@djjd62,
I posted:
The day before the day the Supreme Court decided the Constitution was a "living document" such that the powers the Constiitution granted the federal government could be amended--that is, reinterpreted--by a majority of Congress, the President, and a majority of the Supreme Court, in addition to being amendable according to Article V of the Constitution.
I recollect that day was between January 1 and December 31, 1913.
djjd62 wrote:you could still restrict the vote based on gender
...
nd folks like OHB knew there place, nice time to pick ican
The 19th Amendment was adopted in strict accord with Article V of the Constitution of the USA, "the supreme law of the land."
I am not objecting to any lawfully adopted amendments to the Constitution.
I am objecting to amendments to the Constitution that have not been lawfully adopted, but have instead been unlawfully adopted by majority votes of both houses of Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court.
For example, in 1913, the 16th Amendment lawfully granted the federal government the power to tax incomes.
But the income tax laws for a PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX were unlawfully adopted by Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. What was their excuse? They all claimed that the following not lawfully amended part of Article I, Section 8 doesn't mean what it says:
Definition of
imposts:
Congress, President Wilson, and the Supreme Court decided that
uniform meant that the tax law,
whatever it is, has to be the same throughout the United States--in other words, they falsely claimed that non-uniform imposts are ok as long as they are the same non-uniform imposts in each state.
Definition of
uniform:
Quote:
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8
Main Entry: 1uni·form
...
1 : marked by lack of variation, diversity, change in form, manner, worth, or degree : showing a single form, degree, or character in all occurrences or manifestations
...
2 : marked by complete conformity to a rule or pattern or by similarity in salient detail or practice
...>
3 : marked by unvaried and changeless appearance (as of surface, color, or pattern)
...
4 : consistent in conduct, character, or effect : lacking in variation, deviation, or unequal or dissimilar operation <the constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization
...
They all decided on their own definition of
uniform, despite evidence it did not conform to original interpretations of the not lawfully amended Constitutional law. I want that kind of behavior stopped, and I want us to return to not lawfully amended Constitutional law as described in the folowing:
Quote:USSC 1895:
Pollock v. Farmer loan and Trust, the USSC in 1895, wrote:
The uniformity thus required is the uniformity throughout the United States of the duty, impost, and excise levied; that is, the tax levied cannot be one sum upon an article at one [157 U.S. 429, 593] place, and a different sum upon the same article at another place. The duty received must be the same at all places throughout the United States, proportioned to the quantity of the article disposed of, or the extent of the business done. If, for instance, one kind of wine or grain or produce has a certain duty laid upon it, proportioned to its quantity, in New York, it must have a like duty, proportioned to its quantity, when imported at Charleston or San Francisco; or if a tax be laid upon a certain kind of business, proportioned to its extent, at one place, it must be a like tax on the same kind of business, proportioned to its extent, at another place. In that sense, the duty must be uniform throughout the United States.
...
'The difficulties in the way of this construction have, however, been very largely obviated by the meaning of the word [157 U.S. 429, 595] 'uniform,' which has been adopted, holding that the uniformity must refer to articles of the same class; that is, different articles may be taxed at different amounts, provided the rate is uniform on the same class everywhere, with all people, and at all times.
In other words, any dollar of income cannot be lawfully taxed differently than any other dollar of income.
Quote:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm
THE FEDERALIST PAPERS
Specifically:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed36.asp
Hamilton No. 36
Let it be recollected that the proportion of these taxes is not to be left to the discretion of the national legislature, but is to be determined by the numbers of each State, as described in the second section of the first article. An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule, a circumstance which effectually shuts the door to partiality or oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have been provided against with guarded circumspection. In addition to the precaution just mentioned, there is a provision that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States.''
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp
Madison No. 41
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.
''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp
Madison No. 45
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
