55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 02:35 pm
@ican711nm,
now why doesn't this surprise me

you could still restrict the vote based on gender

During the beginning of the twentieth century, as women's suffrage gained in popularity, suffragists were subject to arrests and many were jailed. Finally, President Woodrow Wilson urged Congress to pass what became, when it was ratified in 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment which prohibited state and federal agencies from gender-based restrictions on voting.

and folks like OHB knew there place, nice time to pick ican
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 06:02 pm
@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.
Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
Amendment XVI (1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

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:
Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Section 8. The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Definition of imposts:
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=imposts&x=28&y=10
...
1 : something imposed or levied : TAX, TRIBUTE, DUTY


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.

djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 06:08 pm
meh, it just seems to me that all conservatives seem to think they want things to be the way they used to be and for them to stay that way, real forward thinking that

i'm going to run as a republican, my platform, forward into the past
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 06:31 pm
@ican711nm,
One small problem with the date you chose compared to your argument ican.
This from the 1895 ruling Pollack ican
Quote:
whether such uniformity means only territorial uniformity
or equality of right among all taxpayers of the same class


The court considered it territorially or class of taxpayer. It never considered the dollar as you claim.

I guess you are going to have to pick an earlier date ican.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 06:34 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


But I want to examine your reasoning that duties are the same as taxes ican.

Quote:
im·post 1 (mpst)
n.
1. Something, such as a tax or duty, that is imposed.


So.. that means an impost is the same as a duty and duty is the same as a tax?

So, taxes, duties, imposts are the exact same thing?

Are you really saying the founders used the same meaning 3 times in the sentence? Isn't that overly redundant?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 01:59 pm


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  4  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 02:35 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


'tax' is specifically excluded.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 08:59 pm
@parados,
Duties are taxes.

Imposts are taxes.

Excises are taxes.


Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=Duty&x=34&y=9
Main Entry: 1du·ty
...
4 a : a payment or service imposed by law or custom; especially : a charge payable to a government b : a sum paid as a tax on import, export, manufacture, or consumption of goods <no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state -- U.S. Constitution>
...

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=Impost&x=30&y=10
Main Entry: 1im·post
...
1 : something imposed or levied : TAX, TRIBUTE, DUTY

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=excises&x=22&y=8
Main Entry: 1ex·cise
...
1 ... : an internal tax, duty, or impost levied upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity within a country and usually forming an indirect tax that falls on the ultimate consumer c : any of various duties or fees levied on producers of excisable commodities d : any of various taxes upon privileges (as of engaging in a particular trade or sport, transferring property, or engaging in business in a corporate capacity) that are often assessed in the form of a license or other fee
...

Here's a demonstration of a simple logic concept.

Duties, imposts, and excises are taxes.

But duties are a different kind of tax than an impost or an excise.

But imposts are a different kind of tax than a duty or an excise.

But excises are a different kind of tax than a duty or an impost.


The symbols A, B, and C are letters.

But A is a different kind of letter than B or C.

But B is a different kind of letter than A or C.

But C is a different kind of letter than A or B.


"Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"



ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 09:32 pm
@parados,
ESTABLISHING A PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX WAS A HUGE MISTAKE THAT MUST BE CORRECTED TO REVERSE ITS CORRUPTION OF OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A UNIFORM FLAT TAX RATE ON GROSS INCOME SO THAT ALL INCOME EARNERS WOULD HAVE TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OPERATING COSTS.
Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913
The United States Revenue Act of 1913 also known as the Tariff Act, Underwood Tariff, or Underwood-Simmons Act (ch. 16, 38 Stat. 114, October 3, 1913), re-imposed the federal income tax following the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment and lowered basic tariff rates from 40% to 25%, well below the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909. It was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson on October 3, 1913, and was sponsored by Alabama Representative Oscar Underwood.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 11:17 pm
@ican711nm,
But taxes, as in income taxes, are none of those three things specifically enumerated. A progressive income tax has nothing to do with trade and importing.

Some states have a sales tax, some don't. Some states have income tax, some don't, some have higher and lower rates. How come you aren't whining about those state "taxes" which aren't uniform?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 04:36 am
Would not a court fee be a duty? Is this a tax now?

Speeding tickets?
Paying for a new copy of your birth certificate?

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 08:12 am
@ican711nm,

Is the income tax an impost, duty or excise? Or is it one of the other 26 letters that isn't a, b and c?

All taxes are not duties even though duties may be a kind of tax. All taxes are not excises even though excises may be a kind of tax. All taxes are not imposts even though imposts are a kind of tax.

So, we can clearly see there are many kinds of taxes but ONLY 3 kinds of taxes are subject to the uniform rule. So.. is the income tax a duty, excise or impost? Or is it a "direct tax" which can NOT be a duty, excise or impost.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 08:16 am
@ican711nm,
Quote:
ESTABLISHING A PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX WAS A HUGE MISTAKE THAT MUST BE CORRECTED TO REVERSE ITS CORRUPTION OF OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A UNIFORM FLAT TAX RATE ON GROSS INCOME SO THAT ALL INCOME EARNERS WOULD HAVE TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OPERATING COSTS.

That is a POLL tax ican. A poll tax is where you count the number of people and then charge a tax based on that number. It is per person. What does the constitution say about Poll taxes in article 1 section2?

Do you bother to read the constitution? Or do you only listen to what others have said about it?
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 08:46 am
http://i.imgur.com/o8jCW.png

Sums things up pretty well.

T
K
O
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 08:50 am
@Diest TKO,
Yeah.. it does
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 11:39 am
http://i471.photobucket.com/albums/rr73/djjd1962/rick-perry-and-sarah-palin-rally-th.jpg
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 11:40 am
@djjd62,
He's always had a big following amongst the Homescholer crowd

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  0  
Reply Wed 10 Feb, 2010 04:41 pm
Joe Bastardi of AccuWeather is predicting a future cooling trend, disses NOAA, Obama's New Federal Climate Service Effort, global warming computer models, and points out the economic importance of realistic forecasts for all.
Quote:
"Bastardi showed where long-range climate models diverge and explained three factors that are causing the earth to cool.

"Science and Public Policy Institute - take a look at this graph here - since the satellite era, you can see temperatures have been going up," Bastardi continued. "The computer models are up even higher, but we've leveled off in the past 10 or 15 years. The question is, with the natural reversal, the solar activity, the volcanic activity, what I have labeled the ‘Triple Crown of Cooling,' are we simply, in 20 or 30 years, going to be back to where we were 20 or 30 years ago.

And as Dr. William Gray, a hurricane forecaster at Colorado State University, has predicted, Bastardi said changes in the ocean are going to play a significant role in the cooling trend, as he had forecasted.

"Yes, I think that is the answer," Bastardi said. "Part of the reason we got this winter forecast right -- and again I'll show you this winter forecast - is I knew that with the Pacific cooling, we are getting back toward those times in the '60s and '70s. That's where winters are going to go. When the Pacific cools, the Atlantic cools, guess what happens? You cool those big bodies of water, you are going to cool the atmosphere around it. The models aren't capable of handling this. Look at the forecast or the guidance that came out of NOAA for the month of February. At this time, when this came out, we were forecasting brutal cold in February and a top 10 cold February for the United States to my clientele."
Bastardi explained the importance of having accurate weather and climate data and not have a monopoly on a government that could favor a certain policy measure. For example, he explained how this data is used in the private sector.

"I'll give you example what that means," Bastardi said. "You get this kind of guidance, someone that's a retailer, well we don't need any snow shovels; no big deal. Another company, say one of my companies, actually purchased more snow shovels this year because they felt it was - they trusted the forecast. So they made money."

However, with the federal government's entrance into the climate forecasting business, Bastardi said he fears the government would push out competitors and regulate thought."

More text and video here: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/02/10/accuweathers-bastardi-warns-new-federal-climate-service-effort-shut-down-

Joe is pretty good at what he does. I watch him faithfully when I'm down in Florida for those storms that might generate some righteous swells! Later, Dudes and Dudettes!Cool

JM
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 04:12 pm
@parados,
All duties, imposts and excises are taxes. The income tax is a tax that is an impost on the dollars of the incomes of individual persons, as opposed to an impost on individual persons.
Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=impost&x=26&y=7
Main Entry: 1im·post
...
1 : something imposed or levied : TAX, TRIBUTE, DUTY

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
Amendment XVI (1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=income&x=21&y=6
Main Entry: 1in·come
...
4 a : a gain or recurrent benefit that is usually measured in money and for a given period of time, derives from capital, labor, or a combination of both, includes gains from transactions in capital assets, but excludes unrealized advances in value : commercial revenue or receipts of any kind except receipts or returns of capital -- see EARNED INCOME, GROSS INCOME, NET INCOME, UNEARNED INCOME; compare PROFIT, WAGE b : the value of goods and services received by an individual in a given period of time -- compare WEALTH

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=gross+income
Main Entry: gross income
...
1 : the total of all revenue or receipts usually for a given period except receipts or returns of capital
2 : all income derived from any source except for items specifically excluded by law and deductions of certain outlays (as cost of goods sold or expenses in connection with rental income)

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article I, Section 8.
The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Feb, 2010 06:17 pm
@ican711nm,
You were homesholed in constitutional law, right, Ican?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.25 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 07:31:48