure there is...

You gave precise reasoning behind why it was a square, did you not?

That is a bit different than saying it IS because it IS, isn't it?

Regards,
Gaar

No, why would you ask? It obviously is not...

But YOU DID seem to leave a little something out, didn't you?

What happens when a Law is challenged on its "Constitutionality" and reasoning behind the Ruling directly challenges an Amendment or Amendments in the Constitution?

Regards,
Gaar

The Supreme Court CANNOT directly challenge a Constitutional Amendment because it is in the Constitution and by definition, Constitutional.

That is why he left it out. The Supreme Court can rule a law unconstitutional but cannot challenge the Amendment based on its ruling because the Amendment itself is constitutional.

Please, concede that all amendments are constitutional! I don't know how many people have defined constitutional how many times, and I have yet to see any circular logic.

Was my pretty little math not enough? What proof do we need to convince you?

So Prohibition IS Constitutional? It should be given "Equal weight" to the Amendment that Abolishes it?

How does that work?

So are YOU really trying to argue that the 28th AMENDMENT (it is STILL an Amendment, isn't it?) IS CONSTITUTIONAL!?!?

Give me a BREAK!

Regards,
Gaar

No, Prohibition isn't constitutional, because it isn't part of the constitution anymore. A still equals A.

That is a bit different than saying it IS because it IS, isn't it?

What they are saying is that once a proposed amendment has gone through due process and has been officially added to the constitution, then IT BECOMES CONSTITUTIONAL!

You soak something in water it becomes wet.
You set something on fire it burns.
You add an amendment to the constitution and it becomes constitutional.

There is no "circular logic" behind that, it is pure, unequivocal FACT!

Sure there is...

You gave precise reasoning behind why it was a square, did you not?

That is a bit different than saying it IS because it IS, isn't it?

Regards,
Gaar


I also gave precise and correct reasoning as to why a constitutional amendment is constitutional. You ignored it on at least six occaisions in this thread.

No, Prohibition isn't constitutional, because it isn't part of the constitution anymore. A still equals A.

WHAT?!?!

IT IS STILL an Amendment that ALL of YOU are saying should be "given Equal weight", right?!?!

It's is RIGHT THERE as far as I can see!

Regards,
Gaar

So Prohibition IS Constitutional? It should be given "Equal weight" to the Amendment that Abolishes it?

Correct. When the XVIII was passed, Prohibition became constitutional. It was Repealed by the XXI Amendment so Prohibition is no longer constitutional.

How does that work?

Read up on Article V: How an Amendment is Passed.

So are YOU really trying to argue that the 28th AMENDMENT (it is STILL an Amendment, isn't it?) IS CONSTITUTIONAL!?!?

There are only 27 Amendments. Twenty-five if you exclude the Prohibition and the Amendment that Repealed it.

Give me a BREAK!

An arm or a leg?

I also gave precise and correct reasoning as to why a constitutional amendment is constitutional. You ignored it on at least six occaisions in this thread.

When?

Saying it IS because it IS is NOT precise, it is circular...

Regards,
Gaar

WHAT?!?!

IT IS STILL an Amendment that ALL of YOU are saying should be "given Equal weight", right?!?!

It's is RIGHT THERE as far as I can see!

Regards,
Gaar


The constitution - the rules which govern our laws - clearly states that the ban on prohibition is repealed. Look "amend" up in the dictionary to learn why the fact that the repealing amendment came after the prohibiting amendment gives the second total precedence over the first.

I also gave precise and correct reasoning as to why a constitutional amendment is constitutional. You ignored it on at least six occaisions in this thread.

Something that I was pointing out several times to him in which he ignored as well.

WHAT?!?!

IT IS STILL an Amendment that ALL of YOU are saying should be "given Equal weight", right?!?!

It's is RIGHT THERE as far as I can see!

Regards,
Gaar

Read Amendment XXI! It Repeals the XVIII Amendment therefor rendering the XVIII meaningless because it was repealed.

When?

Saying it IS because it IS is NOT precise, it is circular...

Regards,
Gaar


I'm not saying it "is" because it "is" that would be saying "it is constitutional because it is constititonal," a statement which provides no reasoning or definition of constitutionality.

Instead, I explained to you that it is constitutional because it is an amendment to the constitution.

Correct. When the XVIII was passed, Prohibition became constitutional. It was Repealed by the XXI Amendment so Prohibition is no longer constitutional.

Read up on Article V: How an Amendment is Passed.

There are only 27 Amendments. Twenty-five if you exclude the Prohibition and the Amendment that Repealed it.

An arm or a leg?

So they aren't Amendments? Or they don't have "Equal weight"?

You are saying one "trumped" the other? Yet they are ALL Equal?

So an Amendment is NOW considered UnConstitutional?

But no "other" Amendments are likely UnConstitutional, right?!?!

:rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

Instead, I explained to you that it is constitutional because it is an amendment to the constitution.

Same thing...

It IS Constitutional because it IS in the Constitution.

Just as Prohibition WAS, right?

Regards,
Gaar

Read Amendment XXI! It Repeals the XVIII Amendment therefor rendering the XVIII unconstitutional.

Good lord that was a mistake.

The xviii amendment is NOT unconstitutional, it is a vestigal rule with no legal bearing. A law predicated on the 18th amendment would be unconstititonal because the 22nd amendment repealed the 18th amendment.

Same thing...

It IS Constitutional because it IS in the Constitution.

Just as Prohibition WAS, right?

Regards,
Gaar


You've broken your arguement.

"it is because it is" relies on both things being the same.

"it is a square because it is posessed of square attributes" is not the same as "it is a square because it is a square"

So they aren't Amendments? Or they don't have "Equal weight"?

The XVIII was an amendment till it was repealed by the XXI Amendment. Therefore, Amendment XVIII no longer exists so it has no value. It is still the XVIII Amendment because it was the XVIII Amendment of the Constitution when it was adopted. The XXI amendment then repealed it. Therefore, the XXI Amendment holds greater weight than the XVIII Amendment.

You are saying one "trumped" the other? Yet they are ALL Equal?

Yes I am saying one trumped the other. Funny huh? Its called repealation. As for being equal, the XVIII Amendment no longer exists.

So an Amendment is NOW considered UnConstitutional?

No Amendment is Unconstitutional. The XVIII was REPEALED. It was never declared unconstitutional. However, Congress realised that they couldn't enforce Prohibition so they ultimately repealed the Amendment. That became the XXI Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

But no "other" Amendments are likely UnConstitutional, right?!?!

:rolleyes:

No amendment has ever been unconstitutional.

You've broken your arguement.

"it is because it is" relies on both things being the same.

"it is a square because it is posessed of square attributes" is not the same as "it is a square because it is a square"

Yeah, but I am pretty sure that Prohibition ISN'T a Square...

Good lord that was a mistake.

Bah, I'm tired and now its showing. I'll fix that!

The xviii amendment is NOT unconstitutional, it is a vestigal rule with no legal bearing. A law predicated on the 18th amendment would be unconstititonal because the 22nd amendment repealed the 18th amendment.

It was the XXI first not the XXII that repealed the XVIII! I saw what I put and I thank you for pointing it out to me.

Yeah, but I am pretty sure that Prohibition ISN'T a Square...


This is just spam now urantia.

This is just spam now urantia.

No, I was merely not addressing their POINT just like mine wasn't addressed...

Regards,
Gaar

No, I was merely not addressing their POINT just like mine wasn't addressed...

Regards,
Gaar

What have we've been doing the last couple of hours? I've addressed your points quite clearly. You choose to ignore it because your not understanding. So instead of saying your not understanding, you say that I'm using Circular Reasoning when, in fact, I am not.

Admit that you don't understand, and we'll be more than happy to explain it to you.

This is just spam now urantia.

And isn't attempting to "point out" SPAM kinda like SPAMing yourself, unless of course you are a Moderator?

Regards,
Gaar

What have we've been doing the last couple of hours? I've addressed your points quite clearly. You choose to ignore it because your not understanding. So instead of saying your not understanding, you say that I'm using Circular Reasoning when, in fact, I am not.

Admit that you don't understand, and we'll be more than happy to explain it to you.

I admit that I don't accept the circular-Reasoning that you have used, time and again, that I have "clearly" pointed out in earlier posts, do YOU need it done AGAIN?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

I admit that I don't accept the circular-Reasoning that you have used, time and again, that I have "clearly" pointed out in earlier posts, do YOU need it done AGAIN?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

I'll put this out to everyone.

Have I used Circular Reasoning in this arguement?

I'll put this out to everyone.

Have I used Circular Reasoning in this arguement?

Hmmmm... using...

http://datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm

Appeal to Popularity
(argumentum ad populum)

Definition:
A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to
be true or is held to be true by some (usually upper crust)
sector of the population.
This fallacy is sometimes also called the "Appeal to Emotion"
because emotional appeals often sway the population as a
whole.

To attempt to validate...

Affirming the Consequent

Definition:

Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B Therefore, A

Why does that not surprise me?

Regards,
Gaar

*snipt*

*Kills himself* :sniper: :mp5:

Why do you have to respond with something that is meaningless? I want other people's opinions on wether or not I have been using Circular Reasoning. Its a valid question.

*Kills himself* :sniper: :mp5:

Why do you have to respond with something that is meaningless? I want other people's opinions on wether or not I have been using Circular Reasoning. Its a valid question.

So that YOU are aware that I would find any such "consensus", especially Online in a Forum that now has several "new" posters here that "could" (not saying they are, but there should be allowances for such a thing) be just "Puppets" of other posters here, which would be circular-Validation... :rolleyes:

And although You may find it meaningless, I am sure it spells out quite well the arguments you are trying to make... Funny YOU would find them "meaningless" eh?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

So that YOU are aware that I would find any such "consensus", especially Online in a Forum that now has several "new" posters here that "could" (not saying they are, but there should be allowances for such a thing) be just "Puppets" of other posters here, which would be circular-Validation... :rolleyes:

And although You may find it meaningless, I am sure it spells out quite well the arguments you are trying to make... Funny YOU would find them "meaningless" eh?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

I just want other opinions on wether or not I'm using circular reasoning or not. I only have what your saying but meh, you've shown that you've rejected other people's arguements so I don't take what you say for granted but I do acknowledge when I can agree with you.

Interesting that I even SAID that 70% would WRITE HIM IN and YOU just change the subject...
<snip>
. . . I believe I even SAID I didn't believe it was all that possible, but to dismiss that it MAY happen at all is a bit of the other extreme, is it not?

Regards,
Gaar
This would be an excellent example for the CORRECT application of the expression "the exception which proves the rule". If you have to go to such bizarre lengths to find a scenario by which to confound the issue of constitutionality, it is a scenario which can be ignored as the sheer impossibility of the situation excludes the hypothetical from refuting any rule.

Maybe you should come up with a remotely plausible scenario by which to challenge the Supreme Court's authority.

This would be an excellent example for the CORRECT application of the expression "the exception which proves the rule". If you have to go to such bizarre lengths to find a scenario by which to confound the issue of constitutionality, it is a scenario which can be ignored as the sheer impossibility of the situation excludes the hypothetical from refuting any rule.

Maybe you should come up with a remotely plausible scenario by which to challenge the Supreme Court's authority.

Interesting that you just *snip* out an important part to my "example" which actually makes it "remotely plausible", as you put it... Which is the extreme World "Event".

I do say I don't think it likely, but how does that translate to not even being remotely plausible, in your mind?

And just how is a possible "Major World Event" an "exception to the Rule"? Have you been watching the World lately?

Care to put any other words in my Mouth or take something else I have said out of context so you may refute that also?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Corny is not using circular reasoning. "An Amendment is Constitutional because it is" is circular reasoning.

An Amendment is Constitutional because it is, in and of itself, in the Constitution. It is part of the Constitution: The only part of the Constitution that can trump another part is a repeal/deletion of a previous Amendment/section of the Constitution. Those have nothing to do with the Supreme Court, they are passed by a 2/3rds majority vote in Congress and agreement from 3/4ths of the State.


Thus: The Supreme Court is by definition below the Constitution, so it cannot directly change or adjust the Constitution.

Therefore: Urantia's example is patently impossible. QED.

Also, I just realized:


Why are we even arguing?


The James Randi quote in my sig is totally accurate in this case. Urantia obviously believes that the Supreme Court can interfere with the Constitution: No matter how many facts we state, it will not sway him. I wonder why I'm bothering.


Oh yes. I like to argue.

Interesting that you just *snip* out an important part to my "example" which actually makes it "remotely plausible", as you put it... Which is the extreme World "Event".

Ooookaaaaay. . . well then here is the portion of the post which I snipped:

Something about a hypothetical YOU don't get?

Mind addressing the question, rather than "make-up" your OWN?!?!

Or is it that you CAN'T address the question in the terms YOU have given to the subject?


It seemed to me that this was just you ranting at New Granada and not actually relevant to the example. It still seems that way. So I ignored you foaming about whether or not someone could actually address your question and proceeded directly to doing so. The point is that if something can't happen, the hypothetical has no relevance.

I do say I don't think it likely, but how does that translate to not even being remotely plausible, in your mind?

If you think the given scenario is even remotely plausible, or anything other than completely ridiculus, you have bigger issues to deal with than my response. Which is, for the record, that your example is completely ridiculus. And therefore irrelevent.

And just how is a possible "Major World Event" an "exception to the Rule"? Have you been watching the World lately?

This is where you stop making any sense at all. Perhaps you did not fully understand my post. If this is the case, feel free to reread it at your leisure.

Care to put any other words in my Mouth or take something else I have said out of context so you may refute that also?!?!

What the hell are you talking about? I took absolutely nothing out of context. I responded to your example exactly as you put it. Just because I thought it was ludicrous does not make my arguement dishonest or my opinion subversive.

Regards,
Gaar
Wait, wait. That changes everything. A moment ago I thought you were just attacking everyone that disagreed with you in a very rude and agressive manner, but now that you've signed your post in such a way I have revised that evaluation. It has made me aware that you are actually a polite induvidual with anything but contempt for all and sundry.

Corny is not using circular reasoning. "An Amendment is Constitutional because it is" is circular reasoning.

An Amendment is Constitutional because it is, in and of itself, in the Constitution. It is part of the Constitution: The only part of the Constitution that can trump another part is a repeal/deletion of a previous Amendment/section of the Constitution. Those have nothing to do with the Supreme Court, they are passed by a 2/3rds majority vote in Congress and agreement from 3/4ths of the State.


Thus: The Supreme Court is by definition below the Constitution, so it cannot directly change or adjust the Constitution.

Therefore: Urantia's example is patently impossible. QED.

Interesting that YOU HAVE TO CHANGE MY PREMISE in order to make your argument...

Something about the Supreme Court Ruling against a LAW that is derived from an Amendment, which Ruling may in FACT point to the UnConstitutionality of an Amendment?

Why is it NO ONE will ADDRESS THAT and simply dismiss the premise?

Perhaps because they CAN'T answer it?

The Supreme Court Rules on the Constitutionality of LAW, do they not?

I find it AMAZING how People can simply GIVE ME an opinion so they may then argue against it, rather than argue against what I have ACTUALLY SAID!

Regards,
Gaar

Interesting that YOU HAVE TO CHANGE MY PREMISE in order to make your argument...

Something about the Supreme Court Ruling against a LAW that is derived from an Amendment, which Ruling may in FACT point to the UnConstitutionality of an Amendment?

Why is it NO ONE will ADDRESS THAT and simply dismiss the premise?

Perhaps because they CAN'T answer it?

The Supreme Court Rules on the Constitutionality of LAW, do they not?

I find it AMAZING how People can simply GIVE ME an opinion so they may then argue against it, rather than argue against what I have ACTUALLY SAID!

Regards,
Gaar
They can not rule a law unconstitutional if it is, in fact, constitutional.

I heard "Da Ali G Show" described best as:

"the humor lies in asking stupid questions to intelligent people who try to provide intelligent answers"

This seems more an more like urantia's method of trolling.

His arguments are predicated on nonsense that he refuses to correct, and then discounts out answers because they arent framed in the same nonsensical terms as his.

Examples are: "constitutional means something besides 'in accordance with the constitution, therefore a constitutional amendment can be declared unconstitutional'"
and
"the supreme court can declare laws unconstitutional, therefore they can declare amendments unconstitutional"
and
"I have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that trumps anything in the constitution, because those rights were expounded in the declaration of independence"
and
"what if 70% of the people voted for somone to be president the third time, what would happen if this was an impossible surprise and no one thought to amend the constitution in time"

Reasonable, serious and sensical answers cannot be given to these questions because the questions themselves are unreasonable and nonsensical.

*snip*

Interesting...

Such a long post and you said nothing to address the Issue being discussed.

Only insults to try and bolster YOUR position that I am wrong WITHOUT supplying ANY EVIDENCE as to why.

Just like most of the others posting here. I am supposed to BELIEVE YOU because YOU SAY IT!?!?

Sorry, it may work that way in YOUR MIND but I don't have to accept such nonsense.

I have supplied reasoning behind my assertions. When someone addresses the reasoning I will be glad to continue, until then I will not accept the "circular-Reasoning" being espoused by those who don't agree...

If they can't come up with a well reasoned response I am left to assume they simply can't do it!

Regards,
Gaar

I heard "Da Ali G Show" described best as:

"the humor lies in asking stupid questions to intelligent people who try to provide intelligent answers"

This seems more an more like urantia's method of trolling.

His arguments are predicated on nonsense that he refuses to correct, and then discounts out answers because they arent framed in the same nonsensical terms as his.

Examples are: "constitutional means something besides 'in accordance with the constitution, therefore a constitutional amendment can be declared unconstitutional'"
and
"the supreme court can declare laws unconstitutional, therefore they can declare amendments unconstitutional"
and
"I have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that trumps anything in the constitution, because those rights were expounded in the declaration of independence"
and
"what if 70% of the people voted for somone to be president the third time, what would happen if this was an impossible surprise and no one thought to amend the constitution in time"

Reasonable, serious and sensical answers cannot be given to these questions because the questions themselves are unreasonable and nonsensical.

Please don't use QUOTES if YOU aren't going to QUOTE ME accurately!

Or do you have to "give me" an opinion so you can argue against it?

Funny... You can take the time to "twist" what I say to suit YOUR needs but not take the time to answer the ACTUAL Questions asked.

Why does that not surprise me...

Regards,
Gaar

They can not rule a law unconstitutional if it is, in fact, constitutional.

Really?!?!

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Pollock%20v.%20Farmers'%20Loan%20&%20Trust%20Co.

Care to try again?

Regards,
Gaar

It is also important to note that in cases where more than one Amendment is in conflict with eachother, the SUpreme Court has the decision on which takes precedence.

So, for instance, if there ever were a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage(which will never happen), the Supreme Court would have to decide if that is a law regarding an establishment of religion(First Amendment).

What would an ammendment banning gay marriage have to do with the establishment clause?

How do you define "constitutional", Urantia?

Really?!?!

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Pollock%20v.%20Farmers'%20Loan%20&%20Trust%20Co.

Care to try again?

Regards,
Gaar


Um... what does that have to do with ruling something unconstitutional when it really is constitutional? It was MADE unconstitutional AFTER the fact, and Amendments, like laws, cannot retroactively punish. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the topic.

Try again.

Interesting that YOU HAVE TO CHANGE MY PREMISE in order to make your argument...

Something about the Supreme Court Ruling against a LAW that is derived from an Amendment, which Ruling may in FACT point to the UnConstitutionality of an Amendment?

Why is it NO ONE will ADDRESS THAT and simply dismiss the premise?

Perhaps because they CAN'T answer it?

The Supreme Court Rules on the Constitutionality of LAW, do they not?

I find it AMAZING how People can simply GIVE ME an opinion so they may then argue against it, rather than argue against what I have ACTUALLY SAID!

Regards,
Gaar

.. The court cannot rule against a law that is constitutional based on one part because another part contradicts it, because that will simply never happen. New Amendments, when written so they contradict an older Amendment, are also written to REPEAL the previous section, so it is no longer part of the Constitution. Meaning that the Supreme Court cannot go by it. Meaning it no longer counts.

Um... what does that have to do with ruling something unconstitutional when it really is constitutional? It was MADE unconstitutional AFTER the fact, and Amendments, like laws, cannot retroactively punish. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the topic.

Try again.

What!?!?

In my REAL WORLD example the Law is Ruled "UnConstitutional", is it not?

So how does it not fit the "Topic", in your mind?

Regards,
Gaar

Really?!?!

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Pollock%20v.%20Farmers'%20Loan%20&%20Trust%20Co.

Care to try again?

Regards,
Gaar
O.o

Read the date on that court case. Read the date in which the amendment was passed.

What!?!?

In my REAL WORLD example the Law is Ruled "UnConstitutional", is it not?

So how does it not fit the "Topic", in your mind?

Regards,
Gaar

Nope. It's ruled unconstitutional after the case. You've confused cause and effect.

The Amendment was made AFTER the case, making the original law unconstitutional.

The law was changed to fit the new Constitution. The Constitution was not changed to fit the law.

.. The court cannot rule against a law that is constitutional based on one part because another part contradicts it, because that will simply never happen. New Amendments, when written so they contradict an older Amendment, are also written to REPEAL the previous section, so it is no longer part of the Constitution. Meaning that the Supreme Court cannot go by it. Meaning it no longer counts.

Really!?!?

So YOU believe I cannot challenge the Law that makes me pay Income Tax on the basis of the 4th Amendment?
_________________________________
Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
__________________________________

Then maybe YOU can explain how they are going to get around my Right to privacy? That EXPLICITLY says "papers, and effect" and I am pretty sure they won't be able to find out what I OWE THEM if they cannot just "take" this Right from me, can they?

And while you are at it, perhaps you would be kind enough to also explain how the Laws to Tax Personal Income do NOT "contradict" the 4th Amendment?

Regards,
Gaar

Really!?!?

So YOU believe I cannot challenge the Law that makes me pay Income Tax on the basis of the 4th Amendment?
_________________________________
Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
__________________________________

Then maybe YOU can explain how they are going to get around my Right to privacy? That EXPLICITLY says "papers, and effect" and I am pretty sure they won't be able to find out what I OWE THEM if they cannot just "take" this Right from me, can they?

And while you are at it, perhaps you would be kind enough to also explain how the Laws to Tax Personal Income do NOT "contradict" the 4th Amendment?

Regards,
Gaar



Congress has power to lay and collect income taxes.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from watever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

This passed in 1913.

Therefore, by the XVI Amendment, you have to pay income taxes.

Sigh.

The point of taxes is you willingly disclose the information. The IRS does not barge into your home and steal your financial papers. You are expected to be honest about it.

If you're not, they look into PUBLIC records and match it up with what you claim. At no point do they invade your privacy. Therefore, the 4th Amendment is irrelevant.

Really!?!?

So YOU believe I cannot challenge the Law that makes me pay Income Tax on the basis of the 4th Amendment?
_________________________________
Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
__________________________________

Then maybe YOU can explain how they are going to get around my Right to privacy? That EXPLICITLY says "papers, and effect" and I am pretty sure they won't be able to find out what I OWE THEM if they cannot just "take" this Right from me, can they?

And while you are at it, perhaps you would be kind enough to also explain how the Laws to Tax Personal Income do NOT "contradict" the 4th Amendment?

Regards,
Gaar
Because the 16th amendment right grants them the ability to do so. First, your argument is vauge at best, as it says "unreasonable searches and seizures", and no court would consider a tax leveed by your own representatives to be unreasonable, nor would any court agree with your definition of papers and effects. Second, congress is explicitly granted the right to level taxes, which overrules that wishywashy mess. But you're very well able to raise the issue in court. Just don't pay, and when you get arrested for tax evasion, petition the supreme court.

Sigh.

The point of taxes is you willingly disclose the information. The IRS does not barge into your home and steal your financial papers. You are expected to be honest about it.

If you're not, they look into PUBLIC records and match it up with what you claim. At no point do they invade your privacy. Therefore, the 4th Amendment is irrelevant.

And the IV Amendment doesn't even mention privacy. Privacy isn't even in the Constitution. However our privacy is protected via the Privacy laws of this country.

And the IV Amendment doesn't even mention privacy. Privacy isn't even in the Constitution. However our privacy is protected via the Privacy laws of this country.
Extended by the courts through (rather loose) interpritations of various amendments, creating 'zones of privacy'.

Extended by the courts through (rather loose) interpritations of various amendments, creating 'zones of privacy'.

Point taken.

The sad thing about this whole discussion is that there truly are some debatable questions here.

There is scholarly debate about the possibility of an Amendment being unconstitutional. Its a little esoteric, but it is debated. It is not an irrational position, per se. It is irrational as put forth here.

There is scholarly debate about the limits of the judicial review power of the Supreme Court.

I've never been particularly enamoured with either set of questions, but they can be discussed intelligently. I am not sure I would expect them to be discussed intelligently on this forum. I knew they could not be intelligently discussed in this thread.

Besides, to repeat myself, we're never going to convince GAAR of anything. He's too entrenched in his belief to be swayed by mere fact.

Besides, to repeat myself, we're never going to convince GAAR of anything. He's too entrenched in his belief to be swayed by mere fact.

So true but the arguement is fun :D

Eh, point, I guess.

This passed in 1913.

Therefore, by the XVI Amendment, you have to pay income taxes.

yes, I understand that I do, but NOT for the REASON YOU THINK...

http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/othertax/16thamend.html

The 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.

Whether or not this is true, in the long run it is irrelevant. While the alleged ratification of the amendment may have made the public think that Congress had been given the power to tax everyone’s income, this is not the case. First, some basic points should be explained:

The Constitution describes two main categories of taxation: 1) "direct" taxes, which must be "apportioned" (i.e. divided up among the states according to populations), and; 2) "indirect" taxes, which must be geographically uniform throughout the states (e.g. they cannot apply differently in Texas than they do in Ohio). In general, a "direct" tax is a tax on property ownership, while an "indirect" tax is a tax on certain activities or privileges.

In 1861 (prior to the 16th Amendment), the federal government imposed the first federal income tax, which the courts correctly held to be an "indirect" tax, which therefore did not require apportionment (but did have to be geographically "uniform" throughout the states). Then, in the 1890’s, the Supreme Court, in the famous "Pollock" decision (158 U.S. 601 (1895)) ruled that a tax on income derived from property ownership was a tax on property ownership itself, which would be a "direct" tax, requiring "apportionment." Thus they ruled that the income tax, as it applied to income from property ownership, was an unconstitutional, unapportioned "direct" tax, and they threw the tax out. The Court went out of their way to say that their reasoning did not extend to income from doing business, which would still be an "indirect" excise tax, but that they were not at liberty to throw out part of the tax, and leave the rest, thus altering Congress’ overall intended plan for the tax. So they threw out the entire income tax.

There was no federal income tax again until 1913. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was (supposedly) ratified, and Congress enacted the 1913 Income Tax Act. Many still believe that the 16th Amendment granted Congress a new taxing power, i.e. the power to impose a "direct" income tax, without having to "apportion" it among the states. While this is incorrect, it is an easy mistake to make, since the 16th Amendment states that "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived," without having to apportion such a tax. At first glance, it certainly looks like Congress had been granted a new power.

However, shortly after the amendment was (supposedly) ratified, both the Supreme Court and the Secretary of the Treasury admitted that the 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new taxing powers. In Treasury Decision 2303, the Secretary of the Treasury directly quoted the Supreme Court (Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (240 U.S. 103)) in saying that "The provisions of the sixteenth amendment conferred no new power of taxation," but instead simply prohibited Congress original power to tax incomes "from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment."

So what the amendment actually did was identify the income tax as an "indirect" tax, which therefore did not have to be "apportioned." In essence, it was simply stating that the Supreme Court had been incorrect in the Pollock case in stating that the income tax was a "direct" tax, as it related to income derived from property ownership.

(continued at the link provided)

Regards,
Gaar

yes, I understand that I do, but NOT for the REASON YOU THINK...

http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/othertax/16thamend.html

The 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.

Whether or not this is true, in the long run it is irrelevant. While the alleged ratification of the amendment may have made the public think that Congress had been given the power to tax everyone’s income, this is not the case. First, some basic points should be explained:

The Constitution describes two main categories of taxation: 1) "direct" taxes, which must be "apportioned" (i.e. divided up among the states according to populations), and; 2) "indirect" taxes, which must be geographically uniform throughout the states (e.g. they cannot apply differently in Texas than they do in Ohio). In general, a "direct" tax is a tax on property ownership, while an "indirect" tax is a tax on certain activities or privileges.

In 1861 (prior to the 16th Amendment), the federal government imposed the first federal income tax, which the courts correctly held to be an "indirect" tax, which therefore did not require apportionment (but did have to be geographically "uniform" throughout the states). Then, in the 1890’s, the Supreme Court, in the famous "Pollock" decision (158 U.S. 601 (1895)) ruled that a tax on income derived from property ownership was a tax on property ownership itself, which would be a "direct" tax, requiring "apportionment." Thus they ruled that the income tax, as it applied to income from property ownership, was an unconstitutional, unapportioned "direct" tax, and they threw the tax out. The Court went out of their way to say that their reasoning did not extend to income from doing business, which would still be an "indirect" excise tax, but that they were not at liberty to throw out part of the tax, and leave the rest, thus altering Congress’ overall intended plan for the tax. So they threw out the entire income tax.

There was no federal income tax again until 1913. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was (supposedly) ratified, and Congress enacted the 1913 Income Tax Act. Many still believe that the 16th Amendment granted Congress a new taxing power, i.e. the power to impose a "direct" income tax, without having to "apportion" it among the states. While this is incorrect, it is an easy mistake to make, since the 16th Amendment states that "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived," without having to apportion such a tax. At first glance, it certainly looks like Congress had been granted a new power.

However, shortly after the amendment was (supposedly) ratified, both the Supreme Court and the Secretary of the Treasury admitted that the 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new taxing powers. In Treasury Decision 2303, the Secretary of the Treasury directly quoted the Supreme Court (Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (240 U.S. 103)) in saying that "The provisions of the sixteenth amendment conferred no new power of taxation," but instead simply prohibited Congress original power to tax incomes "from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment."

So what the amendment actually did was identify the income tax as an "indirect" tax, which therefore did not have to be "apportioned." In essence, it was simply stating that the Supreme Court had been incorrect in the Pollock case in stating that the income tax was a "direct" tax, as it related to income derived from property ownership.

(continued at the link provided)

Regards,
Gaar

You've managed to miss the point of all of this:

You still have to pay your income tax, like it or not, 16th amendment or no 16th amendment. They'd make it that way by fudging the law anyway without it. That's where they were going originally.

The sad thing about this whole discussion is that there truly are some debatable questions here.

There is scholarly debate about the possibility of an Amendment being unconstitutional. Its a little esoteric, but it is debated. It is not an irrational position, per se. It is irrational as put forth here.

There is scholarly debate about the limits of the judicial review power of the Supreme Court.

I've never been particularly enamoured with either set of questions, but they can be discussed intelligently. I am not sure I would expect them to be discussed intelligently on this forum. I knew they could not be intelligently discussed in this thread.

So I guess YOU are unable to see how the Supreme Court's incorrect Ruling in the Pollock case basically rendered the Taxation Law's UnConstitutional and the Congress had to "Amend" the Constitution in order to re-Levy Taxes on Income?

And can we not now see how, there is NO REASON to have a 16th Amendment, since it has since been Ruled "correctly" to be an indirect rather than a direct Tax?

And the Reason I "cite" the 4th Amendment isn't to say that I believe such a challenge would be succesful but merely that it CAN be made, can it not?

Just wanted to give a "scenario" where I believe the Constitution CAN be challenged by itself...

Regards,
Gaar

So I guess YOU are unable to see how the Supreme Court's incorrect Ruling in the Pollock case basically rendered the Taxation Law's UnConstitutional and the Congress had to "Amend" the Constitution in order to re-Levy Taxes on Income?

And can we not now see how, there is NO REASON to have a 16th Amendment, since it has since been Ruled "correctly" to be an indirect rather than a direct Tax?

And the Reason I "cite" the 4th Amendment isn't to say that I believe such a challenge would be succesful but merely that it CAN be made, can it not?

Just wanted to give a "scenario" where I believe the Constitution CAN be challenged by itself...

Regards,
Gaar

The 16th amendment is to put an end to this bickering between the courts and place down an overruling precident. Its checks and balances. The congress and states were tired of having their laws overturned by the Supreme Court, so they just decided to force them to allow it.

You've managed to miss the point of all of this:

You still have to pay your income tax, like it or not, 16th amendment or no 16th amendment. They'd make it that way by fudging the law anyway without it. That's where they were going originally.

Yes, I know...

The Reason I was making the point was not to say Income Tax IS UnConstitutional, just that it HAS been DIRECTLY CHALLENGED by the Supreme Court, and they even Ruled incorrectly and got the Congress to ACT!

I believe that is EMPIRICAL PROOF of THE FIRST ORDER of MY INITIAL ASSERTION, is it not?

EDIT: So who is it that HAS missed the POINT AGAIN?

Regards,
Gaar

<snip>
Alright, so I've been weighing the pros and cons of marring my spotless record of no ad hominem attacks, and I've decided to risk censure for just long enough to get this out: You are a moron.

I am well aware that posts such as this do nothing to further intelligent debate, but there is no intelligent debate here that I could hope to further. And some things just really need to be said.

yes, I understand that I do, but NOT for the REASON YOU THINK...

http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/othertax/16thamend.html

The 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.

It was ratified in accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States. Therefore it was ratified legally :rolleyes:

Whether or not this is true, in the long run it is irrelevant. While the alleged ratification of the amendment may have made the public think that Congress had been given the power to tax everyone’s income, this is not the case. First, some basic points should be explained:

The Congress was given the power to tax our income via the XVI Amendment. Besides that, Congress has the power to tax anyway because it was given to them via Article I of the Constitution of the United States.

Snip

Now your trying to fight the XVI Amendment. The XVI Amendment was LEGALLY RATIFIED in accordence with ARTICLE V of the US Constitution. This Amendment gave the Congress the power to impose an Income Tax. I posted what the XVI Amendment stated. I can quote it again if your having trouble understanding the concept.

Yes, I know...

The Reason I was making the point was not to say Income Tax IS UnConstitutional, just that it HAS been DIRECTLY CHALLENGED by the Supreme Court, and they even Ruled incorrectly and got the Congress to ACT!

I believe that is EMPIRICAL PROOF of THE FIRST ORDER of MY INITIAL ASSERTION, is it not?

EDIT: So who is it that HAS missed the POINT AGAIN?

Regards,
Gaar

No it doesn't because it ruled on something before there was an Amendment on it. Now that there is an Amendment, SCOTUS can't do anything about it.

And the Reason I "cite" the 4th Amendment isn't to say that I believe such a challenge would be succesful but merely that it CAN be made, can it not?

How can you use the Illegal Search and Seizure amendment? You can't because nothing is being illegally searched and nothing is being illegally seized.

No it doesn't because it ruled on something before there was an Amendment on it. Now that there is an Amendment, SCOTUS can't do anything about it.

Shall we ACTUALLY TEST THAT Theory?!?!...

http://www.taxableincome.net/index.html

The Great Deception

"Conventional wisdom," even when provably incorrect, is a very powerful thing. People often find it uncomfortable to question things they have always taken for granted. The sky is blue; one plus two equals three; and most Americans owe federal income taxes. Everyone knows that.

Contrary to what "everyone knows," the truth of the matter is this: Congress could not, and did not, impose a tax on the income of most Americans, because of the strict limits on federal power imposed by the Constitution.

Instead, they imposed a far more limited income tax, applicable primarily to income from certain types of international and foreign commerce, but wrote the law in such a way that it could easily be misinterpreted.

The law itself is perfectly valid and constitutional; it is simply being misrepresented and misapplied by the tax professionals and government officials. As a result, tens of millions of Americans now make payments to the IRS based on the false assumption that they are just paying "their taxes."

In reality they are being defrauded via the myth that the income of most Americans is taxable. The domestically earned incomes of residents of the United States (most incomes) are not shown to be taxable under federal law and never have been. The insurmountable problem for the federal government is that the law does NOT lie and the evidence will NOT go away.

Of course such a claim at first sounds absurd, but the evidence does not lie. Here is a very brief summary of the issue:

1) The federal income tax is imposed upon "taxable income" (not all income).

2) "Taxable income" is generally defined in the first part of the law as "gross income" minus deductions.

3) "Gross income" is generally defined in the first part of the law as "all income from whatever source derived," including compensation, interest, rents, dividends, etc.

Up to this point, the tax professionals agree. It is what comes next that they are either unaware of or unwilling to accept, even after they see it in plain English in the law books.

4) Certain sections of the law specifically describe in which situations income from inside the United States is taxable (the income of most Americans).

5) While those sections show income to be taxable when it derives from certain kinds of international and foreign commerce (in other words, when the income crosses country borders), they do NOT show the income of United States citizens living and working only in the 50 states to be taxable.

Amazingly, points 4 and 5 above are specifically and repeatedly stated in the federal income tax regulations, yet most tax professionals simply refuse to believe it.

As if that were not bad enough, there is yet another, completely independent way that the regulations under Subchapter N, Section 861 prove the truth.

6) The regulations show that the types of income listed in the general definition of "gross income" (such as compensation, interest, rent, etc.) are in some situations excluded for federal income tax purposes.

7) The income tax regulations give a specific list of those types of income which are not exempt (i.e. which are taxable), and while that list includes income derived from certain types of international and foreign commerce, the income of the average American is not listed as being non-exempt (i.e., taxable).

(Subtitle C "employment" taxes, sometimes called "Social Security" taxes, are independent of the income tax and are not dealt with by this web site. However, the issue addressed on this site does apply to the "self-employment" tax (26 USC § 1401). However, the law appears to also show that such taxes do NOT apply to the private sector due to the same Constitutional restrictions on taxing incomes derived from purely domestic comerce)...

...The truth about the law does not require any "creative interpretation" or leap of logic. It just requires looking in the right place, reading carefully, and believing what the words in the law say in black and white.
___________________________________

EDIT: You may go here to find the case Law which supports the above assertions...

http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/constitution.html

How can you use the Illegal Search and Seizure amendment? You can't because nothing is being illegally searched and nothing is being illegally seized.

It isn't?

See above...

Regards,
Gaar

Admendment XVI:

TheCongress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on INCOME, from whatever source derived, WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES and without regard to any census or enumeration

It isn't?

See above...

Regards,
Gaar

No its not! Amendment IV can't be used because it has no bearing on taxes!

Admendment XVI:

TheCongress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on INCOME, from whatever source derived, WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES and without regard to any census or enumeration

Yes, and?!?!

Obviously YOU DIDN'T READ any of what was said...

Read it, if you don't understand we can discuss it, otherwise I challenge YOU to REFUTE it!

You know, with FACTS and links to case Law that back YOUR ASSERTIONS, like I have done.

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, and?!?!

Obviously YOU DIDN'T READ any of what was said...

Read it, if you don't understand we can discuss it, otherwise I challenge YOU to REFUTE it!

You know, with FACTS and links to case Law that back YOUR ASSERTIONS, like I have done.

Regards,
Gaar

I just did refute it! The Constitution is a marvelous thing when read.

I just did refute it! The Constitution is a marvelous thing when read.

Again, you OBVIOUSLY didn't READ the assertions and the case Law that backs them...

If YOU are unwilling to even consider evidence to the contrary, what are YOU doing here?

The Constitution is VERY explicit on just WHAT the Federal Government is to be given "Authority over", try READING and see if you can actually REFUTE the evidence instead of using YOUR "circular-Reasoning"...

Regards,
Gaar

Again, you OBVIOUSLY didn't READ the assertions and the case Law that backs them...

I did and my words trumps yours because mine comes from a higher authority than Case Law.

If YOU are unwilling to even consider evidence to the contrary, what are YOU doing here?

If that evidence goes against the US Constitution then yea I won't consider it. Since what you are talking about is the Tax Laws kinda renders your arguement over the XVI rather redundent.

The Constitution is VERY explicit on just WHAT the Federal Government is to be given "Authority over", try READING and see if you can actually REFUTE the evidence instead of using YOUR "circular-Reasoning"...

K! I will!

Article I Section 8 Part 1:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title26/title26.html
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title26a/title26a.html

Want case law? Here's the entire US Internal Revenue Code. have fun.

While the general public seems largely ignorant of the fact, the United States federal government has, under the Constitution, a very limited role to play regarding what happens within the 50 states. Article I, Section 8 specifically lists the activities under federal jurisdiction, and the Tenth Amendment states that all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government belong to the states or the people.

"We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See U.S. Const., Art. I, 8. As James Madison wrote, "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961)."
[United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Tenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Article I, Section 8 leaves almost all matters that occur within a single state (e.g. intrastate commerce) to the state governments. But, as mentioned above, it does grant Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes." While there are rules for how "direct" and "indirect" taxes must be imposed, the taxing clauses do not say exactly what may or may not be taxed (there is, however, a clause forbidding taxation on exports from states). Is there then no limit to what Congress can tax, only how they can tax?

In Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (259 U.S. 20 (1920)), the Supreme Court explained that in addition to the specific limits on the taxing power, there are also "virtual limitations, arising from the principles of the Constitution itself," and said that if a so-called "tax" law is "exercised for ends inconsistent with the limited grants of power in the Constitution," that would undoubtedly be an abuse of Congress' power.

http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/constitution.html

The courts have thrown out many acts of Congress, on the grounds that they were beyond the powers granted to Congress by Article I, Section 8. For example, the Supreme Court threw out the "Gun Free School Zone" law in the 1995 "Lopez" decision. The law (18 USC 922(q)) made it illegal for anyone to possess a gun near a school. Despite attempts by the government lawyers to pass this off as a regulation of interstate commerce (which Article I, Section 8 puts under federal jurisdiction), the court ruled that such a law was not within Congress' constitutional power to make.

Suppose, after that ruling, Congress then imposed a $1,000,000 "tax" on possessing a gun near a school. Would that not get around the restriction? If Congress could control any behavior it wanted, as long as it is done by way of "tax" legislation, then

"all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the states have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a socalled tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word 'tax' would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the states."

Those are the words of the Supreme Court, from the case of "Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co." [259 U.S. 20]. An Act of Congress, designed to regulate by way of a "tax" something not otherwise under federal jurisdiction, "cannot be sustained as an exercise of the taxing power of Congress conferred by section 8, article 1." Again, those are the words of the Supreme Court, this time from the case of "Hill v. Wallace" (259 U.S. 44). In other words, the taxing clause in Article I, Section 8, does not give Congress jurisdiction over everything occurring within the 50 states.

http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/constitution.html

The next logical question is: Does Congress have any power over those who receive their income from intrastate commerce (commerce within a single state)? Under Article I, Section 8, Congress does not have jurisdiction over intrastate commerce.

"No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a state is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature." [License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)]

During this century, the courts have stretched their reading of the "commerce clause" to the extreme. The courts have upheld many Acts of Congress, on the grounds that the matters regulated, though not interstate commerce themselves, have enough of an "impact" on interstate commerce that Congress may regulate them. We will here limit our criticism of this tendency of the courts to agreeing with Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion in the Lopez case mentioned above, when he said:

"We have said that Congress may regulate not only "Commerce... among the several states," U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 3, but also anything that has a "substantial effect" on such commerce... [I]t seems to me that the power to regulate "commerce" can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities' effects on interstate commerce. Any interpretation of the Commerce Clause that even suggests that Congress could regulate such matters is in need of reexamination."

Even with the courts’ "creative" interpretation of the commerce clause, it would be quite a stretch to say that Congress has the jurisdiction to regulate all income-generating activities within the 50 states. If they cannot regulate it, can they tax it?

http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/constitution.html

But what of the Sixteenth Amendment? Didn’t that expand Congress’ taxing jurisdiction to all Americans? The Supreme Court and the Secretary of the Treasury say it did not. The following Treasury Decision (which expresses the official position of the Secretary of the Treasury) is actually a direct quote from the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of "Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co." (240 U.S. 103).

"The provisions of the sixteenth amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited [Congress’ original power to tax incomes] from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment." Treasury Decision 2303

In the 1916 case of "Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co." (240 U.S. 1), the Supreme Court called it an "erroneous assumption" to believe that "the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes."

The Sixteenth Amendment was passed in response to the Supreme Court decision in "Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co." 158 U.S. 601 (1895), which said that a tax on the income derived from owning property was the same as a tax on owning property, which would be a "direct" tax, requiring Congress to go through the complicated process of "apportioning" the tax among the states. (The court’s complaint about the tax did not apply to income received in exchange for labor.)

Without discussing all the ins and outs of "direct" and "indirect" taxes, the relevant point is that the Sixteenth Amendment simply identified the tax as an "indirect" tax (even when the income comes from property ownership), and therefore a tax which does not require (and has never required) "apportionment." It did nothing to expand Congress’ taxing jurisdiction.

"The Sixteenth Amendment... has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects..." [William E. Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)]

The Sixteenth Amendment does not at all address Congress’ taxing jurisdiction. Saying that Congress can tax incomes "from whatever source derived," without apportionment, obviously did not allow Congress to tax everyone in China. The only issue the amendment is relevant to is the question of "direct" vs. "indirect" taxation (with the amendment stating that the income tax is an "indirect" tax).

In fact, in one of the key rulings regarding the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court made some interesting comments that show that the amendment was not about taxing jurisdiction in general. In the case of "Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co." (240 U.S. 103), the Supreme Court stated that the Sixteenth Amendment simply forbids the courts from ruling that the income tax is a "direct" tax, based on "the sources from which the income was derived," as happened in the Pollock case (mentioned above). The Court then said the following:

"Mark, of course, in saying this we are not here considering a tax... entirely beyond the scope of the taxing power of Congress, and where consequently no authority to impose a burden, either direct or indirect, exists. In other words, we are here dealing solely with the restriction imposed by the 16th Amendment on the right to resort to the source whence an income is derived in a case where there is power to tax..." [Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)]

If there were no Constitutional restriction on Congress’ jurisdiction to tax incomes, this would make no sense. Is the court here referring merely to Congress’ inability to tax foreigners who do no business related to the United States? Would the court feel the need to mention that? Or were they implying that other restrictions exist on Congress’ ability to tax income? The Court thought it worth mentioning that they were not implying that the Sixteenth Amendment removed all the limits from Congress’ taxing power.

http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/constitution.html

United States Constition, Article I Section 8, Article V, Amendment XVI

All these trump case law!

What you don't seem to get is that a law is different from an Amendment. A law can be challenged and an amendment cannot. An Amendment is Constitutional because it went through the process of ratification. A law is a law because it went through the process of becoming a law. A law does not go to the states for ratification. An Amendment does go through the States to be inserted into the Constitution.

A law can be declared unconstitutional however, a constitutional amendment cannot.

Uratania II is a tar-baby that tries to trap you into these inane discussions.

Rational arguments are responded to with irrationalities and thinly veiled insults until Uratania gets bored or you ignore his/her/its posts. Then Uratania goes off to irritate in another thread.

Don't fall for it.


Oui, c'est vrai.

Corneliu,

Now Urantia II is not even arguing with you, but just cutting and pasting inaccurate crap word-for-word from another website.

No point arguing with it. You aren't even arguing with the idiot that wrote the junk.

Corneliu,

Now Urantia II is not even arguing with you, but just cutting and pasting inaccurate crap word-for-word from another website.

No point arguing with it. You aren't even arguing with the idiot that wrote the junk.


Thats insane... I just spent 5 minutes digging up your "tar-baby" (try searching for that, neither tar, baby, nor 'tarbaby' works, and you spelled 'urantia' wrong so that didnt work.

And within five seconds you - of all people - post something.

Coincidences, crazy stuff.

Thats insane... I just spent 5 minutes digging up your "tar-baby" (try searching for that, neither tar, baby, nor 'tarbaby' works, and you spelled 'urantia' wrong so that didnt work.

And within five seconds you - of all people - post something.

Coincidences, crazy stuff.

Wild.

And I can't believe I made that spelling mistake. Darn it.

We'll I'll fix it here:

Urantia II is a tar-baby that tries to trap you into these inane discussions.

Rational arguments are responded to with irrationalities and thinly veiled insults until Urantia gets bored or you ignore his/her/its posts. Then Urantia goes off to irritate in another thread.

Don't fall for it.

United States Constition, Article I Section 8, Article V, Amendment XVI

All these trump case law!

What you don't seem to get is that a law is different from an Amendment. A law can be challenged and an amendment cannot. An Amendment is Constitutional because it went through the process of ratification. A law is a law because it went through the process of becoming a law. A law does not go to the states for ratification. An Amendment does go through the States to be inserted into the Constitution.

A law can be declared unconstitutional however, a constitutional amendment cannot.

While the general public seems largely ignorant of the fact, the United States federal government has, under the Constitution, a very limited role to play regarding what happens within the 50 states. Article I, Section 8 specifically lists the activities under federal jurisdiction, and the Tenth Amendment states that all powers not specifically delegated to the federal government belong to the states or the people.

In Bailey v. Drexel Furniture (259 U.S. 20 (1920)), the Supreme Court explained that in addition to the specific limits on the taxing power, there are also "virtual limitations, arising from the principles of the Constitution itself," and said that if a so-called "tax" law is "exercised for ends inconsistent with the limited grants of power in the Constitution," that would undoubtedly be an abuse of Congress' power.

The next logical question is: Does Congress have any power over those who receive their income from intrastate commerce (commerce within a single state)? Under Article I, Section 8, Congress does not have jurisdiction over intrastate commerce.

"No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a state is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature." [License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)]

"The Sixteenth Amendment... has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects..." [William E. Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)]

The Sixteenth Amendment does not at all address Congress’ taxing jurisdiction. Saying that Congress can tax incomes "from whatever source derived," without apportionment, obviously did not allow Congress to tax everyone in China. The only issue the amendment is relevant to is the question of "direct" vs. "indirect" taxation (with the amendment stating that the income tax is an "indirect" tax).
_________________________________

Something about this you don't get?

Regards,
Gaar

Wild.

And I can't believe I made that spelling mistake. Darn it.

We'll I'll fix it here:

Urantia II is a tar-baby that tries to trap you into these inane discussions.

Rational arguments are responded to with irrationalities and thinly veiled insults until Urantia gets bored or you ignore his/her/its posts. Then Urantia goes off to irritate in another thread.

Don't fall for it.

Hmmm....

http://datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

Attacking the Person

Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.


Examples:
(i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just
following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
(ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about
taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad
hominem circumstantial)
(iii) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they
are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem
circumstantial)
(iv) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for
more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)

Proof:
Identify the attack and show that the character or
circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth
or falsity of the proposition being defended.

References:
Barker: 166, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 97, Davis: 80


(argumentum ad hominem)

The following information is agreed upon by the federal courts, the IRS, and the United States Department of Justice. While it therefore isn’t "controversial" information, or even disputed by anyone knowledgeable about the subject, it is nonetheless contrary to the public’s general perception, and because of that is included here.

"If you don’t pay taxes, you go to jail." That is what most people believe. However, the crimes related to federal income taxes contain the factor of "willfulness." This means that not paying (or filing a return) is only a crime if the law required such a payment (or filing), and that the individual knew that the law required it. As will be shown below, even if you unreasonably (but honestly) believe the law does not require a certain act, you are not committing a "willful" crime by failing to do that act. (This applies to criminal prosecution, but not to civil penalties.)

There is a simple reason why federal tax-related crimes must be "willful," based mostly on basic logic. When you file a tax return, 26 USC § 6065 requires that you sign it "under the penalties of perjury." Furthermore, 26 USC § 7206 states that if you sign such a return, but do not "believe [it] to be true and correct as to every material matter," you have committed a felony. In other words, you are swearing that you believe the information to be correct, and can be imprisoned if you put down information you know to be false.

http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/taxcrimes.html

http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/taxcrimes.html

Suppose an individual believes he has no "gross income" or "taxable income" as defined by law, and is therefore not required to file an income tax return. If the government were to force him to file a return reporting his income as taxable, they would be forcing him to commit a felony under 26 USC § 7206, since he would be signing under penalty of perjury a return that he did not believe to be "true and correct." Obviously, the law cannot require someone to commit a felony. So it follows that only "willful" failure to file a required return, or a "willful" attempt to evade taxes, is a crime. The 1991 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Cheek (498 US 192) agrees.

"[Complexity of tax laws makes it] difficult for the average citizen to know and comprehend the extent of the duties and obligations imposed by the tax laws. Congress has accordingly softened the impact of the common law presumption by making specific intent to violate the law an element of certain federal criminal tax offenses." [U.S. v. Cheek, 498 US 192]

And Congress’ laws show exactly that.

"Sec. 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title shall… be guilty of a felony…" [26 USC § 7201]

"Sec. 7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person… required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return… who willfully fails to… make such return… at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall… be guilty of a misdemeanor…" [26 USC § 7203]

Even if the above-mentioned individual were incorrect in his beliefs, he could not be imprisoned for doing what he believed constituted complying with the law. After describing the specifics of the case, the first thing the court said in the Cheek decision was:

"Held: 1. A good-faith misunderstanding of the law or a good-faith belief that one is not violating the law negates willfulness, whether or not the claimed belief or misunderstanding is objectively reasonable. Statutory willfulness, which protects the average citizen from prosecution for innocent mistakes made due to the complexity of the tax laws… is the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty."

In this particular case, the defendant used a legally flawed argument (that wages are not "income"). Nonetheless, what anyone else thought is irrelevant to whether the defendant was guilty of a "willful" offense.

"[I]f the jury credited Cheek's assertion that he truly believed that the Code did not treat wages as income, the Government would not have carried its burden to prove willfulness, however unreasonable a court might deem such a belief."

When this case was in District Court (before it made it to the Supreme Court), the District Justice included the following statement in the instructions to the jury, after the jury could not reach a verdict: "An honest but unreasonable belief is not a defense, and does not negate willfulness." The Supreme Court said this was an improper instruction.

"[The defendant] challenges the ruling that a good-faith misunderstanding of the law or a good-faith belief that one is not violating the law, if it is to negate willfulness, must be objectively reasonable. We agree that the Court of Appeals and the District Court erred in this respect."

The Supreme Court then summed up "willfulness" as follows:

"Willfulness, as construed by our prior decisions in criminal tax cases, requires the Government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty."

I officially quit this thread. The argument is no longer fun.


Gaar seems unable to absorb new information and argue in any other way than quoting other people without explanation, or claiming the other person is ignoring him or using faulty logic when they are obviously not.


I declare this thread irrelevant and absurd, and I exit this discussion, if this ridiculousness actually counts as such.

Hmmm....

http://datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

Attacking the Person

snip


(argumentum ad hominem)


LOL. Like I care. :p

And, technically, the character of the person (i.e., complete ignorance and tendency to decieve) is relevant (a) to whether the is any point in arguing with the person and (b) with the inanity of the person's argument.

http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/taxcrimes.html

Someone saying MY argument isn't "reasonable"? READ UP, it doesn't HAVE to be...

________________________________________
The manual of the Tax Division of the Department of Justice (which is the instruction manual for U.S. attorneys who actually prosecute tax law violations) agrees that "willfulness" is an essential ingredient of tax evasion and failure to file (and even cites the above Supreme Court decision).

"8.03 ELEMENTS OF EVASION
To establish a violation of section 7201, the following elements must be proved:
1. An attempt to evade or defeat a tax or the payment thereof…
2. An additional tax due and owing…
3. Willfulness. Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192…
The government must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt."

"10.04[1] Elements
To establish the offense of failure to make (file) a return, the government must prove three essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Defendant was a person required to file a return;
2. Defendant failed to file at the time required by law; and,
3. The failure to file was willful."

And the manual defines "willfulness," and again cites the Cheek decision.

"8.06 WILLFULNESS
8.06[1] Definition
Willfulness has been defined by the courts as a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty… Willfulness is determined by a subjective standard, thus the defendant is not required to have been objectively reasonable in his misunderstanding of his legal duties or belief that he was in compliance with the law. Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991)"

Notice how the belief of the defendant need not even be reasonable to negate the element of "willfulness." (But we at this site highly advocate being reasonable.) The manual even admits that "willfulness" is difficult to prove, and must be inferred based on actions by the defendant.

"8.06[2] Proof of Willfulness
The element of willfulness can be the most difficult element to prove in an evasion case. Absent an admission or confession, which is seldom available, or accomplice testimony, willfulness is rarely subject to direct proof and must generally be inferred from the defendant's acts or conduct."

Keep in mind, this is the instruction manual for those who actually prosecute tax-related federal crimes; this is telling them how to do it successfully.

"There are obvious questions raised as to willfulness when the law is vague or highly debatable, such as whether a transaction has generated taxable income… To aid in establishing willfulness at trial, items turning on reasonably debatable interpretations of the Tax Code and questionable items of income should be eliminated from the case…"

This is a direct warning for the U.S. Attorneys to avoid arguing about what the tax code means if the defendant’s "interpretation" is even debatably valid. (And apparently the Department of Justice admits that deciding what income is legally taxable is "highly debatable.") The manual then, quoting the Supreme Court, mentions behaviors which may indicate a "willful" attempt to violate federal tax laws (though the final decision of course is a jury’s responsibility):

"The Supreme Court has furnished excellent guidance on the type of evidence from which willfulness can be inferred… Keeping a double set of books, making false entries or alterations, or false invoices or documents, destruction of books or records, concealment of assets or covering up sources of income, handling of one's affairs to avoid making the records usual in transactions of the kind, and any conduct, the likely effect of which would be to mislead or to conceal."

Clearly the Department of Justice focuses prosecutions on those engaging in deceit or hiding, rather than on those who openly and honestly disagree about the correct application of law (the manual even warns prosecutors to avoid the latter). Ignorance or disagreement about what the law requires is a defense against "willfulness," with one exception: trying to be ignorant of the law is not a defense to "willfulness."

In conclusion, an individual cannot be prosecuted for honestly disagreeing about the correct application of the federal tax laws (and abiding by his own "interpretation"). But such a disagreement, to be credible, cannot be based on rumor, wishful thinking, or feigned ignorance, but must be backed by research and documentation which establishes a sound legal argument. Of course, it is much better to have a legally correct argument than to try to show an honest belief in the correctness of a flawed argument.

(It is important to note that, according to the Supreme Court, a challenge to the Constitutionality of the law is not an adequate defense against "willfulness." If a position is based on a complaint about the law, rather than based on what the law says, then the defense is worthless, and the jury will be instructed to ignore it. In the Supreme Court's words (from the "Cheek" decision above), "a defendant's views about the validity of the tax statutes are irrelevant to the issue of willfulness, need not be heard by the jury, and if they are, an instruction to disregard them would be proper. For this purpose, it makes no difference whether the claims of invalidity are frivolous or have substance." This makes many of the common "tax resistor" issues worthless for defense against prosecution.)

For those whose positions are contrary to the "conventional wisdom" regarding the income tax, a fairly obvious way to show "good faith" and not appear to be hiding is to tell the IRS, DOJ, etc. what that position is, and request that they correct any possible errors. While this site generally does not advise courses of action, we feel comfortable in suggesting that if people have questions about something in the law, they ask the government to explain it. (The government can hardly complain about that.) And there’s no need for threats, aggression, belligerence, or endless ranting; just politely ask clear, concise questions. (Let the government write the threatening, irrelevant, idiotic letters. That’s what they do best.).

It is also important to note that in cases where more than one Amendment is in conflict with eachother, the SUpreme Court has the decision on which takes precedence.

So, for instance, if there ever were a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage(which will never happen), the Supreme Court would have to decide if that is a law regarding an establishment of religion(First Amendment).
Wrong. The Supreme Court derives its power FROM the Constitution. It cannot, however, declare the Constitution itself to be unconstitutional. I don't know where you got this idea, but the Courts cannot rule on an Amendment.

I officially quit this thread. The argument is no longer fun.

Gaar seems unable to absorb new information and argue in any other way than quoting other people without explanation, or claiming the other person is ignoring him or using faulty logic when they are obviously not.

I declare this thread irrelevant and absurd, and I exit this discussion, if this ridiculousness actually counts as such.

Good, because I was wondering when you were going to actually ADDRESS ANY issue other than to give, yet again, your circular-Reasoning of...

It IS because it IS...

As I am offering YOU EVIDENCE of the FIRST ORDER... Otherwise known as EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Empirical

Can we start to discuss EVEN ONE of the POINTS or would EVERYONE rather just attack me?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Wrong. The Supreme Court derives its power FROM the Constitution. It cannot, however, declare the Constitution itself to be unconstitutional. I don't know where you got this idea, but the Courts cannot rule on an Amendment.

Where have I SAID they can? READ the first post and then let's talk.

READ and LEARN my friend...

EDIT: I wish people would quit trying to GIVE ME an OPINION, just so they can argue against it!

EDIT II: I see he wasn't ADDRESSING me, but I HAVE been accused of saying the same thing in this Thread, and I also believe that the "gist" of what was being said is actually true... as I have already explained previously MANY TIMES in this Thread also.

Regards,
Gaar

Where have I SAID they can? READ the first post and then let's talk.

READ and LEARN my friend...

Regards,
Gaar
If you hadn't noticed, I wasn't arguing with you. I was correcting a fallous statement made by another individual. So perhaps next time, before you jump on me, you might see who I quoted, and note that I never directed a comment towards you.


READ the only POST I MADE and LEARN, asshole. :D

Regards,
The Guy Who Isn't Talking to YOU



EDIT: I wish smartasses would know what they were talking about before jumping down my throat.

By the way, Gaar, why dont you read the second part of my sig. It might be an eye-opener for you.

Good, because I was wondering when you were going to actually ADDRESS ANY issue other than to give, yet again, your circular-Reasoning of...

It IS because it IS...

FOR THE LAST DAMNED TIME:

The argument is NOT "It's constitutional because it's constitutional!" The argument is "It's constitutional because it is in the Constitution!" By definition, this is true!

As I am offering YOU EVIDENCE of the FIRST ORDER... Otherwise known as EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Empirical


It's not empircal, since it can be taken several different ways! Besides, just quoting other people is usless without an explanation of why they are relevant!

Can we start to discuss EVEN ONE of the POINTS or would EVERYONE rather just attack me?!?!

Yes, we would, because you are being a class-A asshole.


There, I said it!


I was going to stay out of it, but that was just too absurd.

By the way, Gaar, why dont you read the second part of my sig. It might be an eye-opener for you.

What "sig" and why would I care?

You don't seem to care about REAL LIFE EXAMPLES of the discussion being had, so why should I CARE about anything YOU have to offer ME?!?!

Try practicing what YOU preach!

If YOU have something informitive to ADD to the DISCUSSION, ADD IT! Otherwise I don't really care WHAT OTHER ATTACK you may care to try and make...

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, we would, because you are being a class-A asshole.


There, I said it!


I was going to stay out of it, but that was just too absurd.
Hell, I wasn't even talkin to HIm and HE attacked ME. I don't think he has any more room to complain.

*snip*

Hmmm...

I thought YOU left?

Care to ADDRESS ANY REAL ISSUE in this discussion or just continue the "ad hominems"?

Giving the "definition" of the thing YOU are saying just IS, isn't really making an "argument" is it?

Again, there are MANY things that have HAPPENED in the REAL WORLD that YOU just don't seem WILLING to ACCEPT or even ADDRESS in a discussion, why is that?

Obviously they ARE VERY PERTINENT to the discussion since they SHOW by REAL WORLD EXAMPLE how EXACTLY what I have ESPOUSED HERE is DONE!

Care to ADDRESS THAT?

Regards,
Gaar

What "sig" and why would I care?

You don't seem to care about REAL LIFE EXAMPLES of the discussion being had, so why should I CARE about anything YOU have to offer ME?!?!

Try practicing what YOU preach!

If YOU have something informitive to ADD to the DISCUSSION, ADD IT! Otherwise I don't really care WHAT OTHER ATTACK you may care to try and make...

Regards,
Gaar
This part:

The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do.
B. F. Skinner

Now, for the second time, my post wasn't directed at you. It was to Lunatic Golfballs, and I was correcting a mistake earlier in the discussion. I was contributing to the thread because I corrected an error. Not only that, but I at least agreed with a good bit of what you were saying. Now, however, I see you are merely an ignorant prat who probably actually doesn't know what he's talking about and is too stubborn to own up to his mistakes.


THAT is why I referred to you as an asshole. Which you are. I would have apologized for my mistake were I in your shoes. You, however, chose to respond with another moronic post that merely reveals your ignorance and refusal to accept even the smallest error on your part. You are offensive and bigoted. You are pig-headed and an utterly useless waste of human life.


First, I haven't PREACHED anything. This is the first time I have posted in this thread. I pointed out that Lunatic made a mistake. I said nothing about you. You jumped on me, however, because you are an ignorant, egocentric buffoon who seems assured that everyone must be talking about him. I can assure you that I do NOT give one whit about you or your overly long copied posts from legal books that I work with every day. I work in the law offices of Robert J. Moran Jr., PA, BAR certified 1972.

You, however, seem content to personally attack ME when over the last several posts you have bitched and moaned about others doing it to you. Your hypocrisy does not escape me.

Now, if you have something CONSTRUCTIVE to add to this discussion besides personally attacking every person that you perceive to disagree with you, then maybe I'll stick around. However, I sincerely doubt this.

Regards,
The Guy Who Is Talking To The Ignorant Fucktard

Well, let's look at this logically. then.

1. The Constitution is the highest law of the land.
2. Constitutionality is based on whether or not it contradicts the Constitution.
3. An amendment is part of the Constitution.
4. Therefore, an amendment CANNOT contradict the Constitution, because it, in and of itself, is PART of the Constitution, and cannot contradict itself!

Your real-world examples are irrelevant, because they have since been overturned.

Well, let's look at this logically. then.

1. The Constitution is the highest law of the land.
2. Constitutionality is based on whether or not it contradicts the Constitution.
3. An amendment is part of the Constitution.
4. Therefore, an amendment CANNOT contradict the Constitution, because it, in and of itself, is PART of the Constitution, and cannot contradict itself!

Your real-world examples are irrelevant, because they have since been overturned.
Yes, an amendment cannot be unconstitutional. Was this really what the debate was? The only way to change Prohibition was to make another Amendment. Neither Amendment was unConstitutional. They just made a new Amendment to negate the first. I don't see where the argument is here....

EDIT: Sorry there, meant neither law was UN constitutional. Bad typing.

Yes, an amendment cannot be unconstitutional. Was this really what the debate was? The only way to change Prohibition was to make another Amendment. Neither Amendment was Constitutional. They just made a new Amendment to negate the first. I don't see where the argument is here....

Have YOU READ the FIRST POST?

I'm pretty sure it states MY CASE quite clearly...

Regards,
Gaar

Your real-world examples are irrelevant, because they have since been overturned.

No I'm sorry, they HAVEN'T!

I guess YOU DIDN'T READ THEM.

Oh well, I can only try...

"You can Lead a Horse to water but you can't make them drink"
(and so no one can "accuse" me, I didn't myself come up with that and I am not real sure who did, so I am unable to cite a source).

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, I did actually. I paid more attention to the arguments of my opponent than you OBVIOUSLY did. So would you mind not being a prick, and stopping WITH ALL THE CAPS LETTERS?

Now, the Supreme Court judges a law based on its Constitutionality. Therefore, if a specific amendment protects a law, they can not not not not declare the law unconstitutional because it obeys the Constitution. Therefore, your point is ridiculous. There is no single "toothless" amendment in the US Constitution. I really think you are just refusing to see your errors.

Now, the Supreme Court judges a law based on its Constitutionality. Therefore, if a specific amendment protects a law, they can not not not not declare the law unconstitutional because it obeys the Constitution. Therefore, your point is ridiculous. There is no single "toothless" amendment in the US Constitution. I really think you are just refusing to see your errors.

So perhaps YOU would care to ADDRESS the REAL WORLD examples given THROGHOUT this Thread?

Just because YOU say it doesn't necessarily make it so, does it?

Isn't THAT called "Dan Rather Logic"?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Um, Koroser and HadesRulesMuch, I understand your frustration with Urantia II, but you should be careful not to flame.

I'd delete the direct insults. No matter the provocation, they are against the rules and inappropriate.

You don't need to argue with Urantia II, and I advise against trying.

EDIT: I'm not sure Koroser has said anything inappropriate. I think I may have gotten confused. No insult or accusation intended against either of you. Just a friendly warning that you don't want to get in trouble.

So perhaps YOU would care to ADDRESS the REAL WORLD examples given THROGHOUT this Thread?

Just because YOU say it doesn't necessarily make it so, does it?

Isn't THAT called "Dan Rather Logic"?!?!

Regards,
Gaar
Yawn...

Now who is using the "ad hominem" arguments?

It's not the fact that I ay it that makes it so. It is the fact that I say it and you utterly fail to respond in anything approaching a debative manner. Rather, you choose to make a fool of yourself. Thus, you automatically take any credibility that you might once have had, and throw it down the drain. You'll have to forgive me if I refuse to read through over 30 pages of posts to find more mindless drivel that you have spouted out, most of which I'm sure follows the same pattern of attacking others and then crying when they respond in like manner.


I declare this whole debate null and void, because the man who originally started this thread apparently is unable to defend himself against a paralegal who actually works in the field that is the subject of debate.

Um, Koroser and HadesRulesMuch, I understand your frustration with Urantia II, but you should be careful not to flame.

I'd delete the direct insults. No matter the provocation, they are against the rules and inappropriate.

You don't need to argue with Urantia II, and I advise against trying.
You are right. Thank you for being the voice of reason.

I just finished reading through this entire thread and I now feel I am in a position to make an unbiased comment on the content.

Either Gaar is speaking in some form of code hidden within his statements or Gaar has his mind trapped within an incorrect worldview so that while his arguments make sense to him, in his world, we on the outside cannot possibly comprehend where he is coming from. There is also a third possibility: Gaar really enjoys wasting people's time or irritating people, or both.

Regardless of the case however, conversing with Gaar is exactly the same as :headbang: and should be avoided for good mental health.

You are right. Thank you for being the voice of reason.

I'm not sure I qualify for the compliment, but thank you. Just trying to do my bit for mental health. :D

Um, Koroser and HadesRulesMuch, I understand your frustration with Urantia II, but you should be careful not to flame.

I'd delete the direct insults. No matter the provocation, they are against the rules and inappropriate.

You don't need to argue with Urantia II, and I advise against trying.

EDIT: I'm not sure Koroser has said anything inappropriate. I think I may have gotten confused. No insult or accusation intended against either of you. Just a friendly warning that you don't want to get in trouble.

Yes, I did. I insulted him directly exactly once.

He's done it, what, 10 times?

Yawn...

Now who is using the "ad hominem" arguments?

It's not the fact that I ay it that makes it so. It is the fact that I say it and you utterly fail to respond in anything approaching a debative manner. Rather, you choose to make a fool of yourself. Thus, you automatically take any credibility that you might once have had, and throw it down the drain. You'll have to forgive me if I refuse to read through over 30 pages of posts to find more mindless drivel that you have spouted out, most of which I'm sure follows the same pattern of attacking others and then crying when they respond in like manner.

I declare this whole debate null and void, because the man who originally started this thread apparently is unable to defend himself against a paralegal who actually works in the field that is the subject of debate.

Ad Hominem? How is POINTING OUT that you are making your argument WITHOUT addressing ANY of the REAL WORLD EXAMPLES I have given THROGHOUT this Thread an attack on you?

And now you are going to use the "Authoritive" argument... Because YOU are an "Authority" YOU don't HAVE to ADDRESS the ISSUES we are just supposed to believe what you say, much like Dan Rather did trying to attack our President, right?

So please, unless you care to actually address EVEN ONE of the MANY EXAMPLES ALREADY GIVEN, then you can save your "I'm smarter so I am Right" argument for someone who CARES!

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, I did. I insulted him directly exactly once.

He's done it, what, 10 times?

Really?!?!

Care to point out just one?

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, I did. I insulted him directly exactly once.

He's done it, what, 10 times?


Oh, I agree with you about Urantia II's behavior. That is why I will not argue with him. It gives literal meaning to this: :headbang:

Unfortunately, two wrongs don't make a right. And, purely from a practical point of view, it is my understanding that the Mods won't excuse retaliation. (In fact, sometimes its like in sports, when the ref only sees the retaliation. Don't assume the Mods would even agree that Urantia II crossed the line.)

As I said, friendly advice. Nothing more. Don't mean to preach or be some unofficial Mod. :D

Ad Hominem? How is POINTING OUT that you are making your argument WITHOUT addressing ANY of the REAL WORLD EXAMPLES I have given THROGHOUT this Thread an attack on you?

And now you are going to use the "Authoritive" argument... Because YOU are an "Authority" YOU don't HAVE to ADDRESS the ISSUES we are just supposed to believe what you say, much like Dan Rather did trying to attack our President, right?

So please, unless you care to actually address EVEN ONE of the MANY EXAMPLES ALREADY GIVEN, then you can save your "I'm smarter so I am Right" argument for someone who CARES!

Regards,
Gaar
Never said I was smarter. I said I actually worked in the field. And you don't.

Never said I was smarter. I said I actually worked in the field. And you don't.

Well...

Shouldn't that make it even easier for YOU to give EXAMPLES from the REAL WORLD in which YOU WORK that REFUTE even ONE of the ASSERTIONS I have made here?

You know, debate the issue, instead of just saying something and having us believe it is true merely because YOU the Authority has said it!?!?

Or perhaps you are having a bit of difficulty actually addressing the Issues brought up through REAL WORLD examples?

Regards,
Gaar

Well...

Shouldn't that make it even easier for YOU to give EXAMPLES from the REAL WORLD in which YOU WORK that REFUTE even ONE of the ASSERTIONS I have made here?

You know, debate the issue, instead of just saying something and having us believe it is true merely because YOU the Authority has said it!?!?

Or perhaps you are having a bit of difficulty actually addressing the Issues brought up through REAL WORLD examples?

Regards,
Gaar
Actually, I laready said I haven't seen you POST any real world examples, and I'm not reading through 30+ pages to find them. If you'd like to do another internet search and copy/paste some more, then go ahead. I DID, however, say that there was no such thing as a "toothless" amendment, except for one that was nullified by a later Amendment. You have failed to provide one example of such an Amendment.

Holy Duck! I just finished the 32 pages. This thread is in many ways more entertaining than other reality shows on the telly right now. What I would like you to do is this:

Could you please state again what you are pickering about... it got fuzzy around page 22. I no longer remember who used circular logic on what!

What was the initial claim again? Or is this just an endurance race?

Holy Duck! I just finished the 32 pages. This thread is in many ways more entertaining than other reality shows on the telly right now. What I would like you to do is this:

Could you please state again what you are pickering about... it got fuzzy around page 22. I no longer remember who used circular logic on what!

What was the initial claim again? Or is this just an endurance race?

Many have accused me of not knowing what I am talking about, with regards to some Amendments to the U.S. Constitution being "UnConstitutional" and point to the fact that they cannot "overturn" an Amendment...

And while it may be "technically" true that the Supreme Court is not given a Constitutional ability to strike down a Constitutional Amendment, they ARE tasked with judging the "Constitutionality" of ANY LAW that is derived from ANY Amendment.

So, while they CANNOT strike down an Amendment, they CAN make an Amendment basically "toothless" through the precedence of the Rule of Law in our Country.

In this way, the Supreme Court not only can but HAS made certain Laws toothless in the past by ruling against the Constitutionality of the Law.

Isn't "Checks and Balances" a wonderful thing!

Perhaps any one of the people railing on about my being an "uneducated" IDIOT would like to address any of this?

Regards,
Gaar

Actually, I laready said I haven't seen you POST any real world examples, and I'm not reading through 30+ pages to find them. If you'd like to do another internet search and copy/paste some more, then go ahead. I DID, however, say that there was no such thing as a "toothless" amendment, except for one that was nullified by a later Amendment. You have failed to provide one example of such an Amendment.

Yes, YOU didn't READ the Thread obviously...

Try the 16th.

And there are many posts citing my reasoning for why.

EDIT: Which includes the "case Law" for those who are Educated in the field, right up YOUR ALLEY I would say.

Regards,
Gaar

Many have accused me of not knowing what I am talking about, with regards to some Amendments to the U.S. Constitution being "UnConstitutional" and point to the fact that they cannot "overturn" an Amendment...

And while it may be "technically" true that the Supreme Court is not given a Constitutional ability to strike down a Constitutional Amendment, they ARE tasked with judging the "Constitutionality" of ANY LAW that is derived from ANY Amendment.

So, while they CANNOT strike down an Amendment, they CAN make an Amendment basically "toothless" through the precedence of the Rule of Law in our Country.

In this way, the Supreme Court not only can but HAS made certain Laws toothless in the past by ruling against the Constitutionality of the Law.

Isn't "Checks and Balances" a wonderful thing!

Perhaps any one of the people railing on about my being an "uneducated" IDIOT would like to address any of this?

Regards,
Gaar


I already have! You keep refusing to provide examples! And I don't have time to read through 30+ pages! Good lord! I was hoping you might finally have made a specific statement, but you just keep using the same ad hominem arguments you accuse us of. If you don't post another example, even if only for my benefit, I'm just going to leave this thread. I swear, because it does not hold my interest when you never SAY anything! Just ONE MORE EXAMPLE! PLEASE! Google it dammit!

You cannot make an amendment "toothless" because Amendments can be enforced directly (Prohibition, the First, the Fifth)



Also, if a law based on one section of the Constitution is declared unconstitutional based on another section, they revise and pass a new one that isn't. Simple.

but you just keep using the same ad hominem arguments you accuse us of. If you don't post another example, even if only for my benefit, I'm just going to leave this thread. I swear, because it does not hold my interest when you never SAY anything! Just ONE MORE EXAMPLE! PLEASE! Google it dammit!

Ad Hominem? Again please, cite even ONE!

Again, the 16th...

And the reasoning is ALREADY there with REAL WORLD Case Law and everything.

Please help yourself, or not.

Regards,
Gaar

Yes, YOU didn't READ the Thread obviously...

Try the 16th.

And there are many posts citing my reasoning for why.

Regards,
Gaar
AH! OK, there we go. You see, the problem with the 16th Amendment and the laws you pasted earlier (I assume that was your intent) is that the law itself left a loophole in the form of "willfullness." Thus, it was not that the 16th Amendment was "unconstitutional," but that the law itself was too vague, and consequently a sympathetic Supreme Court has some wiggle room. Not only that, but the protection of the "willfullness" clause only applies to those who can prove in court that they didn't know they had to pay income tax. Most people would not be capable of proving this, so even the law itself isn't toothless. If you decided not to pay income tax, you would be found guilty of tax evasion because you obviously know that Congress has the power to collect tax on income.

There, that was easy.

You cannot make an amendment "toothless" because Amendments can be enforced directly (Prohibition, the First, the Fifth)

Also, if a law based on one section of the Constitution is declared unconstitutional based on another section, they revise and pass a new one that isn't. Simple.

And here you fail to address the limitations IN THE CONSTITUION to what the Fed is/has been "given" Authority over...

Regards,
Gaar

So, while they CANNOT strike down an Amendment, they CAN make an Amendment basically "toothless" through the precedence of the Rule of Law in our Country.

In this way, the Supreme Court not only can but HAS made certain Laws toothless in the past by ruling against the Constitutionality of the Law.
I have almost no knowledge of your constitution (well apart from the physical one in my lap right now...), but isn't an amandment in fact PART of constitution? I was under the impression that the 'rule of law' cases were not constitutuional cases...

Isn't "Checks and Balances" a wonderful thing!

Yes they are. We have that too here. Sheer fun!

Thanks for answering Urantia.

AH! OK, there we go. You see, the problem with the 16th Amendment and the laws you pasted earlier (I assume that was your intent) is that the law itself left a loophole in the form of "willfullness." Thus, it was not that the 16th Amendment was "unconstitutional," but that the law itself was too vague, and consequently a sympathetic Supreme Court has some wiggle room. Not only that, but the protection of the "willfullness" clause only applies to those who can prove in court that they didn't know they had to pay income tax. Most people would not be capable of proving this, so even the law itself isn't toothless. If you decided not to pay income tax, you would be found guilty of tax evasion because you obviously know that Congress has the power to collect tax on income.

There, that was easy.

It also talks about the Fed's "Jurisdictional" Powers... The things that they are "given" Authority over as SPECIFIED by the Constitution.

There are MANY THINGS they were NEVER INTENDED to be ABLE to do ANYTHING about.

And you ALSO missed the post on "willfulness"... As RULED by the SUPREME COURT and not what "You say".

EDIT: The CASE LAW is CITED so YOU don't HAVE to belive ME.

Please, try READING first and then commenting.

Regards,
Gaar

I have almost no knowledge of your constitution (well apart from the physical one in my lap right now...), but isn't an amandment in fact PART of constitution? I was under the impression that the 'rule of law' cases were not constitutuional cases...

The Supreme Court IS allowed to Rule on its "Constitutionality" if that is something being questioned...

Just as they HAVE in the cases I have cited in this Thread. Giving REAL WORLD examples of what I AM SAYING.

EDIT: That is how I am able to say that they not only can but HAVE done such things.

Regards,
Gaar

And here you fail to address the limitations IN THE CONSTITUION to what the Fed is/has been "given" Authority over...

Regards,
Gaar
And that is where you find the question of strict vs. loose Constitutionality, and the difference between explicit and implicit interpretation.


However, you are starting to sound rather foolish here. You see, the issue was that even the 16th Amendment never specifically stated jurisdictional powers. Thus, the 16th Amendment was not considered Unconstitutional. A law that was derived from it was found to have a LOOPHOLE IN IT that could be used to bypass the law, especially because if you look at the 16th Amendment explicitly then any form of income could be taxed. However, implicitly you could assume it meant within the limits of the original Constitutional document.

I still don't get the point. You have just learned that the Constitution is subject to interpretation?

That was never in dispute. But the fact that the court can neither make an amendment unconstitutional or render it toothless is.


Amendments, being part of the highest form of law, can act as law i.e. You can be arrested solely on the authority of the 1st amendment, if you were to violate it. Therefore, it is impossible to render an amendment toothless except through complete repeal.

The Supreme Court IS allowed to Rule on its "Constitutionality" if that is something being questioned...

Just as they HAVE in the cases I have cited in this Thread. Giving REAL WORLD examples of what I AM SAYING.

EDIT: That is how I am able to say that they not only can but HAVE done such things.

Regards,
Gaar
The Supreme Court can rule a LAW unconstitutional Bunny. They cannot rule an Amendment to be unconstitutional though. Urantia is arguing that you can circumvent this by determining ALL laws based on that amendment to be unconstitutional. However, since this has never been done before it really is a moot point.

That was never in dispute. But the fact that the court can neither make an amendment unconstitutional or render it toothless is.


Amendments, being part of the highest form of law, can act as law i.e. You can be arrested solely on the authority of the 1st amendment, if you were to violate it. Therefore, it is impossible to render an amendment toothless except through complete repeal.
Precisely!