Quote:The law of America is the Constitution. All Federal statutes, including Title 26 of the USC, must adhere to the Constitution.
Title 26 is not positive law, and as such listed in the Federal Register as applicable to everyone.
(Read that again: TITLE 26 IS NOT LISTED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER)
Title 26 is "special law", applicable only to those who choose to volunteer into its jurisdiction.
Comprendo?
No, I don't comprende. Your argument is rather silly. The US Code isn't listed in the Federal Register? So what? It doesn't make the US Code not exist because it isn't specifically listed there as it is laid out as US Code.
As I understand it all laws passed are published in the Federal Register. Because the majority of Title 26 isn't listed online in the register that is only available from 1996 on does NOT mean that the laws were never listed there nor that the amendments made to them over the years were not listed.
What is this "positive law" argument? What kind of nonsense requires that law be "positive"? There is no such requirement in the constitution that laws be "positive". There is no requirement in the constitution that laws be published in the Federal Register. You complain about vagueness in the laws but your arguments go so far beyond vague. They are ethereal and phantasmagorical. They have absolutely no substance or basis in reality.
Who did you steal that piece from Tryagain?
I don't buy that YOU have studied constitutional law.
Unless your real name is Omar Swartz, it seems the person you stole from stole much of there argument from here.
http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2004/69/swartz.html
Lets see what Swartz had to say about legal positivism...
Quote:Legal positivism, however, is an incomplete system of legal philosophy. Although the issue of the separation of law and morality may be important for an academic discussion of the "nature" of law, the practice of legal criticism does not depend on theoretical orthodoxy. Pragmatic approaches to legal criticism are viable. A social critic of law can acknowledge that human morality is contingent and unconnected to legal norms, and, at the same time, recognize that humans impose moral norms. These moral norms can serve as a ground for which the morality of a law can be judged. Under this view, slavery is wrong, but not because slavery is an "unnatural" human social position or because slavery displeases God. Rather, slavery is wrong because slavery is hurtful, degrading, selfish, and repugnant, leading to militarism, heightened internal security, and to the impoverishment of the non-slave labor community. Slavery, in a pragmatic sense, is counter-productive to a world in which peace, prosperity, mutuality, social stability, and interdependence between all people should be considered normative values. The same can be written about Nazism, the subject that follows.
Are you arguing for or against "positive laws" Try? Or are you just posting stuff that other people have spouted without understanding its true meaning?
Parados eloquently wrote, "Unless your real name is Omar Swartz
"
Hmmm! It does have a certain ring to it; my alleged cousin Omar barrack in the White House and me as financial secretary. I will give the matter some consideration.
"I don't buy that YOU have studied constitutional law."
May I enquire if English is your first language; because what is there about:
"I didn't
Tryagain wrote:Parados eloquently wrote, "Unless your real name is Omar Swartz
"
Hmmm! It does have a certain ring to it; my alleged cousin Omar barrack in the White House and me as financial secretary. I will give the matter some consideration.
"I don't buy that YOU have studied constitutional law."
May I enquire if English is your first language; because what is there about:
"I didn't
I think I understand the English language just fine.. lets look at your sentence
Quote:
I didn't study constitutional law for six years to elucidate it's legal concept in a few meagre sentences
The statement clearly states you DID study law for six years but not for the purpose of explaining it in a few meagre sentences. There is no way a native English speaker of even moderate intelligence could read that sentence to mean you never studied constitutional law.
Quote:Despite your vitriolic attacks on my person I note with a degree of mirth that you fail to confront one single fiscal fact.
Are taxes a positive law? Or are taxes a natural law?
Without you saying which you think taxes are I see no reason to respond to NJ tax and spend policies. It has nothing to do with your "positive" law argument until you tie it in by telling us whether tax law is postive law or natural law.
Just to remind you of your earlier argument Try.. you stated..
Quote:Title 26 is not positive law, and as such listed in the Federal Register as applicable to everyone.
(Read that again: TITLE 26 IS NOT LISTED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER)
Title 26 is "special law", applicable only to those who choose to volunteer into its jurisdiction.
So, if Title 26 is NOT positve law then based on your present argument that would mean it must be natural law.
This is what you have just said Jefferson said about "natural law"..
Quote:"Laws of Nature" and to "Nature's God."
These entities, argued Jefferson, "entitled" the colonies to independence.
Such independence was further warranted because God granted people "unalienable Rights" to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
As Jefferson asserted, such propositions are "self-evident."
Are you telling us that income tax is "self-evident"? It seems you are.
Parados asks, "Are you telling us that income tax is "self-evident"? It seems you are."
Quite the opposite; it is made up law for administrative purposes - NOT Statute law.
How about this then
THE POWER TO DESTROY
IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability
Lawyer is acquitted after arguing income levy lacks legal foundation.
July 26, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer's challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.
"I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.
And before you consign him to the legions of "tin foil hat brigades" who argue against paying taxes, and then want payment to explain how to do that, he addresses the issue up front.
"These snake oil peddlers have conned millions of dollars out of many well-intended patriots and left a trail of broken lives in their wake.
These charlatans should be avoided, not only because they will lead you to bankruptcy and prison, but because by association they discredit those who are telling the truth," he said.
Although the legal citations in the case tend to run the length of paragraphs, Cryer told WND the underlying issue is not that complicated. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest.
He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily make the compensation income.
If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution.
"The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority," he said.
For example, he said, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate education, or employment, and agriculture, yet it does so.
The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said.
"There are three points that are important," he told WND. "There's no law making the average working man liable [for income taxes], there's no law or regulation that allows the IRS to contend that earnings are 100 percent profit received in exchange for nothing, and the right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, and it is exempt from taxation."
Spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington's IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, "I can't comment."
Cryer's encounter with tax law began more than a decade ago when a friend told him the income tax was sham. Cryer started researching, hoping to keep his friend out of trouble. But his conclusions, after years of research, were exactly what his friend told him.
He researched not only tax laws, but also the documents pertaining to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution as well as the first income tax.
He said throughout his battle, he's offered at every turn to pay taxes if the IRS could show him the authorization, and that never has happened.
"The Criminal Investigation Division and Department of Justice both responded only with 'your position is frivolous.' I had never stated a position, so how could they know whether it was frivolous?" he said. "Imagine my sending you a bill for $1,000 and when you call me and ask what the bill was for I simply said, 'that position is frivolous, just write the check and send it in.'"
His acquittal, he said, was a precedent because it means "people can see and recognize the truth."
He said multiple Supreme Court opinions have affirmed an individual's ownership of his or her own labor, and "exercising your fundamental rights" is not taxable. "It is definitely a trade. What most people receive in the form of wages, salaries or in my case fees that they personally earned for their labor is not received in exchange for nothing."
He said there might be a profit that should be taxable, but there might not.
"The IRS lets Wal-Mart sell a trillion dollars worth of goods, but they can back out their cost of goods [before being taxed,]" he said. "The IRS considers, in the case of a Wal-Mart wage earner, 100 percent of what he takes in is profit."
"But he's using his life, energy and work lifespan, and depleting it as he goes," Cryer told WND. "[Working] is a God-given fundamental right that is protected under the Constitution and can't be taxed any more than exercising freedom of speech."
While he waits to see what, if anything, the IRS and Justice Department will do next in his case, he's working to coordinate the groups that are battling taxation as unconstitutional.
"I have started a campaign to unify [the work] and we've got a number of organizations that are sponsoring and supporting this campaign," he said. The goal is to get everyone "who is aware of the truth" organized so they can spread the word.
He warned without a restoration of constitutional basics, the nation is lost.
"Read your Constitution and you will see that the federal role does not include ANY authority to regulate or tax any citizen directly and that WE expressly reserved the right to rule and govern ourselves as States, not as mere political subdivisions."
"The Constitution does not allow the government to run your lives, but the money it is stealing from millions of Americans is the fuel for its over-reaching and kibitzing. Take the money back and we and our states and communities can again be free," he said.
The fight is over "our FREEDOM from rule by a DISTANT RULER, just as we fought to free ourselves of a distant England over 200 years ago," he said.
Game set and match; exactly what I have been saying!
Keep up to date with A2K and save a bundle.
Yes, this is just another example of how the IRS will never show people that statute requiring average people like you and I to pay an income tax.
It is also the biggest reason I am suspicious of the validity of the income tax. They would rather lose a court case than show the law... The IRS guy in the article says he cannot comment.. What kind of garbage is that?
If I tell my neighbor he owes me $1,000 and when he asks me why I say 'no comment' it makes about as much sense.
Time after time,. they never, Never, NEVER, NEVER show the law.
WHY NOT?
Interesting how WND completely misrepresents what Cryer was found not guilty of.
Richard Saunders wrote:Yes, this is just another example of how the IRS will never show people that statute requiring average people like you and I to pay an income tax.
It is also the biggest reason I am suspicious of the validity of the income tax. They would rather lose a court case than show the law... The IRS guy in the article says he cannot comment.. What kind of garbage is that?
If I tell my neighbor he owes me $1,000 and when he asks me why I say 'no comment' it makes about as much sense.
Time after time,. they never, Never, NEVER, NEVER show the law.
WHY NOT?
That is so true it needs high lightening; perhaps Parados can quote chapter and verse, maybe his congressman could help out?
Can one be a State Citizen, without also being a federal citizen?
Yes. The 1866 Civil Rights Act was municipal law, confined to the District of Columbia and other limited areas where Congress is the "state" government with exclusive legislative jurisdiction there. These areas are now identified as "the federal zone." (Think of it as the blue field on the American flag; the stars on the flag are the 50 States.) As such, the 1866 Civil Rights Act had no effect whatsoever upon the lawful status of State Citizens, then or now.
Several courts have already recognized our Right to be State Citizens without also becoming federal citizens. For excellent examples, see State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889) and Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155, 48 S. 788, 791 (1909). The Maine Supreme Court also clarified the issue by explaining our "Right of Election" or "freedom of choice," namely, our freedom to choose between two different forms of government. See 44 Maine 518 (1859), Hathaway, J. dissenting.
Since the Guarantee Clause does not require the federal government to guarantee a Republican Form of Government to the federal zone, Congress is free to create a different form of government there, and so it has. In his dissenting opinion in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 at 380 (1901), Supreme Court Justice Harlan called it an absolute legislative democracy.
But, State Citizens are under no legal obligation to join or pledge any allegiance to that legislative democracy; their allegiance is to one or more of the several States of the Union (i.e. the white stars on the American flag, not the blue field).
Tryagain wrote:
That is so true it needs high lightening; perhaps Parados can quote chapter and verse, maybe his congressman could help out?
Chapter and verse has been quoted on here and rather than responding you two have ignored it and continued pretending that it has never been pointed out.
26 U.S.C. § 1
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual
26 U.S.C. § 61
[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
26 U.S.C. § 6151
[W]hen a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).
26 U.S.C. § 6012(a)
Returns with respect to income taxes * * * shall be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount * * *.
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm
Which part of the law do you think is ambiguous or doesn't apply to you? Are you not an individual? Do you not have gross income as defined by the law? Notice that the law specifically says "compensation for services". Are you saying when you work for someone they are not paying you for your service.
Of course, rather than discussing the actual law, Tryagain will post another diatribe he will steal from the internet without attribution. Richard will disappear for a week or so and then come back to claim no one has shown him the law. Neither of you will discuss the law as laid out here because to do so would put a rather large hole in your ignorant arguments.
parados wrote:Tryagain wrote:
That is so true it needs high lightening; perhaps Parados can quote chapter and verse, maybe his congressman could help out?
Chapter and verse has been quoted on here and rather than responding you two have ignored it and continued pretending that it has never been pointed out.
26 U.S.C. § 1
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual
26 U.S.C. § 61
[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
26 U.S.C. § 6151
[W]hen a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).
26 U.S.C. § 6012(a)
Returns with respect to income taxes * * * shall be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount * * *.
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm
Which part of the law do you think is ambiguous or doesn't apply to you? Are you not an individual? Do you not have gross income as defined by the law? Notice that the law specifically says "compensation for services". Are you saying when you work for someone they are not paying you for your service.
Of course, rather than discussing the actual law, Tryagain will post another diatribe he will steal from the internet without attribution. Richard will disappear for a week or so and then come back to claim no one has shown him the law. Neither of you will discuss the law as laid out here because to do so would put a rather large hole in your ignorant arguments.
Parados, Ive read that law and I understand your beliefs on it. MY question is why the IRS will not quote that same law if it is indeed applicable.. They absolutely, unequivocally NEVER cite the law requiring people to pay income tax. That raises a serious eyebrow for me. Why do they not cite the law? They would rather lose a court case than cite a law. It simply doesnt make sense.. and if it doesnt make sense then there is a lie somewhere.
None so blind as those who get their facts from websites written by tax protestors. They tend to misrepresent facts.
Find me an actual transcript from a trial and show me where this occurred. I bet you can't. I won't hold my breath while I wait.
Your next argument will be that the judge "refused to allow the question to be asked." The judge doesn't need the IRS to cite a specifc in the law to know what the law is. The law is there for every person including judges to read and it is easy for them to understand it.
Just for the record, you did NOT address the law in any fashion as I said. You only introduced a red herring that is not supported with any facts.
Parados in his never-ending quest to prove the earth is flat writes and not for the first time
"Chapter and verse has been quoted on here and rather than responding you two have ignored it and continued pretending that it has never been pointed out.
26 U.S.C. § 1
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual"
I have on numerous occasions marvelled at the ineluctable acerbity of another diatribe at my forlorn attempt to subtly learn him.
If I may address your concerns by quoting the learned correspondent, broadcaster and raconteur; Tryagain
again!
"The United States Code (USC) is a compilation of the United States Statutes at Large. It is the US Statutes at Large that are ultimate evidence of the laws governing the United States. The USC is put together by the Office of the Law Revision Council of the US House of Representatives in order to simplify administration of the laws. The US Statutes at Large are kept in chronological order and contain all amendments, repeals, etc.
This makes the Statutes at large difficult to reference. The USC is kept in order of subject matter and changed to reflect the current status of amendments, repeals etc. Some portions of the USC are fairly static. These sections are then proposed to become "positive" laws, meaning that, once approved, the section in the USC will become the current Statute. For Statutes subject to frequent revision, the USC section never has time to move through the process to become "positive".
The law of America is the Constitution. All Federal statutes, including Title 26 of the USC, must adhere to the Constitution.
(Read that again: TITLE 26 IS NOT LISTED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER)
As it is NOT there, it is NOT law
..period.
If you are still blinded by prejudice, please by all means find a quote by the IRS confirming your hypotheses.
.
In the meantime while we grow old:
Who was Frank Brushaber, and why was his U.S. Supreme Court case so important?
Well, Frank Brushaber was the Plaintiff in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the first U.S. Supreme Court case to consider the so‑called 16th amendment. Brushaber identified himself as a Citizen of New York State and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn, in the city of New York, and nobody challenged that claim.
The Union Pacific Railroad Company was a federal corporation created by Act of Congress to build a railroad through Utah (from the Union to the Pacific), at a time when Utah was a federal Territory, i.e. inside the federal zone.
Brushaber's attorney committed an error by arguing that the company had been chartered by the State of Utah, but Utah was not a State of the Union when Congress first created that corporation.
Brushaber had purchased stock issued by the company. He then sued
the company to recover taxes that Congress had imposed upon the dividends paid to its stockholders. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Frank Brushaber, and upheld the tax as a lawful excise, or indirect tax.
The most interesting result of the Court's ruling was a Treasury Decision ("T.D.") that the U.S. Department of the Treasury later issued as a direct consequence of the high Court's opinion. In T.D. 2313, the U.S. Treasury Department expressly cited the Brushaber decision, and it identified Frank Brushaber as a "nonresident alien" and the Union Pacific Railroad Company as a "domestic corporation". This Treasury Decision has never been modified or repealed.
T.D. 2313 is crucial evidence proving that the income tax provisions of the IRC are municipal law, with no territorial jurisdiction inside the 50 States of the Union. The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury who approved T.D. 2313 had no authority to extend the holding in the Brushaber case to anyone or anything not a proper Party to that court action.
Thus, there is no escaping the conclusion that Frank Brushaber was the nonresident alien to which that Treasury Decision refers. Accordingly, all State Citizens are nonresident aliens with respect to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress, i.e. the federal zone.
Quote:The law of America is the Constitution. All Federal statutes, including Title 26 of the USC, must adhere to the Constitution.
(Read that again: TITLE 26 IS NOT LISTED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER)
As it is NOT there, it is NOT law
..period.
Really? Where in the constitution does it require that laws be listed in the Federal Register before they can be laws? There is no such requirement. The only requirement to become a law is passage by both houses of congress and signing by the President or a veto override if not signed by the President. (I pointed this out before when you brought up this silly argument and you failed to answer then.)
Sorry Tryagain. You don't get to make up rules. Since there is nothing in the US constitution requiring that laws be published in the Federal Register then could you point me to the law that requires it. Keep in mind you will need to find that law published in the Federal Register before it can be a law if we follow you idiotic logic.
I quoted the law as signed by the President. You didn't address the law. You made up some silly argument that laws aren't laws even if they are passed as required by the constitution. Go read the constitution before you make such outlandish comments. A 4th grader would know you are wrong.
From the US constitution
Quote:Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
A bill becomes law when signed by the President, when his veto is overturned by both houses, or 10 days after he receives it without signing it provided Congress is not adjourned. Your argument that it must be printed in the Federal Registry is NOWHERE to be found in the constitution. Title 26 is law as required by the Constitution.
Now that we have established you don't know how a bill becomes law perhaps you can deal with the law itself.
Lets look into your next lie..
Quote:Who was Frank Brushaber, and why was his U.S. Supreme Court case so important?
Well, Frank Brushaber was the Plaintiff in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the first U.S. Supreme Court case to consider the so‑called 16th amendment. Brushaber identified himself as a Citizen of New York State and a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn, in the city of New York, and nobody challenged that claim.
Brushaber was the plaintiff... the ruling can be found here..
Brushaber v Union Pacific
Please point out where Brushaber claims to be a resident of any state as you have just claimed.
Quote:
The most interesting result of the Court's ruling was a Treasury Decision ("T.D.") that the U.S. Department of the Treasury later issued as a direct consequence of the high Court's opinion. In T.D. 2313, the U.S. Treasury Department expressly cited the Brushaber decision, and it identified Frank Brushaber as a "nonresident alien" and the Union Pacific Railroad Company as a "domestic corporation". This Treasury Decision has never been modified or repealed.
T.D. 2313 is crucial evidence proving that the income tax provisions of the IRC are municipal law, with no territorial jurisdiction inside the 50 States of the Union. The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury who approved T.D. 2313 had no authority to extend the holding in the Brushaber case to anyone or anything not a proper Party to that court action.
Thus, there is no escaping the conclusion that Frank Brushaber was the nonresident alien to which that Treasury Decision refers. Accordingly, all State Citizens are nonresident aliens with respect to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress, i.e. the federal zone.
Your argument is at its heart a logical fallacy. Lets look at what you have said before about court rulings....
Tryagain wrote:
For the record, and contrary to whatever Parados has written; a winning argument may be used by others.
Wait? You are suddenly arguing that the government CAN'T use a winning argument?
Which is it Tryagain? Can winning arguments be extended beyond the people in a case or not? Actually, the ruling in Brushaber said something quite different from your claim. Brushaber v Union Pacific states that the income tax is constitutional. That means it it constitutional in all instances not just in the case of Brushaber.
The court also ruled in Brushaber that the Congress could delegate enforcement authority for taxation to the Secretary of the Treasury and since the IRS is under the Secretary of the Treasury it would mean the IRS is also legal.
Parados wrote, "There is no way a native English speaker of even moderate intelligence could read that sentence to mean you never studied constitutional law."
"Now that we have established you don't know how a bill becomes law perhaps you can deal with the law itself."
Confused! So am I; still it's good to note:
"A 4th grader would know you are wrong."
As any long suffering reader of this denunciation will have noticed is; we have gone up a grade from last time.
I am led to believe Parados is on vacation so I feel safe enough to post a rejoinder:
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true
Quote:"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." ~ Homer Simpson
You seem to be oblivious of why Homer said this but you are certainly using it in the same fashion as he did.
OK Homer... Listen up...
Rather than deal with any of the issues you quote me about you just raise another red herring...
Do you understand that the sentence you probably stole from someone else means they spent 6 years studying constitutional law? Why are you refusing to deal with the simple English that you mangled?
Do you have anything even remotely supporting your claim that laws aren't laws until they are printed in the Federal Registry? You have refused to supply anything when you were asked at least twice already? Will the third time be the charm that you will actually try to answer? I am betting not. I listed the actual constitutional language for how laws come into being. You have listed nothing.
But we can all still note that you have failed to address any of the law as cited. And rather than deal with the law, you just change the topic to something else again. As you have done repeatedly on this thread.
Parados wrote, "But we can all still note that you have failed to address any of the law as cited. And rather than deal with the law, you just change the topic to something else again. As you have done repeatedly on this thread."
Yes, I can see how that could be mildly irritating. However, this is about democracy and who pays for it. I cite historical fact; you on the other hand just parrot the official party line.
Let's get down to cases:
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.
