NationStates Jolt Archive

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,
GaarOh, thanks, that's the thing what I was wondwering about...
A law, ending up as an amandment, has go through the ...congress, right? So, there has been laws added to the constitution the SCOTUS had to question later? One would think those would have been shot down even before they end up in there.

oh, don't all answer to me! I know nothing! This is a learning experience to me.. I just wanted to tag this thread :)

Oh, thanks, that's the thing what I was wondwering about...
A law, ending up as an amandment, has go through the ...congress, right? So, there has been laws added to the constitution the SCOTUS had to question later? One would think those would have been shot down even before they end up in there.
The Supreme Court cannot declare a law unconstitutional unless it is brought to court. Thus, an unconstitutional law can be passed through Congress, and later declared unconstitutional.

And that is where you find the question of strict vs. loose Constitutionality, and the difference between explicit and implicit interpretation.

So which would a Ruling by the Supreme Court be?

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?

I'm starting to sound foolish because YOU fail to address the "toothlessness" of the 16th Amendment? As it has been FOUND to not have ANY Jurisdiction in collecting "Income taxes" from people who derive their Income from only within a State?

The Constitution never meant to "give" any power over State commerce and they can't simply "Take" such Jurisdiction without EXPLICITLY stating they are, can they?

You would have KNOWN these to be PART of the argument if YOU had BOTHERED to READ the Thread!

At this point, since YOU seem to only want to REHASH ISSUES ALREADY asked and ansered, I am going to ignore any further questions or observations from you, unless you are moving "on" with a point and would like to discuss something not already discussed.

Just because YOU can't be bothered to READ a Thread that YOU have choosen to become "involved" with doesn't mean I have to RE-POST all of the things that are readily available here, does it?

If you would like to be part of the discussion, it would help if you were just a bit informed of where it has been and where it is going.

Regards,
Gaar

The Supreme Court cannot declare a law unconstitutional unless it is brought to court. Thus, an unconstitutional law can be passed through Congress, and later declared unconstitutional.Ahh. how very stupid. Thanks.

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
Wrong! There has never been a case where an Amendment has been declared unconstitutional! My goodness, this is simple logic. You are expected to know these things BEFORE going to law school.

Ahh. how very stupid. Thanks.
Naw, no problem mate.

The Supreme Court cannot declare a law unconstitutional unless it is brought to court. Thus, an unconstitutional law can be passed through Congress, and later declared unconstitutional.

And if the "Ruling" handed down from the Supreme Court addresses the Constitutionality in a way that questions the Authority of the Amendment that backs the Law, then what?

Regards,
Gaar

Naw, no problem mate.
Well, we have the same system in here, but no law can't be voted part of constitution BEFORE it has the green light from the supreme court. A mild difference.

So which would a Ruling by the Supreme Court be?



I'm starting to sound foolish because YOU fail to address the "toothlessness" of the 16th Amendment? As it has been FOUND to not have ANY Jurisdiction in collecting "Income taxes" from people who derive their Income from only within a State?

The Constitution never meant to "give" any power over State commerce and they can't simply "Take" such Jurisdiction without EXPLICITLY stating they are, can they?

You would have KNOWN these to be PART of the argument if YOU had BOTHERED to READ the Thread!

At this point, since YOU seem to only want to REHASH ISSUES ALREADY asked and ansered, I am going to ignore any further questions or observations from you, unless you are moving "on" with a point and would like to discuss something not already discussed.

Just because YOU can't be bothered to READ a Thread that YOU have choosen to become "involved" with doesn't mean I have to RE-POST all of the things that are readily available here, does it?

If you would like to be part of the discussion, it would help if you were just a bit informed of where it has been and where it is going.

Regards,
Gaar


What? A ruling by the Supreme Court can be either...
It is a matter of personal belief. Should you interpret the Constitution based on only what it spells out, or are some powers "implied."


And it only loses the power to tax income that comes only from within a state that doesn't come from wages, and even then only if the person isn't aware of their responsibility to pay taxes. What was the point. You can skip the "blah blah blah you didn't do this or that" part of the response next time. Keep to the necessities, thank you.

Wrong! There has never been a case where an Amendment has been declared unconstitutional! My goodness, this is simple logic. You are expected to know these things BEFORE going to law school.

Not specifically yes, but questioning the intent and therefore the Amendment behind the Law, yes, I HAVE GIVEN REAL WORLD Examples...

Regards,
Gaar

And if the "Ruling" handed down from the Supreme Court addresses the Constitutionality in a way that questions the Authority of the Amendment that backs the Law, then what?

Regards,
Gaar
It can't? It merely will impose limits on the specifics of the powers etc. gained through the amendment. The government can still tax income. Its just that the original limits have been recognized as still effective. I still don't get the point here.

Not specifically yes, but questioning the intent and therefore the Amendment behind the Law, yes, I HAVE GIVEN REAL WORLD Examples...

Regards,
Gaar
NO! The Supreme Court can only define the limits of the Amendment! You don't seem to grasp the difference between "limiting" and "rendering ineffective."


Do you still pay income tax? I do! Therefore that amendment is still in force, and we still pay money. Why don't YOU explain why THAT is?

Not specifically yes, but questioning the intent and therefore the Amendment behind the Law, yes, I HAVE GIVEN REAL WORLD Examples...

Regards,
Gaar
NO! The Supreme Court can only define the limits of the Amendment! You don't seem to grasp the difference between "limiting" and "rendering ineffective."


Do you still pay income tax? I do! Therefore that amendment is still in force, and we still pay money. Why don't YOU explain why THAT is?

*takes a seat and grabs his popcorn*

Time for more fireworks! :D

And it only loses the power to tax income that comes only from within a state that doesn't come from wages, and even then only if the person isn't aware of their responsibility to pay taxes. What was the point. You can skip the "blah blah blah you didn't do this or that" part of the response next time. Keep to the necessities, thank you.

And one would think that a "Law Student" would be aware of how the Supreme Court HAS RULED on "willfulness"...

As has ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED HERE!

http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/taxcrimes.html

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.).

And one would think that a "Law Student" would be aware of how the Supreme Court HAS RULED on "willfulness"...

As has ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED HERE!

http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/taxcrimes.html

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.).

No. Shit.

Why do you waste my time with that drivel? Nothing I said disagreed with it. Pasting enormous quantities of material gets you nowhere. You still fail to make a point.

NO! The Supreme Court can only define the limits of the Amendment! You don't seem to grasp the difference between "limiting" and "rendering ineffective."

Do you still pay income tax? I do! Therefore that amendment is still in force, and we still pay money. Why don't YOU explain why THAT is?

Yes... YOU pay it WILLINGLY.

There is NOTHING that says you HAVE TO!

Again, ALREADY COVERED IN THIS THREAD!

Regards,
Gaar

Yes... YOU pay it WILLINGLY.

We pay it willingly? I thought we relunctantly pay income tax?

There is NOTHING that says you HAVE TO!

The IRS believes otherwise. Tax evasion anyone?

Yes... YOU pay it WILLINGLY.

There is NOTHING that says you HAVE TO!

Again, ALREADY COVERED IN THIS THREAD!

Regards,
Gaar
Wrong! Your only defense will be that you did not act in willfull violation! ALREADY STATED! You can be held in violation of the Amendment itself. Not only that, but you assume that the state attorney won't have already found a legal defense against the loopholes left in the law.


All laws have loopholes! Finding one doesn't make it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court never declared the income laws constitutional in the cases you posted. They merely held that under those specific circumstances the person was not required to pay income tax. This does not affect the Constitution.

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.

Where does it say there anything about people who believe the Fed doesn't have any Constitutional Authority over State commerce?

Hmmm....

Regards,
Gaar

Wrong! Your only defense will be that you did not act in willfull violation! ALREADY STATED! You can be held in violation of the Amendment itself. Not only that, but you assume that the state attorney won't have already found a legal defense against the loopholes left in the law.

All laws have loopholes! Finding one doesn't make it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court never declared the income laws constitutional in the cases you posted. They merely held that under those specific circumstances the person was not required to pay income tax. This does not affect the Constitution.

http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/taxcrimes.html

"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."

http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/taxcrimes.html

"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."

LOL. :D LOL :D

Let's put this to the test Urantia II. Don't pay your taxes. Send the IRS a letter explaining that you disagree with the law.

Better yet, seek a declaratory judgment that you don't have to pay your taxes.

Try making your inane arguments in any court in this country. The bailiffs will still be giggling as they take you away.

(And I have, in fact, worked for a federal court in which we handled cases of tax protestors. I'm not "arguing from authority," but rather anticipating your objection that I don't know what I am talking about. Please don't accept my opinion -- try it in court instead. And could you tell us when you get a hearing? We'd like to attend.)

LOL. :D LOL :D

Let's put this to the test Urantia II. Don't pay your taxes. Send the IRS a letter explaining that you disagree with the law.

Better yet, seek a declaratory judgment that you don't have to pay your taxes.

Try making your inane arguments in any court in this country. The bailiffs will still be giggling as they take you away.

(And I have, in fact, worked for a federal court in which we handled cases of tax protestors. I'm not "arguing from authority," but rather anticipating your objection that I don't know what I am talking about. Please don't accept my opinion -- try it in court instead. And could you tell us when you get a hearing? We'd like to attend.)

Actually, you don't HAVE to do anything...

I have friends that have not been paying Taxes for over a decade now.

There ARE some steps that need to be taken should the Government contact you regarding payment, but once the proper paperwork has been sent back they have never again been bothered by the Government or the IRS.

Regards,
Gaar

Then if they're ever found out, they'll be arrested. Simple as that.

Then if they're ever found out, they'll be arrested. Simple as that.

Actually, they WERE "found out", that is why the IRS contacted them...

Once they declared that all moneys they "earned" were earned strictly through State Commerce and not intra-State and cited the Federal Governments Jurisdiction inability over such matters they have never been contacted again on the matter...

Why is that YOU suppose?

Perhaps because they don't WANT a case in the Supreme Court that SHOWS the Law to be UnConstitutional with regards to moneys earned in State, and thereby showing how the Fed has no Jurisdiction in said matters?

EDIT: Or do you think it is better for THEIR interest if it were not challenged and they just let the Majority of People continue to "Willfully" pay Taxes, instead of People challenging the Federal Governments Jurisdictional limitations in such matters, as STRICTLY stated within the Constitution that MANY OF YOU continue to say is the FINAL AUTHORITY on ALL Lawful MATTERS, right?

Regards,
Gaar

LOL. :D LOL :D

Let's put this to the test Urantia II. Don't pay your taxes. Send the IRS a letter explaining that you disagree with the law.

Better yet, seek a declaratory judgment that you don't have to pay your taxes.

Try making your inane arguments in any court in this country. The bailiffs will still be giggling as they take you away.

(And I have, in fact, worked for a federal court in which we handled cases of tax protestors. I'm not "arguing from authority," but rather anticipating your objection that I don't know what I am talking about. Please don't accept my opinion -- try it in court instead. And could you tell us when you get a hearing? We'd like to attend.)

Hmmm.....

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:

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.

Talk about not being able to take ones OWN ADVICE... :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

Talk about not being able to take ones OWN ADVICE...
Wiggady-wiggady woooo! It's mutha-fuckin' deja vou! ;)

Wiggady-wiggady woooo! It's mutha-fuckin' deja vou! ;)

Isn't it funny how I can make that statement in TWO Threads...

Seems Cat is having a bit of difficulty with HYPOCRISY! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

Isn't it funny how I can make that statement in TWO Threads...

Seems Cat is having a bit of difficulty with HYPOCRISY! :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

Nice try. You are so cute.

No HYPOCRISY! Just pointing out how silly your arguments are. That's not flaming. Report it if you think it is.

I warned people not to FLAME. We are PERFECTLY entitled to make FUN of RIDICULOUS viewpoints.

Nice try. You are so cute.

No HYPOCRISY! Just pointing out how silly your arguments are. That's not flaming. Report it if you think it is.

I warned people not to FLAME. We are PERFECTLY entitled to make FUN of RIDICULOUS viewpoints.

Actually, the HYPOCRISY is in YOUR telling others they should NOT argue with me, as you DO IT yourself...

You see that HYPOCRISY, don't you? :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

Actually, they WERE "found out", that is why the IRS contacted them...

Once they declared that all moneys they "earned" were earned strictly through State Commerce and not intra-State and cited the Federal Governments Jurisdiction inability over such matters they have never been contacted again on the matter...

Why is that YOU suppose?

Perhaps because they don't WANT a case in the Supreme Court that SHOWS the Law to be UnConstitutional with regards to moneys earned in State, and thereby showing how the Fed has no Jurisdiction in said matters?

EDIT: Or do you think it is better for THEIR interest if it were not challenged and they just let the Majority of People continue to "Willfully" pay Taxes, instead of People challenging the Federal Governments Jurisdictional limitations in such matters, as STRICTLY stated within the Constitution that MANY OF YOU continue to say is the FINAL AUTHORITY on ALL Lawful MATTERS, right?

Regards,
Gaar

Forgive me if I doubt your credibility.

Regardless, even if your account were true, your inference is false. Whether or not people get prosecuted depend on lots of factors. Simply because your "friends" haven't been prosecuted yet does not mean (a) they won't ever be or (b) they are right.

Many people are prosecuted and convicted for exactly the silly position you advocate.

In fact, let's look at the fool whose website you've been copying from (http://www.taxableincome.net/about/aboutauthor.html). His name is Larken Rose. He's been indicted for failing to pay his taxes: Tax protester gets wish, is indicted (http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/113-03022005-457367.html).
Here is a copy of the indictment (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2005/feb/rose.pdf). If convicted of the crimes charged in the indictment, the Roses face a maximum prison sentence of 5 years imprisonment, a fine of $ 125,000, a special assessment of $125 and 1 year of supervised release. (This would be in addition to owing the back taxes.).
The web is covered with info about this scam artist.


For anyone foolish enough to buy any of your assertions, I provide the following:
Tax Scams and Shams (http://www.unclefed.com/Audit-Proofing/step4-1.html)
Common Tax Protest Schemes (http://www.unclefed.com/Audit-Proofing/step4-2.html)
The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments (http://www.unclefed.com/Audit-Proofing/step4-2b.html)

BTW, it is true I have warned others not to argue with you. I previously warned that you would not engage in intelligent discussion. Although I stand by my warning, you are right that I have not followed my own advice. I've decide its fun - although it was irritating others. And not following your own advice may be foolish -- but its not HYPOCRISY. Look the word up. :p

BTW, it is true I have warned others not to argue with you. I previously warned that you would not engage in intelligent discussion. Although I stand by my warning, you are right that I have not followed my own advice. I've decide its fun - although it was irritating others. And not following your own advice may be foolish -- but its not HYPOCRISY. Look the word up. :p

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Hypocrisy

3 entries found for hypocrisy.
hy·poc·ri·sy

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
3. an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction [syn: lip service] 2: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have

*snip*

I guess we will KNOW soon enough if someone is ACTUALLY ABLE to CHALLENGE the Constitutionality of an Amendment!

And weren't ALL of YOU telling ME that such things could not be challenged?

We SHALL SEE! :D

Regards,
Gaar

I guess we will KNOW soon enough if someone is ACTUALLY ABLE to CHALLENGE the Constitutionality of an Amendment!

And weren't ALL of YOU telling ME that such things could not be challenged?

We SHALL SEE! :D

Regards,
Gaar


...

I imagine it would take most people a while to figure out what a suit being brought to challange the constitutionality of the constitution actually meant...

...and when they finally got it all parsed out and realized that it meant just what it said, it would take them even longer to stop laughing.

Lawyers and judges especially.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Hypocrisy

3 entries found for hypocrisy.
hy·poc·ri·sy

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
3. an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction [syn: lip service] 2: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have

Good for you! I KNEW you could DO it!

Now, see if you can point to where it says not following your own advice is HYPOCRISY!

I guess we will KNOW soon enough if someone is ACTUALLY ABLE to CHALLENGE the Constitutionality of an Amendment!

And weren't ALL of YOU telling ME that such things could not be challenged?

We SHALL SEE! :D

Regards,
Gaar

I certainly NEVER said you couldn't. You CAN make ANY argument YOU wish. You will simply LOSE. :p And there are specific sanctions under federal law for (1) making a frivolous argument of any kind and also (2) for making a frivolous objection to federal income tax. :p

If you read the links I provided, you'll see others have already lost this argument about the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT. (I'll never learn to do the CAPITALIZATION as ANNOYINGLY as YOU.)

Good for you! I KNEW you could DO it!

Now, see if you can point to where it says not following your own advice is HYPOCRISY!

Is it not YOUR "belief" that others shouldn't fight with me?

If you don't believe it, why do you Espouse it?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Espouse
(Just in case)

Regards,
Gaar

Is it not YOUR "belief" that others shouldn't fight with me?

If you don't believe it, why do you Espouse it?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Espouse
(Just in case)

Regards,
Gaar

TIRED of getting TROUNCED? Is that WHY you WANT me to go AWAY?

I'll leave you ALONE under the BRIDGE if you want -- but you have a tendency to ARGUE with and MAKE FUN of YOURSELF. Play NICE.

TIRED of getting TROUNCED? Is that WHY you WANT me to go AWAY?

I'll leave you ALONE under the BRIDGE if you want -- but you have a tendency to ARGUE with and MAKE FUN of YOURSELF. Play NICE.

Trounced? Is that what YOU call Hypocrisy?

I noticed you so stealthly "changed" the Subject, yet again... :rolleyes:

Care to continue on Subject? If not, your ad Hominem attacks are getting tiresome, so I will let you rant and see if you make ANY POINTS worth addressing tomorrow...

Regards,
Gaar

TIRED of getting TROUNCED? Is that WHY you WANT me to go AWAY?

I'll leave you ALONE under the BRIDGE if you want -- but you have a tendency to ARGUE with and MAKE FUN of YOURSELF. Play NICE.

There's that Bridge reference AGAIN...

What I would LIKE is FOR YOU to ANSWER a Few QUESTIONS about the LAW YOU CITE...

Questions Regarding Determining Taxable Income

1) Should I use the rules found in 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 (in addition to any other pertinent sections) to determine my taxable domestic income?

2) If I should not use those sections to determine my taxable domestic income, please show where the law says who should or should not use those sections for that.

3) If I, as a U.S. citizen, receive all of my income from working within the 50 states, do 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 show my income to be taxable?

4) Should I use 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2) to determine whether my “items” of income (e.g. compensation, interest, rents, dividends, etc.) are excluded for federal income tax purposes?

5) What is the purpose of the list of non-exempt types of income found in 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii), and why is my domestically earned income not on that list?

6) What types of income (if any) are not exempted by any statute, but are nonetheless “excluded by law” (not subject to the income tax) because they are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government?

http://www.861.info/index.php?pg=6questions

There's that Bridge reference AGAIN...

What I would LIKE is FOR YOU to ANSWER a Few QUESTIONS about the LAW YOU CITE...

Questions Regarding Determining Taxable Income

1) Should I use the rules found in 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 (in addition to any other pertinent sections) to determine my taxable domestic income?

2) If I should not use those sections to determine my taxable domestic income, please show where the law says who should or should not use those sections for that.

3) If I, as a U.S. citizen, receive all of my income from working within the 50 states, do 26 USC § 861(b) and 26 CFR § 1.861-8 show my income to be taxable?

4) Should I use 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2) to determine whether my “items” of income (e.g. compensation, interest, rents, dividends, etc.) are excluded for federal income tax purposes?

5) What is the purpose of the list of non-exempt types of income found in 26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii), and why is my domestically earned income not on that list?

6) What types of income (if any) are not exempted by any statute, but are nonetheless “excluded by law” (not subject to the income tax) because they are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government?

http://www.861.info/index.php?pg=6questions

<sigh>

I've told you before that merely copying unreliable crap from the internet is not intelligent discussion. What part of RELIABLE escapes YOU?

As I just figured out the link I gave was bad, I seriously doubt you read the law to which I cited. If you had, you wouldn't repeat these silly questions.

I won't respond myself, but here is the IRS's explanation (http://www.unclefed.com/Audit-Proofing/step4-2b.html) of your error:

For federal income tax purposes, “gross income” means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded. In Reese v. United States, 24 F.3d 228, 231 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the court stated, “an abiding principle of federal tax law is that, absent an enumerated exception, gross income means all income from whatever source derived.”

...

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955) – referring to the statute´s words “income derived from any source whatever,” the Supreme Court stated, “this language was used by Congress to exert in this field ‘the full measure of its taxing power.´ ... And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted.”

Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77 (1977) – the Supreme Court found that payments are considered income where the payments are undeniably accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which a taxpayer has complete dominion.

...

...The premise for this argument is a misreading of sections 861, et seq., and 911, et seq., as well as the regulations under those sections.

The Law: As stated above, for federal income tax purposes, “gross income” means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Further, Treasury Regulation § 1.1-1(b) provides, “[i]n general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.” I.R.C. sections 861 and 911 define the sources of income (U.S. versus non-U.S. source income) for such purposes as the prevention of double taxation of income that is subject to tax by more than one country. These sections neither specify whether income is taxable, nor do they determine or define gross income. Further, these frivolous assertions are clearly contrary to well-established legal precedent.

Relevant Case Law:

Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, 138 (2000) – the court rejected the taxpayer´s argument that his income was not from any of the sources listed in Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(a), characterizing it as “reminiscent of taxprotester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts.”

Aiello v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-40, 69 T.C.M. (CCH) 1765 (1995) – the court rejected the taxpayer´s argument that the only sources of income for purposes of section 61 are listed in section 861.

Madge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-370, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 804 (2000) – the court labeled as “frivolous” the position that only foreign income is taxable.

Solomon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-509, 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 1201, 1202 (1993) – the court rejected the taxpayer´s argument that his income was exempt from tax by operation of sections 861 and 911, noting that he had no foreign income and that section 861 provides that “compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States ... are items of gross income.”

You should read IRS Revenue Rule 2004–30: Frivolous tax returns; attempting to avoid taxes under section 861 (http://www.unclefed.com/Tax-Bulls/2004/rr04-30.pdf).
This ruling emphasizes to taxpayers, and to promoters and return preparers who assist taxpayers with tax schemes, that there is no authority in sections 861 through 865 of the Code that permits an individual to take the position that either the individual or the individual’s U.S. based income is not subject
to federal income tax. The ruling also describes many of the possible civil and
criminal penalties that apply to people who make frivolous section 861 arguments to evade tax.

Contrary to your previous assertions, neither the IRS nor the DOJ accept the 861 argument. It is frivolous and there are special penalties for evading taxes based on it.

*snip*

Ok, a simpler question for you...

Please show me where ANY Amendment has SPECIFICALLY CHANGED the "Authority" over which the Federal Government HAS been "granted" over the Commerce of the Individual States?

Because we ALL KNOW that ANY Right NOT SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED for the Federal Government to do it's job falls to the States and the People, right?

So would YOU PLEASE show me where the Federal Government SPECIFICALLY Changed THEIR OWN realm of Authority from that which happens between the States and Foriegn Countries to also include that which happens "within" the Individual States, which last time I READ the Constitution were SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED to be the Right of the State, are they not?

Are those questions ANY simpler for you?

Regards,
Gaar

Relevant Case Law:

Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, 138 (2000) – the court rejected the taxpayer´s argument that his income was not from any of the sources listed in Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(a), characterizing it as “reminiscent of taxprotester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts.”

Aiello v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-40, 69 T.C.M. (CCH) 1765 (1995) – the court rejected the taxpayer´s argument that the only sources of income for purposes of section 61 are listed in section 861.

Madge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-370, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 804 (2000) – the court labeled as “frivolous” the position that only foreign income is taxable.

Solomon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-509, 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 1201, 1202 (1993) – the court rejected the taxpayer´s argument that his income was exempt from tax by operation of sections 861 and 911, noting that he had no foreign income and that section 861 provides that “compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States ... are items of gross income.”

Interesting...

Are YOU trying to suggest here that "Memo's" within the IRS have ANY Affect as Law?

3 of the 4 things YOU are citing there are MEMO'S sent within the IRS itself, and I am pretty sure they have NO WEIGHT as any TYPE of LAW...

Or perhaps you would be kind enough to SHOW ME where such things ARE consider LAW?!?!

EDIT: I am of the belief that there has only been ONE challeng in COURT of 861 and that Ruling is currently being Appealed to a Higher Court, under the very argument I am asking YOU to make, right? YOU wouldn't mind pointing out if there are any more than that ONE CASE rather than just "additional memo's" being passed around the IRS, would you?

Regards,
Gaar

Interesting...

Are YOU trying to suggest here that "Memo's" within the IRS have ANY Affect as Law?

3 of the 4 things YOU are citing there are MEMO'S sent within the IRS itself, and I am pretty sure they have NO WEIGHT as any TYPE of LAW...

Or perhaps you would be kind enough to SHOW ME where such things ARE consider LAW?!?!

EDIT: I am of the belief that there has only been ONE challenge in COURT of 861 and that Ruling is currently being challenged in a Higher Court. YOU wouldn't mind pointing out if there are any more than that ONE CASE rather than just "additional memo's" being passed around the IRS, would you?

Regards,
Gaar

I'm going to try the easier task of explaining "law" to my cats.

I suggest you use your internet skills to look up "Tax Court."


EDIT:
EDIT: I am of the belief that there has only been ONE challenge in COURT of 861 and that Ruling is currently being challenged in a Higher Court. YOU wouldn't mind pointing out if there are any more than that ONE CASE rather than just "additional memo's" being passed around the IRS, would you?

A quick internet search reveals you are sadly mistaken. I am not surprised.

Here a handful of links to court decisions (except where noted):
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/MolenPrelimInj.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/MolenMagistrateReport.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/ThompsonPrelimInj.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/CohenPrelimInj.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/FarnellInjunction.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/preliminjorderRos352.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/rosilememosupporpreinj.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/injmemo1054.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/BellFinalOrder.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/MayerPermInj.pdf
http://subscript.bna.com/SAMPLES/txc.nsf/0/4ec69f8f90925ba285256e560012f43e?OpenDocument (Indiana Tax Court)
http://www.boe.ca.gov/legal/pdf/myers.pdf (CA Board of Equalization)

This is too easy. I'll leave you alone to argue with yourself under the bridge.

It is NOT my intent to say that the 16th Amendment is NOT Constitutional, or any of the other Laws that we are discussing. Nor do I endorse ANYONE not paying their Taxes...

MY POINT is that such things ARE Challenged, as my first post suggests, and that the Supreme Court is the last word in whether the Constitution has been followed. The FACT that they had to Amend the Constitution AFTER the Supreme Court Ruled on Pollok (correctly or not) and put in the 16th Amendment is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of such Authority, is it not?

I believe Cat-Tribes has done a VERY GOOD job of documenting that VERY thing for me here, thank you Cat. :D

So again, would someone point out how my initial postulation has been anything but ABSOLUTELY PROVEN by the exact exchange that Cat and I just had?!?!

Thanks again Cat, seems YOU stepped Right into that one! :p

Regards,
Gaar

It is NOT my intent to say that the 16th Amendment is NOT Constitutional, or any of the other Laws that we are discussing. Nor do I endorse ANYONE not paying their Taxes...

MY POINT is that such things ARE Challenged, as my first post suggests, and that the Supreme Court is the last word in whether the Constitution has been followed. The FACT that they had to Amend the Constitution AFTER the Supreme Court Ruled on Pollok (correctly or not) and put in the 16th Amendment is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of such Authority, is it not?

I believe Cat-Tribes has done a VERY GOOD job of documenting that VERY thing for me here, thank you Cat. :D

So again, would someone point out how my initial postulation has been anything but ABSOLUTELY PROVEN by the exact exchange that Cat and I just had?!?!

Thanks again Cat, seems YOU stepped Right into that one! :p

Regards,
Gaar

Gee, what a "clever" trap. :rolleyes:

Where have I denied that the consitutionality of laws can be challenged? Nowhere. (And I don't believe anyone else took this position either.)

Where have I denied the Supreme Court's power of judicial review? Nowhere.
(And I don't believe anyone else has either.)

Where in any of the cases I cited has an Amendment to the Constitution been held unconstitutional? Nowhere.

Perhaps you need to re-read your original "postulation."

And what part of the word "frivolous" don't you understand? The type of arguments you've been crowing about for pages and pages are routinely dismissed as frivolous. Perhaps you should look that word up too.

Back under the bridge, Gaar.

Perhaps you need to re-read your original "postulation."


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

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...

Oh brother! NO Amendment in the US Constitution is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! So our accusation is correct in that regard because you don't know what your talking about in this regard.

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.

Because the amendments in the US Constitution have passed Congress and been approved by the states in accordance with Article V of the US Constitution therefor making it constitutional. Your last line is right in regards to law but that is it.

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.

No amendment is toothless. Something I suggest you learn right now.

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.

Which laws would those be?

Isn't "Checks and Balances" a wonderful thing!

Who's watching the courts?

Perhaps any one of the people railing on about my being an "uneducated" IDIOT would like to address any of this?

I just did you uneducated rat! :D

I believe this person is suggesting that the Supreme Court doesn't have the Final Say, aren't they?
It wouldn't even go the supreme court, as those votes for whoever wouldn't be valid, so the person who clears the barrier for the electoral votes would be sworn in.

And how about this one...
Urantia, in response to your question, what would the supreme court do? You mean besides being defunct? "Dubya" would become the first emperor in a line of royalty in the Empire the United States of America. A corporate police state, where every corporation bows to the wishes of the Emperor in order to be able to sell, and police on every corner in order to "protect" us from each other. Guns are now banned, as New Granada pointed out, in order to "keep the peace" and "Dubya" would pass all sorts of vicious so-called "faith based initiatives" which take the Bill of Rights out of the picture completely. Welcome to the world overrun by our checks and balances.

and these...
You seem to forget urantia that the supreme court has established a legal precedent which discounts the 'freedom of choice' - namely the 2000 election where the electoral college was upheld to be more important than the will of the majority of voters.

The rule of law is the rule of law, and as I mentioned above, subverting the will of the majority of voters is a precedent upheld recently.

Or this one...
How can the Consitution, the main document which declares others unconstitutional, be unconstitutional itself? Impossible! This is conflicting. My brain halves have merged. No no. Red are sheep *dissolves*

an amendment can't be unconstitional by definition, once it is part of the constitution.

And some continue to suggest that some things cannot be challenged as to Constitutionality...
It wouldn't be legal. Their votes wouldn't be counted as legal, and they should have passed the amendment before the election.

And this one forst notes how the Supreme Court HAS done EXACTLY what I have said and then says they can't do it...
Getting back on topic, the Supreme Court has gutted amendments before. The most noticeable was the 14th. The Supreme Court gutted it in 1883. This lead to the widespeard use of Jim Crow laws (helped in Pleesy v. Ferguson) and the loss of civil and political rights by blacks in the South. Technically, they did it on the basis of the Constitution and states' rights. Should this have beeen done? I don't think so.

In the end, the Amendments have to triumph over the Court. That's the point of the whole amendment process. It's a way of affecting a widespead change without holding another Constitutional Convention. The justices cannot rule based on feelings, personal or political. The Court was put in place to see that Congress and the President didn't become tyranical.

And ALL THAT is just in the first 5 pages...

Regards,
Gaar

Which laws would those be?


Tax Laws BEFORE the 16th Amendment...

And as pointed out by another poster... Jim Crow Laws in the South before the turn of the Century.

Regards,
Gaar

I believe this person is suggesting that the Supreme Court doesn't have the Final Say, aren't they?


And how about this one...


and these...




Or this one...




And some continue to suggest that some things cannot be challenged as to Constitutionality...


And this one forst notes how the Supreme Court HAS done EXACTLY what I have said and then says they can't do it...


And ALL THAT is just in the first 5 pages...

Regards,
Gaar

As even you can realize, none of that says what you assert.

As to Robbopolis's assertions, they are erroneous. They are only slightly more correct than your assertions.

Urantia do not quote things ive said and then assert that they mean the opposite of what they say.

It is lying outright.

Oh brother! NO Amendment in the US Constitution is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! So our accusation is correct in that regard because you don't know what your talking about in this regard.



Because the amendments in the US Constitution have passed Congress and been approved by the states in accordance with Article V of the US Constitution therefor making it constitutional. Your last line is right in regards to law but that is it.



No amendment is toothless. Something I suggest you learn right now.



Which laws would those be?



Who's watching the courts?



I just did you uneducated rat! :D

Don't sweat it Corneliu.

I've been tying him in knots for pages and pages of 2 different threads and he's getting frustrated.

If you really want to amuse yourself, you might check out The Greenhouse Effect thread. (Don't worry about whether you agree about global warming.)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=406692&page=2&pp=15

The fun starts with Urantia's post at page 2, #27.

By page 5, post #75, Urantia's so frustated and confused he makes fun of himself!

I may have to have that printed out and framed.

EDIT: And you should show more compassion -- its really cold, damp, and lonely under that bridge. ;)

It wouldn't even go the supreme court, as those votes for whoever wouldn't be valid, so the person who clears the barrier for the electoral votes would be sworn in.
I believe this person is suggesting that the Supreme Court doesn't have the Final Say, aren't they?

Since CSW was talking about your so called example, any vote cast for Bush would be immediately declared invalid by the election officials or by the State Board of Election.

And how about this one...Urantia, in response to your question, what would the supreme court do? You mean besides being defunct? "Dubya" would become the first emperor in a line of royalty in the Empire the United States of America. A corporate police state, where every corporation bows to the wishes of the Emperor in order to be able to sell, and police on every corner in order to "protect" us from each other. Guns are now banned, as New Granada pointed out, in order to "keep the peace" and "Dubya" would pass all sorts of vicious so-called "faith based initiatives" which take the Bill of Rights out of the picture completely. Welcome to the world overrun by our checks and balances.

I really loved this one. This is very funny. You should ask him what he ment about the Supreme Court being defunct! But since he hasn't posted in here in quite sometime I'm sure you'll be waiting along time for an answer. BTW: Do you know what Sarcasm is? This post is laden with it.

and these...
You seem to forget urantia that the supreme court has established a legal precedent which discounts the 'freedom of choice' - namely the 2000 election where the electoral college was upheld to be more important than the will of the majority of voters.

The rule of law is the rule of law, and as I mentioned above, subverting the will of the majority of voters is a precedent upheld recently.[/quote

New Granada is correct when it comes to his first quote. Read Amendment 12 and you'll understand why! Amendment XII is the amendment regarding the Electoral College.

In his second quote, he reiterates the first. Again going back to the XII Amendment.

Or this one...[quote=Najitene]
How can the Consitution, the main document which declares others unconstitutional, be unconstitutional itself? Impossible! This is conflicting. My brain halves have merged. No no. Red are sheep *dissolves*
an amendment can't be unconstitional by definition, once it is part of the constitution.

Najitene is correct. It is impossible for the Constitution to be declared unconstitutional and CSW is also right. Once it is part of the Constitution of the United States, it cannot be declared unconstitutional.

And some continue to suggest that some things cannot be challenged as to Constitutionality...
It wouldn't be legal. Their votes wouldn't be counted as legal, and they should have passed the amendment before the election.

Again CSW is right! Are you following a pattern here? Your trying to argue something that has been proven time and time again.

And this one forst notes how the Supreme Court HAS done EXACTLY what I have said and then says they can't do it...
Getting back on topic, the Supreme Court has gutted amendments before. The most noticeable was the 14th. The Supreme Court gutted it in 1883. This lead to the widespeard use of Jim Crow laws (helped in Pleesy v. Ferguson) and the loss of civil and political rights by blacks in the South. Technically, they did it on the basis of the Constitution and states' rights. Should this have beeen done? I don't think so.

In the end, the Amendments have to triumph over the Court. That's the point of the whole amendment process. It's a way of affecting a widespead change without holding another Constitutional Convention. The justices cannot rule based on feelings, personal or political. The Court was put in place to see that Congress and the President didn't become tyranical.

There is a difference between gutting an amendment and declaring one unconstitutional. Also don't forget the time period back in 1883 as well as how the XIV was ratified. Also read up on the XIV! There is more to it than giving citizenship to blacks. Though the Blacks did have Citizenship, the South circumvented everything and did what they did and the courts, thanks partialy to threats, didn't enforce the XIV amendment. The Supreme Court hardly enforced the XIV amendment back then and now they are abusing the XIV amendment. Go Figure.

EDIT: And you should show more compassion -- its really cold, damp, and lonely under that bridge. ;)

Just like a troll. The only one under the bridge. As for Compassion? I maybe a religious man but meh, I go for the jugguler.

By page 5, post #75, Urantia's so frustated and confused he makes fun of himself!


Obviously Cat-Tribes CONTNUES TO LIE About just what is being presented there, obviously NOT UNDERSTANDING what it is HE has posted to the Thread...

The QUOTE was from a LINK provided by Cat-Tribe, which was REFUTED by the Link I provide.

The LOGIC is obviously LOST on Cat-Tribe.

But if HE is PROUD to continue to POINT OUT HIS OWN points as being funny, then who am I to stop HIM! :p

:rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

There is a difference between gutting an amendment and declaring one unconstitutional. Also don't forget the time period back in 1883 as well as how the XIV was ratified. Also read up on the XIV! There is more to it than giving citizenship to blacks. Though the Blacks did have Citizenship, the South circumvented everything and did what they did and the courts, thanks partialy to threats, didn't enforce the XIV amendment. The Supreme Court hardly enforced the XIV amendment back then and now they are abusing the XIV amendment. Go Figure.

Really!?!?

So it is called "Gutting" and NOT making it "toothless"...

Who would have known that I didn't get YOUR TERMINOLOGY Right!?!?! :rolleyes:

Or perhaps YOU wouldn't mind describing the difference betweent the two terms?!?! :rolleyes:

ROTFLMAO!!!

Regards,
Gaar

Really!?!?

So it is called "Gutting" and NOT making it "toothless"...

Who would have know that I didn't get YOUR TERMINOLOGY Right!?!?! :rolleyes:

Or perhaps YOU wouldn't mind describing the difference betweent the two terms?!?! :rolleyes:

ROTFLMAO!!!

Regards,
Gaar

When the KKK threatens you, you wouldn't enforce something either, especially at that time. Unenforcing it isn't the same as making it toothless by declaring a law unconstitutional.

When the KKK threatens you, you wouldn't enforce something either, especially at that time. Unenforcing it isn't the same as making it toothless by declaring a law unconstitutional.

That's YOUR reasonging behind why YOU called it "gutting" versus my calling it "toothless"?!?!

ROTFLMAO!!!

This is getting good!

Who had the popcorn? Can I get some, please? :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

Technically, guys, you've gone and gotten your terminology reversed.


Gutting is stopping by removal of enforcement laws, and cannot be done to an amendment.

Making toothless is stopping by non-enforcement of still on the books laws.


I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.

Technically, guys, you've gone and gotten your terminology reversed.

Gutting is stopping by removal of enforcement laws, and cannot be done to an amendment.

Making toothless is stopping by non-enforcement of still on the books laws.

I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.

And hence the reason I used "toothless" in regards to Amendments which would need to be changed to come back into compliance with the Constitution, and the "Laws" based on the Amendment "Ruled" UnConstitutional would not be "used" since they would have precedence, also mentioned in the first post, to not enforce the Law.

Regards,
Gaar

I wonder if this has the record yet, a 38 page 500+ reply trolling thread. It really belongs in the archives.

Technically, guys, you've gone and gotten your terminology reversed.


Gutting is stopping by removal of enforcement laws, and cannot be done to an amendment.

Making toothless is stopping by non-enforcement of still on the books laws.


I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.

Thanks for the correction. :D

Obviously Cat-Tribes CONTNUES TO LIE About just what is being presented there, obviously NOT UNDERSTANDING what it is HE has posted to the Thread...

The QUOTE was from a LINK provided by Cat-Tribe, which was REFUTED by the Link I provide.

The LOGIC is obviously LOST on Cat-Tribe.

But if HE is PROUD to continue to POINT OUT HIS OWN points as being funny, then who am I to stop HIM! :p

:rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

:rolleyes: <sigh> :rolleyes:

You've MADE that SAD CLAIM before.

HERE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8506515&postcount=83) is where YOU were PROVEN WRONG.

But keep telling yourself you make sense. Over and over. It'll keep you warm under the BRIDGE.

All those people who joined the other threads and referred to the clown show weren't laughing at me. :D

But that's OK. Derisive laughter must be better than being alone under the BRIDGE.

:rolleyes: <sigh> :rolleyes:

You've MADE that SAD CLAIM before.

HERE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8506515&postcount=83) is where YOU were PROVEN WRONG.
.

Here, shall we actually look at IT ALL...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8506060&postcount=75

That is the original quote YOU thought was my making fun of myself...

But if we look at what is said and then look at a QUOTE from the SECOND LINK THAT YOU LROVIDE in this Thread we find this...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1264

Over the course of this century, the Earth is expected to warm an additional 2.5 to 10.5 °F, depending on future emissions levels and on the climate sensitivity—a sustained global rate of change exceeding any in the last 10,000 years;
_______________________

Is that not a LINK and a QUOTE from that which YOU have provided?

Now perhaps YOU would like to go back and SEE what it was I said in the post YOU are laughing at?

Do you feel like you have been laughing AT YOURSELF for a WHILE NOW, or is it that YOU don't even KNOW what it is YOU have ESPOUSED on this Thread?

Looks like that Bridge ALREADY HAS someone beneath it...

Care to come out and tell everyone what you are LAUGHING ABOUT AGAIN under there?!?!

Yeah, I didn't think so... :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1264

Over the course of this century, the Earth is expected to warm an additional 2.5 to 10.5 °F, depending on future emissions levels and on the climate sensitivity—a sustained global rate of change exceeding any in the last 10,000 years;

Want to know something? Global Warming doesn't exist. Like to know something else? The Dark Ages were hotter than they are not. Like to know something else? We are leaving an Ice Age! OF COURSE IT'LL WARM UP!!!!

However, this is irrelevent to the thread at hand unless your going to tell me that it is unconstitutional that global warming is a THEORY and not a fact.

Here, shall we actually look at IT ALL...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8506060&postcount=75

That is the original quote YOU thought was my making fun of myself...

But if we look at what is said and then look at a QUOTE from the SECOND LINK THAT YOU LROVIDE in this Thread we find this...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1264

Over the course of this century, the Earth is expected to warm an additional 2.5 to 10.5 °F, depending on future emissions levels and on the climate sensitivity—a sustained global rate of change exceeding any in the last 10,000 years;
_______________________

Is that not a LINK and a QUOTE from that which YOU have provided?

Now perhaps YOU would like to go back and SEE what it was I said in the post YOU are laughing at?

Do you feel like you have been laughing AT YOURSELF for a WHILE NOW, or is it that YOU don't even KNOW what it is YOU have ESPOUSED on this Thread?

Looks like that Bridge ALREADY HAS someone beneath it...

Care to come out and tell everyone what you are LAUGHING ABOUT AGAIN under there?!?!

Yeah, I didn't think so... :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

Nice try. No cigar.

That is at least the 3rd explanation you've come with over the last 24 hours and several pages of thread.

I'm no longer laughing. This has gotten sad.

However, this is irrelevent to the thread at hand unless your going to tell me that it is unconstitutional that global warming is a THEORY and not a fact.

Understood...

And one is left to wonder why Cat-Tribes would feel the NEED to BRING IT UP on THIS THREAD, wouldn't you?!?!

Perhaps in an attempt to, YET AGAIN, change the subject so as to divert attention from the FACT the HE WON'T ADDRESS the FACTS presented and instead has to resort to ad Hominem attacks?

I WISH WE COULD just STICK TO THE SUBJECT!

Please Cat, can WE PLEASE!?!?

Regards,
Gaar

Nice try. No cigar.

That is at least the 3rd explanation you've come with over the last 24 hours and several pages of thread.

I'm no longer laughing. This has gotten sad.

Check all THREE, THEY SAY the SAME THING!

And I am HAVING to EXPLAIN IT THREE TIMES because YOU KEEP Bringing it UP, RIGHT!?!?!

Check the LINKS I PROVIDED, it isn't MY FAULT if YOU aren't aware of what the LINKS YOU PROVIDE SAY, is it?

Regards,
Gaar

Understood...

And one is left to wonder why Cat-Tribes would feel the NEED to BRING IT UP on THIS THREAD, wouldn't you?!?!

Perhaps in an attempt to, YET AGAIN, change the subject so as to divert attention from the FACT the HE WON'T ADDRESS the FACTS presented and instead has to resort to ad Hominem attacks?

I WISH WE COULD just STICK TO THE SUBJECT!

Please Cat, can WE PLEASE!?!?

Regards,
Gaar

Check all THREE, THEY SAY the SAME THING!

And I am HAVING to EXPLAIN IT THREE TIMES because YOU KEEP Bringing it UP, RIGHT!?!?!

Check the LINKS I PROVIDED, it isn't MY FAULT if YOU aren't aware of what the LINKS YOU PROVIDE SAY, is it?

Regards,
Gaar

<-- pats the nice troll on the head.

They are so darn CUTE when THEY get ANGRY and BABBLE.

<-- pats the nice troll on the head.

They are so darn CUTE when THEY get ANGRY and BABBLE.

I am now asking YOU to STOP the Trolling...

Since I started this Thread for a REASON and YOU don't seem to be able to STAY ON SUBJECT!

Anything I have said OFF TOPIC HERE has been IN ANSWER TO ONE OF YOUR TROLLINGS that are OFF TOPIC!

PLEASE STOP!

Regards,
Gaar

I am now asking YOU to STOP the Trolling...

Since I started this Thread for a REASON and YOU don't seem to be able to STAY ON SUBJECT!

Anything I have said OFF TOPIC HERE has been IN ANSWER TO ONE OF YOUR TROLLINGS that are OFF TOPIC!

PLEASE STOP!

Regards,
Gaar
Please please please stop abusing that poor shift key. What did it ever do to you?
I can't find a single post in this thread by you(that you didn't copy-paste) where this isn't the case. Oh the humanity!

Note: this is a simple request phrased in an intentionally insulting manner and not meant to be taken as a response to the content of the quoted post, if in fact there is any to be found.

Please please please stop abusing that poor shift key. What did it ever do to you?
I can't find a single post in this thread by you(that you didn't copy-paste) where this isn't the case. Oh the humanity!

Note: this is a simple request phrased in an intentionally insulting manner and not meant to be taken as a response to the content of the quoted post, if in fact there is any to be found.

Would YOU prefer if I "Bolded" some words, as some People do? And why is that any different?

:rolleyes:

Besides, the Habit seems to be Catching on... Have YOU seen the number of People doing it lately?

:D

Regards,
Gaar

Would YOU prefer if I "Bolded" some words, as some People do? And why is that any different?

:rolleyes:

Because we don't abuse it?

Besides, the Habit seems to be Catching on... Have YOU seen the number of People doing it lately?

:D

Because they are mocking YOU? You do know that your being mocked right?

Because they are mocking YOU? You do know that your being mocked right? Ok! I confess! I'm one of the biggest culprits of this. :D

Ok! I confess! I'm one of the biggest culprits of this. :D

It was quite obvious that he was being mocked. To bad he didn't see that he was being mocked.

Ahh... round 4 coming up. If 10 pages constitutes a round...

Edit: by constituting, I meant nothing regarding to the premises of this thread...

Because we don't abuse it?

Because they are mocking YOU? You do know that your being mocked right?

And who defines ABUSE?!?! YOU? :rolleyes:

What about People who use excessive "fluffles"?!?! Those annoy me, YOU think THEY are going to stop because it does?

Yes, I knew they were mocking. Isn't it strange how Hypocritical some can become simply because they don't like something...

:rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

And who defines ABUSE?!?! YOU? :rolleyes:

Nope not me.

What about People who use excessive "fluffles"?!?! Those annoy me, YOU think THEY are going to stop because it does?

Sorry they annoy you but I think there kinda cute :fluffle: :fluffle: You seem to need it :D

Yes, I knew they were mocking. Isn't it strange how Hypocritical some can become simply because they don't like something...

:rolleyes:

How were they being hypocritical?

How were they being hypocritical?

Something about exhibiting a behavior that THEY have ridiculed YOU don't get?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypocrisy

Regards,
Gaar

Something about exhibiting a behavior that THEY have ridiculed YOU don't get?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypocrisy

Regards,
Gaar

How were they being hypocritical?

How were they being hypocritical?

By CAPPING words themselves, after professing that such things annoyed them...

:rolleyes:

Or the biggest HYPOCRITE of them ALL...

Cat-Tribes:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8482696&postcount=211

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8482870&postcount=215

From THIS Thread, some 300+ posts ago.

YOU SEE the Hypocrisy there, don't you? :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

By CAPPING words themselves, after professing that such things annoyed them...

:rolleyes:

Or the biggest HYPOCRITE of them ALL...

Cat-Tribes:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8482696&postcount=211

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8482870&postcount=215

From THIS Thread, some 300+ posts ago.

YOU SEE the Hypocrisy there, don't you? :rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

Dude, they were mocking you. Since they were mocking you, they're not being hypocritical. You really need to brush up on the english language. Did you fail english in school?

Dude, they were mocking you. Since they were mocking you, they're not being hypocritical. You really need to brush up on the english language. Did you fail english in school?

No more that YOU failed Logic and Reasoning, why?

And do you suppose Cat-Tribe has just been "mocking" in all of the posts he has done since espousing that no one should discuss anything with me?

Or did YOU just MISS that part? Or deliberately avoid it because it doesn't "fit" YOUR little "Theory" there?!?!

That's what I thought...

Regards,
Gaar

No more that YOU failed Logic and Reasoning, why?

Because you decided that my arguements were wrong when infact they were based on Constitutional grounds. Did you fail logic and reasoning?

And do you suppose Cat-Tribe has just been "mocking" in all of the posts he has done since espousing that no one should discuss anything with me?

After reading your posts, I can't help but wonder if he has a point so I am going to say nope.

Or did YOU just MISS that part? Or deliberately avoid it because it doesn't "fit" YOUR little "Theory" there?!?!

Nope and nope.

That's what I thought...

You have a thought process? :D

Because you decided that my arguements were wrong when infact they were based on Constitutional grounds. Did you fail logic and reasoning?

Nope, I understand circular-Reasoning very well thank you...

And like MOST intelligent People I dismiss ANY PREMISE which uses it as its premise, doesn't surprise me that YOU don't however...

After reading your posts, I can't help but wonder if he has a point so I am going to say nope.

I see, so Hypocrisy IS NOT Hypocrisy, TO YOU, when YOU argee with what is being Espoused...

Again, that doesn't surprise me.

You have a thought process? :D

Yep, and at this point I can emphatically say that YOU do NOT!

Regards,
Gaar

Please stop abusing the common exclamation mark and question mark.



Thank you.

Nope, I understand circular-Reasoning very well thank you...

And like MOST intelligent People I dismiss ANY PREMISE which uses it as its premise, doesn't surprise me that YOU don't however...

I haven't use circular reasoning at all. I told you my answers and how I came about my answers. My answers come straight out of the Constitution. Where are yours coming from? Websites. You can't come up with a rebuttle without consulting a website.

I see, so Hypocrisy IS NOT Hypocrisy, TO YOU, when YOU argee with what is being Espoused...

Again, that doesn't surprise me.

I do know what the word hypocrisy and I haven't seen it. No, hypocracy is saying one thing and do another. Say I am against murder. I'm out there spouting that I'm against murder then committ a murder. That's hypocracy. All I see here is people mocking you for your random capitolizing of words. Mocking is not hypocracy.

Yep, and at this point I can emphatically say that YOU do NOT!

I can say that I do have a thought process. I've used my thought process quite extensively. You haven't used yours because your reasoning is coming from websites. Try rebutting something without using a website.

I haven't use circular reasoning at all. I told you my answers and how I came about my answers. My answers come straight out of the Constitution.

Law codifying the Law...

Something about circular-Reasoning YOU are having a hard time understanding?


I do know what the word hypocrisy and I haven't seen it. No, hypocracy is saying one thing and do another. Say I am against murder. I'm out there spouting that I'm against murder then committ a murder. That's hypocracy. All I see here is people mocking you for your random capitolizing of words. Mocking is not hypocracy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Hypocracy

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Hypocrisy

I can say that I do have a thought process. I've used my thought process quite extensively. You haven't used yours because your reasoning is coming from websites. Try rebutting something without using a website.

Perhaps YOU should consult a Website or two, now and again...

Then perhaps YOU wouldn't chastise someone for YOUR OWN mistakes, as noted here?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Law codifying the Law...

Something about circular-Reasoning YOU are having a hard time understanding?

How is using the Constitution to utterly destroy your arguements, which have been done, circular reasoning?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Hypocracy

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Hypocrisy

You don't have a dictionary at your desk so you have to use a website? Jeez, even I have a dictionary here at my desk. As for hypocracy, I just explained it to you. I guess you flunked Reading Comprehension?

Perhaps YOU should consult a Websit or two, now and again...

Then perhaps YOU wouldn't chastize someone for YOUR OWN mistakes, as noted here?!?!

Now this is funny. The only time I use a website is link stories to political arguements. This isn't a political arguement. For this type of arguement, I use my brain. I guess I should stop fighting an unarmed opponet!

How is using the Constitution to utterly destroy your arguements, which have been done, circular reasoning?

Again, I don't buy circular-Reasoning so you have "destroyed" NOTHING with it...

You don't have a dictionary at your desk so you have to use a website? Jeez, even I have a dictionary here at my desk. As for hypocracy, I just explained it to you. I guess you flunked Reading Comprehension?

Then perhaps YOU should USE IT!

I HAVE a Dictionary here...

It would have been a bit difficult SHOWING YOU it from here, so I used a Website that SHOWED YOU were incorrect...

And yet YOU didn't address that, why is that?

There is NO SUCH WORD as Hypocracy, or would YOU mind citing the Dictionary YOU are using that says there IS?

Now this is funny. The only time I use a website is link stories to political arguements. This isn't a political arguement. For this type of arguement, I use my brain. I guess I should stop fighting an unarmed opponet!

Or perhaps YOU would like to use a "cogent" argument to make your case?

Instead of the circular-Reasoning you HAVE BEEN using?

I guess not, it seems to be ALL YOU Know...

I hope you didn't PAY for that Education, if so, you might like to see if you can get your money back.

Regards,
Gaar

Again, I don't buy circular-Reasoning so you have "destroyed" NOTHING with it...

Show me where I have used circular reasoning. Seems to me that you can't since I've asked you this before and you haven't provided any evidence.

Then perhaps YOU should USE IT!

Use what? A dictionary? No need too. I know what hypocracy is and mocking isn't hypocracy. You need a fluffle :fluffle:

I HAVE a Dictionary here...

Then I suggest you look up the word mocking since that is what most of the people are doing. Mocking you isn't hypocracy by any stretches of the imagination.

It would have been a bit difficult SHOWING YOU it from here, so I used a Website that SHOWED YOU were incorrect...

I suggest you look up mocking. The people capitolizing random words have been mocking you. It isn't hypocracy.

And yet YOU didn't address that, why is that?

Because I don't need too when I know for a fact that I am right in this case?

There is NO SUCH WORD as Hypocracy, or would YOU mind citing the Dictionary YOU are using that says there IS?

And here I thought you had a dictionary. I believe you find Hypocracy in it so therefore it is a word.

Or perhaps YOU would like to use a "cogent" argument to make your case?

I have used cogent arguements! You've dismissed them. I have been nothing but cogent in my arguements.

Instead of the circular-Reasoning you HAVE BEEN using?

Care to point to it?

I guess not, it seems to be ALL YOU Know...

I could say something really bad here but then, that would be against my character.

I hope you didn't PAY for that Education, if so, you might like to see if you can get your money back.

I think it is you that needs to ask for money back because obviously, you've learned nothing in school.

Isn't it weird how they back up MY contention in the Constitution - UnConstitutional Thread...

:D

I wanted to show my appreciation... ;)

Regards,
Gaar

I moved this here so you won't accuse me of hijacking the other thread.

If you think my words from a third thread now quoted in your signature either support your position in this thread or contradict anything I (or your other primary opponents) have said here, then you (a) do not understand the quote, (b) do not understand your own position, (c) do not understand my or others statements here, and/or (d) all of the above.

If you need further assistance with these concepts, I'd be glad to help. :D

Have a nice day.

I moved this here so you won't accuse me of hijacking the other thread.

If you think my words from a third thread now quoted in your signature either support your position in this thread or contradict anything I (or your other primary opponents) have said here, then you (a) do not understand the quote, (b) do not understand your own position, (c) do not understand my or others statements here, and/or (d) all of the above.

If you need further assistance with these concepts, I'd be glad to help. :D

Have a nice day.

yes please, explain...

Instead of just saying something and expecting that the rest of us just TAKE YOUR WORD for ANYTHING!?!?

point by point please...

EDIT: And without the "Circular-Reasoning" and "Ad Hominem" attacks please. Since all reasonable People know THEY PROVE NOTHING!

Regards,
Gaar

yes please, explain...

Instead of just saying something and expecting that the rest of us just TAKE YOUR WORD for ANYTHING!?!?

point by point please...

Regards,
Gaar

"please explain" what?

Are you asking me to explain judicial review to you again?

Are you asking me to explain the quote? It would help if you tell me which part you do not understand.

Are you confused into thinking there is some contradiction? If you would point out the cause of your misunderstanding, I may be able to help.

I'd be glad to help you, but you have to want to be helped.

Have a nice day.

"please explain" what?

Are you asking me to explain judicial review to you again?

Are you asking me to explain the quote? It would help if you tell me which part you do not understand.

Are you confused into thinking there is some contradiction? If you would point out the cause of your misunderstanding, I may be able to help.

I'd be glad to help you, but you have to want to be helped.

Have a nice day.

How YOUR Quote doesn't support the premises made in the first post of this Thread... As I have asserted they do and YOU claim they do not.

Something YOU are having difficulty understanding about that? YOU were the one who said you could do it, right!?!?

Regards,
Gaar

How YOUR Quote doesn't support the premises made in the first post of this Thread... As I have asserted they do and YOU claim they do not.

Something YOU are having difficulty understanding about that? YOU were the one who said you could do it, right!?!?

Regards,
Gaar

Jeez ... calm down.

Here is your original post:

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! :D

Perhaps any one of the people railing on about my being an "uneducated" IDIOT would like to address any of this?

:rolleyes:

Regards,
Gaar

Here are my words for the other thread from which you are quoting excerpts:

I am not sure I understand your question.

The Constitution provides for the judiciary to interpret laws, including the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 37 (1803). (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html )

The Constitution -- particularly the Bill of Rights -- enumerates specific rights. It is true the rights are not self-executing and require some interpretation. Although all 3 branches of government should avoid infringing any of our rights, the judiciary is the ultimate enforcer and interpreter of our rights.

Setting aside whether rights are granted by government versus being natural or inalienable (which I don't think was your point), whether the judicial creates new rights is a matter of viewpoint. The judiciary does recognize rights that are not specifically enumerated as protected by the Constitution.

The system is not perfect. There is no way to have a pefect human institution. But I am not sure how you would propose our rights could be better protected.

In the portions you quote, my statements explain the power of judicial review. No one has denied the existence of such a power in this thread.

There is a difference between what would be a proper and an improper exercise of constitutional authority. The judiciary "can" do lots of things that would be unconstitutional. I am and have referred to what the judiciary is constitutionally empowered to do.

Nowhere did I say the Supreme Court can declare a portion of the Constitution itself unconstitutional.

Nowhere did I say the Supreme Court can contradict the Constitution by declaring expressly constitutional state action unconstitutional.

Nowhere did I say the Supreme Court can or has ever sought to render an Amendment "toothless" by falsely ruling that constitutional laws are unconstitutional.

I doubt this will help you, but I have tried.

Have a nice day.

Nowhere did I say the Supreme Court can declare a portion of the Constitution itself unconstitutional.

And I did? Please point out where...

Nowhere did I say the Supreme Court can contradict the Constitution by declaring expressly constitutional state action unconstitutional.

And neither did I, unless you can find where I have said that. I believe I have said they can be challenges on the undeclared Authority, which Authority IS expressly enumerated for the Federal Government, is it not?

Nowhere did I say the Supreme Court can or has ever sought to render an Amendment "toothless" by falsely ruling that constitutional laws are unconstitutional.

And where did I ever say anything about "falsely Ruling", YOU YOURSELF have pointed out that they have INDEED Ruled and as such made things UnConstitutional, have you not?

So again, instead of "putting words" in my Mouth and refuting things I have not said, perhaps YOU would be kind enough to Address what I HAVE said and not what YOU SAY I have said?

Shall we do it one line at a time so YOU can't change what I have said and perhaps YOU WILL actually address what I HAVE SAID?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: And without the "Circular-Reasoning" and "Ad Hominem" attacks please. Since all reasonable People know THEY PROVE NOTHING!
Given that this single quote defines pretty much this entire thread, and given that no one is remotely on-topic anymore and hasn't been for several pages ...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/lock2.gif

No, I'm not going to tackle all the trolling and flamebaiting in this thread. That would take a week, and I'd end up warning pretty much everyone in it, some multiple times. Let's just call it a do-over and end it.