Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As due process of law was instituted through PA laws and performed through legal institutions established by those laws
Government educations are just sad. What you are doing is taking "due process of law" and guessing what it means as a general English definition of the words words used. The Constitution is using them for the specific meaning of that term in a legal system. The legislature isn't involved in "due process of law" by definition. Do some internet self learning and come back
To be clear, taxes are collected for what programs the people have chosen through their representatives. And upon payment, the tax money no longer belongs to the tax payer.What a pompous ass. Throwing out literary terms while swishing on the actual discussion. LOL. You really are impressed by those terms, aren't you? That's funny.Tyranny of the majority is an exception to the rule of law, either you support a law (singular) or you oppose it using reason; as a stand alone phrase - tyranny of the majority - to describe our democratic republic is foolish. The rule of law repeals arbitrary decrees and the genius of COTUS provides checks and balances to protect the rights of the minority.
Maybe you clowns ought to consider taking a course in comparative governments, and while you're at it courses in expository writing and Introductory courses in Psychology and Social Psychology - it would do you and the other clowns a world of good (you might make sense).
Tyranny of the majority is when majority vote away the rights of the minority. Like taking their money by force and redistributing it.
You do realize that when tax money is collected its no longer owned by the person who paid, right?
Thus its not 'their' money that is 'redistributed'. Its the people's money. Your entire argument is predicated on the original tax payer maintaining unique ownership of the tax money they've paid. Which, of course, they aren't.
How then is taxation 'theft'? It isn't. How then is the representative's of the people choosing to spend the people's money 'theft'? It isn't.
And 'plop'. Your entire argument leaves a brown streak on the bowl as its flushed down.
Forcing private businesses to let grown men go into locker rooms where teenage girls are changing and showering, forcing citizens to bake each other cakes, forcing citizens to buy medical policies from corporations, removing the right of business owners and employees to negotiate their own agreements. Everything you people spend all day doing.
The regulation of intrastate commerce is the authority of the State. If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?
Commerce is within the public sphere.
So just to be clear, taxes are not to fund government programs, they are just to give the government money. That is your standard
Your argument is predicated on the absurd assumption that the money is still the unique property of the tax payer who paid their taxes.
It isn't. Obviously so.
Oh, and you never did answer my question:
If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?
No, my argument is predicated on that government sets up a program to give someone government money, then they go to someone else and take it by force to give it to them.
The rest is just you word parsing. Government is taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. You can't word parse your way out of that
As due process of law was instituted through PA laws and performed through legal institutions established by those laws
Government educations are just sad. What you are doing is taking "due process of law" and guessing what it means as a general English definition of the words words used. The Constitution is using them for the specific meaning of that term in a legal system. The legislature isn't involved in "due process of law" by definition. Do some internet self learning and come back
Show us where in the constitution the definition of 'due process' is offered. Or where administrative judges were found to be unconstitutional and a violation of due process.
And of course, we're talking about STATE legislatures and STATE bureaus and STATE judges. You do realize that, yes?
To be clear, taxes are collected for what programs the people have chosen through their representatives. And upon payment, the tax money no longer belongs to the tax payer.What a pompous ass. Throwing out literary terms while swishing on the actual discussion. LOL. You really are impressed by those terms, aren't you? That's funny.
Tyranny of the majority is when majority vote away the rights of the minority. Like taking their money by force and redistributing it.
You do realize that when tax money is collected its no longer owned by the person who paid, right?
Thus its not 'their' money that is 'redistributed'. Its the people's money. Your entire argument is predicated on the original tax payer maintaining unique ownership of the tax money they've paid. Which, of course, they aren't.
How then is taxation 'theft'? It isn't. How then is the representative's of the people choosing to spend the people's money 'theft'? It isn't.
And 'plop'. Your entire argument leaves a brown streak on the bowl as its flushed down.
Forcing private businesses to let grown men go into locker rooms where teenage girls are changing and showering, forcing citizens to bake each other cakes, forcing citizens to buy medical policies from corporations, removing the right of business owners and employees to negotiate their own agreements. Everything you people spend all day doing.
The regulation of intrastate commerce is the authority of the State. If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?
Commerce is within the public sphere.
So just to be clear, taxes are not to fund government programs, they are just to give the government money. That is your standard
Your argument is predicated on the absurd assumption that the money is still the unique property of the tax payer who paid their taxes.
It isn't. Obviously so.
Oh, and you never did answer my question:
If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?
No, my argument is predicated on that government sets up a program to give someone government money, then they go to someone else and take it by force to give it to them.
The money 'given' to someone else isn't the individual tax payer's. Its the people's money. How then can something be 'stolen' from someone ......who doesn't own it?
The rest is just you word parsing. Government is taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. You can't word parse your way out of that
Laughing....acknowledging that when you pay your taxes, the money you pay isn't yours anymore is 'word parsing'?
Does your conception of ownership extend to say, the supermarket? You pay for a sandwich....but the money you give them is still yours?
Your conception of ownership is simply a fallacy. You just don't know what you're talking about.
As due process of law was instituted through PA laws and performed through legal institutions established by those laws
Government educations are just sad. What you are doing is taking "due process of law" and guessing what it means as a general English definition of the words words used. The Constitution is using them for the specific meaning of that term in a legal system. The legislature isn't involved in "due process of law" by definition. Do some internet self learning and come back
Show us where in the constitution the definition of 'due process' is offered. Or where administrative judges were found to be unconstitutional and a violation of due process.
And of course, we're talking about STATE legislatures and STATE bureaus and STATE judges. You do realize that, yes?
Google "definition due process"
To be clear, taxes are collected for what programs the people have chosen through their representatives. And upon payment, the tax money no longer belongs to the tax payer.You do realize that when tax money is collected its no longer owned by the person who paid, right?
Thus its not 'their' money that is 'redistributed'. Its the people's money. Your entire argument is predicated on the original tax payer maintaining unique ownership of the tax money they've paid. Which, of course, they aren't.
How then is taxation 'theft'? It isn't. How then is the representative's of the people choosing to spend the people's money 'theft'? It isn't.
And 'plop'. Your entire argument leaves a brown streak on the bowl as its flushed down.
The regulation of intrastate commerce is the authority of the State. If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?
Commerce is within the public sphere.
So just to be clear, taxes are not to fund government programs, they are just to give the government money. That is your standard
Your argument is predicated on the absurd assumption that the money is still the unique property of the tax payer who paid their taxes.
It isn't. Obviously so.
Oh, and you never did answer my question:
If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?
No, my argument is predicated on that government sets up a program to give someone government money, then they go to someone else and take it by force to give it to them.
The money 'given' to someone else isn't the individual tax payer's. Its the people's money. How then can something be 'stolen' from someone ......who doesn't own it?
The rest is just you word parsing. Government is taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. You can't word parse your way out of that
Laughing....acknowledging that when you pay your taxes, the money you pay isn't yours anymore is 'word parsing'?
Does your conception of ownership extend to say, the supermarket? You pay for a sandwich....but the money you give them is still yours?
Your conception of ownership is simply a fallacy. You just don't know what you're talking about.
Your word parsing is irrelevant.
As due process of law was instituted through PA laws and performed through legal institutions established by those laws
Government educations are just sad. What you are doing is taking "due process of law" and guessing what it means as a general English definition of the words words used. The Constitution is using them for the specific meaning of that term in a legal system. The legislature isn't involved in "due process of law" by definition. Do some internet self learning and come back
Show us where in the constitution the definition of 'due process' is offered. Or where administrative judges were found to be unconstitutional and a violation of due process.
And of course, we're talking about STATE legislatures and STATE bureaus and STATE judges. You do realize that, yes?
Google "definition due process"
Google is the constitution now? Can we take it from your abandonment of the text of the constitution for google....that you couldn't find your assumptions represented anywhere in the actual constitution?
You've made the argument that fines levied by state bureaus through administrative judges is unconstitutional.
You provide the evidence to back your case.
And you can't.
And just to be clear, you saying it must be so means exactly jack shit constitutionally. So show us. Don't tell us.
As due process of law was instituted through PA laws and performed through legal institutions established by those laws
Government educations are just sad. What you are doing is taking "due process of law" and guessing what it means as a general English definition of the words words used. The Constitution is using them for the specific meaning of that term in a legal system. The legislature isn't involved in "due process of law" by definition. Do some internet self learning and come back
Show us where in the constitution the definition of 'due process' is offered. Or where administrative judges were found to be unconstitutional and a violation of due process.
And of course, we're talking about STATE legislatures and STATE bureaus and STATE judges. You do realize that, yes?
Google "definition due process"
Google is the constitution now? Can we take it from your abandonment of the text of the constitution for google....that you couldn't find your assumptions represented anywhere in the actual constitution?
You've made the argument that fines levied by state bureaus through administrative judges is unconstitutional.
You provide the evidence to back your case.
And you can't.
And just to be clear, you saying it must be so means exactly jack shit constitutionally. So show us. Don't tell us.
Who is "we" queen Elizabeth? Is that the royal we? You and your penis? The voices in your head? You have dozens of people sitting in your room with you as you type? Or you just envision hundreds of readers hanging on your every word absorbing and relishing every word? You have ego problems? Is it too inflated or you just don't have the stones to believe your opinion is worth shit on it's own and you need the validation of others.
All you're doing is restating your assertions again. We get what you *believe*. Your personal opinion has been noted. Your problem is that you can't back any of that with actual evidence.So anyway, your majesty, your google comment was infantile. The COTUS says in the fifth amendment you cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. You don't know what due process is and aren't interested in curing your own ignorance. But forcing a baker to bake a cake for another citizen is a clear violation of their liberty and that they have to use their own resources to do it is a clear violation of their property.
So you completely abandoned your 'tax request' jibberish. Good. That's progress.
Just so that we're clear, State PA laws are completely constitutional, yes? Lets settle that issue first before we move on to your conception of 'aggression'.
So you completely abandoned your 'tax request' jibberish. Good. That's progress.
I haven't abandoned anything.
Just so that we're clear, State PA laws are completely constitutional, yes? Lets settle that issue first before we move on to your conception of 'aggression'.
My argument isn't that they are unconstitutional.
Government educations are just sad. What you are doing is taking "due process of law" and guessing what it means as a general English definition of the words words used. The Constitution is using them for the specific meaning of that term in a legal system. The legislature isn't involved in "due process of law" by definition. Do some internet self learning and come back
Show us where in the constitution the definition of 'due process' is offered. Or where administrative judges were found to be unconstitutional and a violation of due process.
And of course, we're talking about STATE legislatures and STATE bureaus and STATE judges. You do realize that, yes?
Google "definition due process"
Google is the constitution now? Can we take it from your abandonment of the text of the constitution for google....that you couldn't find your assumptions represented anywhere in the actual constitution?
You've made the argument that fines levied by state bureaus through administrative judges is unconstitutional.
You provide the evidence to back your case.
And you can't.
And just to be clear, you saying it must be so means exactly jack shit constitutionally. So show us. Don't tell us.
Who is "we" queen Elizabeth? Is that the royal we? You and your penis? The voices in your head? You have dozens of people sitting in your room with you as you type? Or you just envision hundreds of readers hanging on your every word absorbing and relishing every word? You have ego problems? Is it too inflated or you just don't have the stones to believe your opinion is worth shit on it's own and you need the validation of others.
You dedicated a whole paragraph to personal attacks? That's quite the tell you've got there.
All you're doing is restating your assertions again. We get what you *believe*. Your personal opinion has been noted. Your problem is that you can't back any of that with actual evidence.So anyway, your majesty, your google comment was infantile. The COTUS says in the fifth amendment you cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. You don't know what due process is and aren't interested in curing your own ignorance. But forcing a baker to bake a cake for another citizen is a clear violation of their liberty and that they have to use their own resources to do it is a clear violation of their property.
Show us that administrative judges or PA laws are unconstitutional. You citing you isn't evidence. Its just more useless personal opinion.
To be clear, taxes are collected for what programs the people have chosen through their representatives. And upon payment, the tax money no longer belongs to the tax payer.So just to be clear, taxes are not to fund government programs, they are just to give the government money. That is your standard
Your argument is predicated on the absurd assumption that the money is still the unique property of the tax payer who paid their taxes.
It isn't. Obviously so.
Oh, and you never did answer my question:
If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?
No, my argument is predicated on that government sets up a program to give someone government money, then they go to someone else and take it by force to give it to them.
The money 'given' to someone else isn't the individual tax payer's. Its the people's money. How then can something be 'stolen' from someone ......who doesn't own it?
The rest is just you word parsing. Government is taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. You can't word parse your way out of that
Laughing....acknowledging that when you pay your taxes, the money you pay isn't yours anymore is 'word parsing'?
Does your conception of ownership extend to say, the supermarket? You pay for a sandwich....but the money you give them is still yours?
Your conception of ownership is simply a fallacy. You just don't know what you're talking about.
Your word parsing is irrelevant.
The fact that when you pay your taxes....the money you pay isn't yours anymore isn't 'word parsing'. Its the huge, gaping, bleeding hole in your argument.
As how can you 'steal' something from someone.....when they don't own it?
You have no answer.....as there is none. Your entire argument is a laughable fallacy.
Really? Because you omitted any mention I made of it and now refuse to discuss the topic.
Keep running. Like before, your abandonment of your own argument doesn't really matter. As your argument never did.
So we agree they are constitutional, yes?
If I have to ask you a third time, it becomes blatantly obvious that you're running from my question. Once we've established that the State most definitely does have the power to regulate intrastate commerce, we can move on to whether or not they should.
Really? Because you omitted any mention I made of it and now refuse to discuss the topic.
Keep running. Like before, your abandonment of your own argument doesn't really matter. As your argument never did.
So we agree they are constitutional, yes?
If I have to ask you a third time, it becomes blatantly obvious that you're running from my question. Once we've established that the State most definitely does have the power to regulate intrastate commerce, we can move on to whether or not they should.
You have a tendency to go off on tangents. So I'm purposely not answering questions that have nothing to do with my actual argument.
My argument is: A law is unjust if it results in violence being used against someone who hasn't violated anyone's person or property.
If you don't want to address that, then...whatever.
You.Robbery, theft by trick, extortion, theft, burglary, murder, fraud, rape, kidnapping, assault, battery.But what do you mean by 'initiating aggression'? Is more of your 'War of Northern Aggression' nonsense? Or something new?
Who is the 'they' in your 'why can't they just admit that they're the ones who are committing unethical acts by initiating aggression'?
Laughing.....by *typing*? If so, your standard of 'aggression' has a hair trigger and a glass jaw.
To be clear, taxes are collected for what programs the people have chosen through their representatives. And upon payment, the tax money no longer belongs to the tax payer.What a pompous ass. Throwing out literary terms while swishing on the actual discussion. LOL. You really are impressed by those terms, aren't you? That's funny.Tyranny of the majority is an exception to the rule of law, either you support a law (singular) or you oppose it using reason; as a stand alone phrase - tyranny of the majority - to describe our democratic republic is foolish. The rule of law repeals arbitrary decrees and the genius of COTUS provides checks and balances to protect the rights of the minority.
Maybe you clowns ought to consider taking a course in comparative governments, and while you're at it courses in expository writing and Introductory courses in Psychology and Social Psychology - it would do you and the other clowns a world of good (you might make sense).
Tyranny of the majority is when majority vote away the rights of the minority. Like taking their money by force and redistributing it.
You do realize that when tax money is collected its no longer owned by the person who paid, right?
Thus its not 'their' money that is 'redistributed'. Its the people's money. Your entire argument is predicated on the original tax payer maintaining unique ownership of the tax money they've paid. Which, of course, they aren't.
How then is taxation 'theft'? It isn't. How then is the representative's of the people choosing to spend the people's money 'theft'? It isn't.
And 'plop'. Your entire argument leaves a brown streak on the bowl as its flushed down.
Forcing private businesses to let grown men go into locker rooms where teenage girls are changing and showering, forcing citizens to bake each other cakes, forcing citizens to buy medical policies from corporations, removing the right of business owners and employees to negotiate their own agreements. Everything you people spend all day doing.
The regulation of intrastate commerce is the authority of the State. If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?
Commerce is within the public sphere.
So just to be clear, taxes are not to fund government programs, they are just to give the government money. That is your standard
Your argument is predicated on the absurd assumption that the money is still the unique property of the tax payer who paid their taxes.
It isn't. Obviously so.
Oh, and you never did answer my question:
If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?
No, my argument is predicated on that government sets up a program to give someone government money, then they go to someone else and take it by force to give it to them. The rest is just you word parsing. Government is taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. You can't word parse your way out of that
This thread's been going on for quite some time, I still haven't learned what's evil about the position that it's wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man.
To be clear, taxes are collected for what programs the people have chosen through their representatives. And upon payment, the tax money no longer belongs to the tax payer.
Your argument is predicated on the absurd assumption that the money is still the unique property of the tax payer who paid their taxes.
It isn't. Obviously so.
Oh, and you never did answer my question:
If the people of a State decide against 'white only lunch counters', why would they lack the authority to make this rule?
No, my argument is predicated on that government sets up a program to give someone government money, then they go to someone else and take it by force to give it to them.
The money 'given' to someone else isn't the individual tax payer's. Its the people's money. How then can something be 'stolen' from someone ......who doesn't own it?
The rest is just you word parsing. Government is taking money from one citizen and giving it to another. You can't word parse your way out of that
Laughing....acknowledging that when you pay your taxes, the money you pay isn't yours anymore is 'word parsing'?
Does your conception of ownership extend to say, the supermarket? You pay for a sandwich....but the money you give them is still yours?
Your conception of ownership is simply a fallacy. You just don't know what you're talking about.
Your word parsing is irrelevant.
The fact that when you pay your taxes....the money you pay isn't yours anymore isn't 'word parsing'. Its the huge, gaping, bleeding hole in your argument.
As how can you 'steal' something from someone.....when they don't own it?
You have no answer.....as there is none. Your entire argument is a laughable fallacy.
What about the government takes money from you and gives it to yourself do you not understand?
This thread's been going on for quite some time, I still haven't learned what's evil about the position that it's wrong to initiate aggression against one's fellow man.
