Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 09:32 am
That was not posited in the original thought exercise, but, supposing that were true, you would need only verify the validity of the ratification documents, and, i'd say, you'd be in business.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 09:32 am
Setanta wrote:
tryingtohelp wrote:
Also, were you aware that Article IV Section IV of the Constitution says "The
United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,...."


This not just false--it's stupid. The Republican Party did not exist at the time the Constitution was amended, and had not even yet been conceived of.


I can hear fine, no need to repeat yourself. You say it is false and stupid. Then why is it written in our Constitution? Look it up for yourself. I even gave you the Article and Section numbers. It is in the the original Constitution, not an ammendment.

BTW I agree with paying taxes, just not the way it is done.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 12:17 pm
Setanta wrote:
That was not posited in the original thought exercise, but, supposing that were true, you would need only verify the validity of the ratification documents, and, i'd say, you'd be in business.

That's ok, I just wanted to see how many idiotic questions I could pose, based on that idiotic hypothetical. The result: two.

As has already been pointed out on this thread, the entire "Ohio is not a state" meme has been thoroughly throttled by the courts on numerous occasions. Anyone who advances such a cockamamie theory is certain of defeat and risks substantial penalties (see, e.g., Miller v. United States).
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 12:34 pm
It is false and stupid because you attempted to link the use of the adjective "Republican" to the Republican Party--this is the relevant portion of your original post:

tryingtohelp wrote:
Also, were you aware that Article IV Section IV of the Constitution says "The
United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,...."


I knew there was a reason I favored Republicans Very Happy


I realize that this was an attempt (feeble) at humor, however, anyone with an ounce of knowledge of the times knows that the use of the adjective republican refers to a government of elective represenatives, and not to the Republican Party.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 01:06 pm
Setanta wrote:
It is false and stupid because you attempted to link the use of the adjective "Republican" to the Republican Party--this is the relevant portion of your original post:

tryingtohelp wrote:
Also, were you aware that Article IV Section IV of the Constitution says "The
United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,...."


I knew there was a reason I favored Republicans Very Happy


I realize that this was an attempt (feeble) at humor, however, anyone with an ounce of knowledge of the times knows that the use of the adjective republican refers to a government of elective represenatives, and not to the Republican Party.



I wasn't attempting to use humor, believe me when I say I actually lack it. I do not even get the meaning of jokes most of the time. You said it was false and I replied back it is not. I never made an attempt to interpret the meaning of the sentence. I only quoted what is written in the Constitution. I also don't claim to have an ounce of knowledge because the last time I checked the word "ounce" is a measure of weight and my knowledge cannot be weighed. If it could it might just be 0. It would be nice if you would smile once in a while or at least pretend to.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 01:08 pm
I was attempting to be charitable in suggesting that your reference to Republicans was an attempt at humor--however, given your last response, allow me to re-assess, and suggest that ounce was far too generous--i'll drop that to gram . . .
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 01:31 pm
Setanta wrote:
I was attempting to be charitable in suggesting that your reference to Republicans was an attempt at humor--however, given your last response, allow me to re-assess, and suggest that ounce was far too generous--i'll drop that to gram . . .



How about a compromise and we go with 1/2 gram with a smile?
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 01:34 pm
BTW it looks like your dog is smiling.
I hope you have a nice day Setanta.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 01:34 pm
I don't do either emoticons, or milligrams of sense or knowledge--however, your assumption that i don't smile is unwarranted, and appears to me to be an attempt to achieve what you had before denied was your objective--humor. I happen to find this entire thread humorous, so perhaps you'll be content with that.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 01:38 pm
Setanta wrote:
I don't do either emoticons, or milligrams of sense or knowledge--however, your assumption that i don't smile is unwarranted, and appears to me to be an attempt to achieve what you had before denied was your objective--humor. I happen to find this entire thread humorous, so perhaps you'll be content with that.


Sounds fair to me.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 02:24 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Setanta wrote:
That was not posited in the original thought exercise, but, supposing that were true, you would need only verify the validity of the ratification documents, and, i'd say, you'd be in business.

That's ok, I just wanted to see how many idiotic questions I could pose, based on that idiotic hypothetical. The result: two.

As has already been pointed out on this thread, the entire "Ohio is not a state" meme has been thoroughly throttled by the courts on numerous occasions. Anyone who advances such a cockamamie theory is certain of defeat and risks substantial penalties (see, e.g., Miller v. United States).
From what I read; that isn't Bob's objection. His argument is in who is included statutorily as Tax Payers. Don't quote me, as I'm doing this from memory, but according to him the original law requires Tax from those who earn their money from the sale of liquor, tobacco and firearms, citizens doing business abroad, foreigners doing business in the US and residents of US territories like Puerto Rico. He maintains that the majority of income earners are not included because no language was present in the original law to suggest they were... at the time or ratification... which is contrary to the way laws are supposed to be written (or some such thing). Again from memory; he next claims that when the definition was broadened to include everyone, the IRS had no such authority to do so.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 02:27 pm
If that is his argument, it is bootless. The entire text of the XVIth Amendment is:

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 or enumeration. (emphasis added)
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 02:30 pm
tryingtohelp wrote:
It would be nice if you would smile once in a while or at least pretend to.


That's not permitted, TTH.

You are a newbie, and Setanta is required by his code to be cross and overbearing towards you.
0 Replies
 
Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 02:33 pm
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 02:34 pm
No problem for me, Try, i've been amused from the outset--except for a brief period when it appeared that you thought you actually had a good argument . . . then i just rolled my eyes and bowed out until the hilarity resumed.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 02:44 pm
tryingtohelp wrote:
BTW it looks like your dog is smiling.
I hope you have a nice day Setanta.


thass my geriatric puppy and she smiles all the time, especially when Set's around Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 02:56 pm
Beth, I am not surprised, having seen those black boots Set wears, it brought a smile to my face, and conclusively proves he has a wicked sense of humor despite his best efforts to conceal it.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 04:15 pm
My memory was a bit faulty, sorry. Embarrassed This appears to be a summary of his arguments.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 04:33 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Setanta wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
parados wrote:
Burying an amendment in a jar isn't one of the ways to amend the constitution.

What if the buried amendment says that burying amendments in jars shall be a permissible way to amend the constitution?


It would still have been invalid until such time as it had been ratified, and therefore have amended the constitutionally acceptable manner of amending the constitution.

Next.

What if all of the necessary state ratifications are also in the jar?

I would ask for the shovel. Hit you over the head then rebury the jar and your body next to it. :wink:
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Dec, 2006 06:57 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
My memory was a bit faulty, sorry. Embarrassed This appears to be a summary of his arguments.


Quote:

Read the Facts and Judge the Truth for Yourself:



• The original Constitution prohibits the Congress from laying a DIRECT (income) tax on the People unless it is in PROPORTION to the states (the last census).
Fails to address the issue that the constitution has been amended which makes what the original Constitutution said moot. The original constitution said slaves were only 3/5 of a person and slaves were not freed until the •

Quote:
Our income tax conflicts with the original constitution: it is a DIRECT tax (the Supreme Court and numerous federal courts have declared it so) and it has not been laid in PROPORTION to the States.
It's called the 16th amendment.
Quote:

• The IRS (and the New York Times) say our income tax, although DIRECT and UNAPPORTIONED, is constitutional because the 16th Amendment did away with the original requirement that all DIRECT taxes must be in PROPORTION to the states.
The courts say that too.
Quote:
The courts have ruled that Bill Benson's argument is not a valid argument.
Quote:

• When Mr. Benson took his charge of FRAUD to federal court, the court declared that it was a political question for Congress to decide. (Editor's note: Since when is fraud a political question?).
Actually the 7th District appeals court said in 1991 in US v Benson..
"As the district court noted, we have repeatedly
rejected the claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was
improperly ratified. See, e.g., United States v. Foster,
789 F.2d 457, 461-63 (7th Cir. 1986); Thomas, 788 F.2d
at 1253; United States v. Ferguson, 793 F.2d 828, 831
(7th Cir. 1986); Lysiak v. C.I.R., 816 F.2d 311, 312 (7th
Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Accord United States v. Sitka,
845 F.2d 43 (2d Cir. 1988); United States v. Stahl, 792
F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986). [**24] One would think this
repeated rejection of Benson's Sixteenth Amendment
argument would put the matter to rest."

Quote:


• The Congressional Research Service immediately declared Benson's charge of FRAUD to be a question for the courts.
Which the courts have answered and will no longer hear arguments on because it has been answered repeatedly.
Quote:

Benson spent over 400 days in jail finding out this wasn't true.
Quote:

• The current income tax law does NOT apply to most Americans.
Another argument that has been soundly rejected by the US courts whether the claim was it only applies to the DC area or residents of states are not residents of the US.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2020 at 12:21:06