Remembering why the Bill of Rights was not part of Constitution and why the income...

[EdwardBaiamonte]

tax was unconstitutional:

1) Many of our Founders were afraid that if government got the right to protect free speech, for example, they would instead eliminate it.

Such was the fear of liberal government.

2) the income tax was ruled unconstitutional because it was a direct tax, i.e., a direct tax on a person's income that could not be avoided, whereas before taxes had been on transactions that one could much more easily avoid by simply not making a particular transaction.

Such was the disdain for what liberal government could do with our money versus what we could do with our own hard earned money.

 

[Joe Steel]

tax was unconstitutional:

1) Many of our Founders were afraid that if government got the right to protect free speech, for example, they would instead eliminate it.

Such was the fear of liberal government.

2) the income tax was ruled unconstitutional because it was a direct tax, i.e., a direct tax on a person's income that could not be avoided, whereas before taxes had been on transactions that one could much more easily avoid but simply not making a particular transaction.

Such was the disdain for what liberal government could do with our money versus what we could do with our own hard earned money.

It's not your money. Property rights are created by government so if the government says it's their money, it's their money.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

tax was unconstitutional:

1) Many of our Founders were afraid that if government got the right to protect free speech, for example, they would instead eliminate it.

Such was the fear of liberal government.

2) the income tax was ruled unconstitutional because it was a direct tax, i.e., a direct tax on a person's income that could not be avoided, whereas before taxes had been on transactions that one could much more easily avoid but simply not making a particular transaction.

Such was the disdain for what liberal government could do with our money versus what we could do with our own hard earned money.

It's not your money. Property rights are created by government so if the government says it's their money, it's their money.

Our Republican Founders believed that the right to own property was a natural right bestowed upon us by God, not an ephemeral right subject to the revenue needs or whims of a metastatic, treasonous liberal government.

 

[Joe Steel]

It's not your money. Property rights are created by government so if the government says it's their money, it's their money.

Our Republican Founders believed that the right to own property was a natural right bestowed upon us by God, not an ephemeral right subject to the revenue needs or whims of a metastatic, treasonous liberal government.

No matter what they said or what you think they said, rights only exist when the can be enforced by law. That demands a statute or legal document to present to a judge not the recollections of conversations with God.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is no god. Anything having to do with god is absolute bullshit. Human beings make the decisions.

 

[pinqy]

tax was unconstitutional:

1) Many of our Founders were afraid that if government got the right to protect free speech, for example, they would instead eliminate it.

Absolutely untrue, and completely contradicts the concept of inherent rights.

2) the income tax was ruled unconstitutional because it was a direct tax,

No, the ruling was that an income tax on income derived from property (rents etc) was the same as a tax on the property and therefore a direct tax and must be apportioned among the states. An earlier decision on income tax had allowed the tax on income derived from property.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Absolutely untrue, and completely contradicts the concept of inherent rights.

dear you have to say why the Bill of Rights was not part of the Constitution or admit to being a very very slow liberal!! Sorry!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the income tax was ruled unconstitutional because it was a direct tax,
on people that could not be avoided, thus the government had more power and control than it deserved

No, the ruling was that an income tax on income derived from property (rents etc) was the same as a tax on the property and therefore a direct tax .

too stupid!!! a direct tax was unconstitutional because it could not be be avoided like an excise or transaction tax. The Federal governemnt was not allowed that kind of direct control over innocent citizens

 

[g5000]

tax was unconstitutional:

1) Many of our Founders were afraid that if government got the right to protect free speech, for example, they would instead eliminate it.

Such was the fear of liberal government.

2) the income tax was ruled unconstitutional because it was a direct tax, i.e., a direct tax on a person's income that could not be avoided, whereas before taxes had been on transactions that one could much more easily avoid by simply not making a particular transaction.

Such was the disdain for what liberal government could do with our money versus what we could do with our own hard earned money.

Cites? Because I have more than one that proves your second assertion is wrong.

 

[g5000]

The chief reason there was no Bill of Rights was because some of our founders were concerned that delineating rights which were inalienable would imply other rights were not. And this is evidenced by the fact the tenth amendment was added to eliminate that concern.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

tax was unconstitutional:

1) Many of our Founders were afraid that if government got the right to protect free speech, for example, they would instead eliminate it.

Such was the fear of liberal government.

2) the income tax was ruled unconstitutional because it was a direct tax, i.e., a direct tax on a person's income that could not be avoided, whereas before taxes had been on transactions that one could much more easily avoid but simply not making a particular transaction.

Such was the disdain for what liberal government could do with our money versus what we could do with our own hard earned money.

It's not your money. Property rights are created by government so if the government says it's their money, it's their money.

Property rights are created by the government, therefore the government has a right to take your property?

How can anyone with two or more brain cells believe that?

What about wealth, does the government create that, too?

 

[g5000]

the income tax was ruled unconstitutional because it was a direct tax,
on people that could not be avoided, thus the government had more power and control than it deserved

No, the ruling was that an income tax on income derived from property (rents etc) was the same as a tax on the property and therefore a direct tax .

too stupid!!! a direct tax was unconstitutional because it could not be be avoided like an excise or transaction tax. The Federal governemnt was not allowed that kind of direct control over innocent citizens

Again, I ask for cites. Because you are dead wrong. Property taxes are a direct tax and they have been with us since the founding.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

There is no god. Anything having to do with god is absolute bullshit. Human beings make the decisions.

How do you know?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The chief reason there was no Bill of Rights was because some of our founders were concerned that delineating rights which were inalienable would imply other rights were not. And this is evidenced by the fact the tenth amendment was added to eliminate that concern.

that was secondary reason, here is first!!

The idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argued against a "Bill of Rights," asserting that ratification of the Constitution did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, and, therefore, that protections were unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations

In both cases you can see that everyone was afraid of what libturd government might do, while today liberals race to get government more and more powers. Liberals are anti-American.

 

[g5000]

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person,when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.

Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice

 

[g5000]

The chief reason there was no Bill of Rights was because some of our founders were concerned that delineating rights which were inalienable would imply other rights were not. And this is evidenced by the fact the tenth amendment was added to eliminate that concern.

that was secondary reason, here is first!!

The idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argued against a "Bill of Rights," asserting that ratification of the Constitution did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, and, therefore, that protections were unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations

In both cases you can see that everyone was afraid of what libturd government might do, while today liberals race to get government more and more powers. Liberals are anti-American.

You need to read all of Federalist 84. Hamilton makes the very argument I stated.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

 

[Sallow]

tax was unconstitutional:

1) Many of our Founders were afraid that if government got the right to protect free speech, for example, they would instead eliminate it.

Such was the fear of liberal government.

2) the income tax was ruled unconstitutional because it was a direct tax, i.e., a direct tax on a person's income that could not be avoided, whereas before taxes had been on transactions that one could much more easily avoid by simply not making a particular transaction.

Such was the disdain for what liberal government could do with our money versus what we could do with our own hard earned money.

Except the bill of rights is part of the Constitution.

 

[g5000]

tax was unconstitutional:

1) Many of our Founders were afraid that if government got the right to protect free speech, for example, they would instead eliminate it.

Such was the fear of liberal government.

2) the income tax was ruled unconstitutional because it was a direct tax, i.e., a direct tax on a person's income that could not be avoided, whereas before taxes had been on transactions that one could much more easily avoid by simply not making a particular transaction.

Such was the disdain for what liberal government could do with our money versus what we could do with our own hard earned money.

Except the bill of rights is part of the Constitution.

It was not in the beginning. The Constitution was ratified without it.

 

[Care4all]

ratified without it, but with a promise of the Bill of rights to be introduced and passed by the very first congress

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

tax was unconstitutional:

1) Many of our Founders were afraid that if government got the right to protect free speech, for example, they would instead eliminate it.

Such was the fear of liberal government.

2) the income tax was ruled unconstitutional because it was a direct tax, i.e., a direct tax on a person's income that could not be avoided, whereas before taxes had been on transactions that one could much more easily avoid by simply not making a particular transaction.

Such was the disdain for what liberal government could do with our money versus what we could do with our own hard earned money.

Except the bill of rights is part of the Constitution.

It was not in the beginning. The Constitution was ratified without it.

good for you, you can conjugate your verbs while Sallow cant. Was and is are not the same word and now he knows it too!!