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

[Pheonixops]

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.

Who were the "Republican Founders"? What party were they a member of?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Any amendment is as much as part of the Constitution as any other Article.

EB has a very hard time accepting the Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were statists in matters of taxation and Big Government power.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

...

GO AWAY!​

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Massachusetts, the Constitution ran into serious, organized opposition. Only after two leading Anti-federalists, Adams and Hancock, negotiated a far-reaching compromise did the convention vote for ratification on February 6, 1788 (187–168). Anti-federalists had demanded that the Constitution be amended before they would consider it or that amendments be a condition of ratification; Federalists had retorted that it had to be accepted or rejected as it was. Under the Massachusetts compromise, the delegates recommended amendments to be considered by the new Congress, should the Constitution go into force. The Massachusetts compromise determined the fate of the Constitution, as it permitted delegates with doubts to vote for it in the hope that it would be amended.

Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

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.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Any amendment is as much as part of the Constitution as any other Article.

EB has a very hard time accepting the Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were statists in matters of taxation and Big Government power.

and without Hamilton and Adams (Washington sided with them as did many others) America would not have been prepared to fulfill the role fate was to lay out for her.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Except the bill of rights is part of the Constitution.

Any amendment is as much as part of the Constitution as any other Article.

EB has a very hard time accepting the Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were statists in matters of taxation and Big Government power.

and without Hamilton and Adams (Washington sided with them as did many others) America would not have been prepared to fulfill the role fate was to lay out for her.

Baimonte with sided with the conservatives in the Royal administrations.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wrong. Rights are not a result. They are rules that tell us which laws are just and which are unjust.

That demands a statute or legal document to present to a judge not the recollections of conversations with God.

So if a legal statute says I can own another human being, that doesn't violate anyone's rights?

You have to be really stupid to believe what you just posted.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

dear, our country is based on natural inalienable rights that are not subject to government whims. That way liberal government cant take them away. Now you've got the basics.

 

[Clementine]

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?

Liberals think so. Some people are willing to cede all rights, liberties and their free will to an oppressive government that promises to take care of them.

It's absolute bullshit that anything we earn belongs to government. They have twisted things to make people believe that they are an all-powerful force that can dictate to us.

Government would not have anything if they didn't steal it from the people first. They started this because liberals just don't trust the private sector and many in history believed that only a controlling government could run things. The idea of liberty and freedom is beyond the grasp of some people. Liberals have always vilified the private sector and sang the praises of government. Well, look at the state of this country. Government gets all the credit because they created all laws, regulations, failed programs and mismanaged the money they stole from us. They went against the founders vision by crowning themselves as royalty and giving themselves generous salaries and benefits. They do not see it as an honor to serve their country, they see it as a lucrative career and instead of being driven by what will make this country better, they simply see themselves as superior beings who need to control an ignorant population.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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?

Liberals think so. Some people are willing to cede all rights, liberties and their free will to an oppressive government that promises to take care of them.

It's absolute bullshit that anything we earn belongs to government. They have twisted things to make people believe that they are an all-powerful force that can dictate to us.

Government would not have anything if they didn't steal it from the people first. They started this because liberals just don't trust the private sector and many in history believed that only a controlling government could run things. The idea of liberty and freedom is beyond the grasp of some people. Liberals have always vilified the private sector and sang the praises of government. Well, look at the state of this country. Government gets all the credit because they created all laws, regulations, failed programs and mismanaged the money they stole from us. They went against the founders vision by crowning themselves as royalty and giving themselves generous salaries and benefits. They do not see it as an honor to serve their country, they see it as a lucrative career and instead of being driven by what will make this country better, they simply see themselves as superior beings who need to control an ignorant population.

Our government is biggest in health care and education and despite spending the most in the civilized world we are about 18th in each!!

And yet to a libturd, government is the vanguard of the proletariat.

 

[initforme]

"Our Republican Founders believed that the right to own property was a natural right bestowed upon us by God."

Well they drummed this up becausxe the bible preaches against material possessions and wealth. The more I learn about our founding fathers the more I wonder what the heck? As a lifelong christian I have to call out the shortfalls of our founding fathers.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

Apples and oranges. States and localities were not bound by the same rules on taxation that the federal government was bound by.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Our Republican Founders believed that the right to own property was a natural right bestowed upon us by God."

Well they drummed this up becausxe the bible preaches against material possessions and wealth. The more I learn about our founding fathers the more I wonder what the heck? As a lifelong christian I have to call out the shortfalls of our founding fathers.

they also believed that people like you should not be allowed to vote.

imagine that

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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





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.

Apples and oranges. States and localities were not bound by the same rules on taxation that the federal government was bound by.

Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

---

what rules do you see binding the feds?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The liberts here have a problem that taxation is a fact in the Constitution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The liberts here have a problem that taxation is a fact in the Constitution.

omfg!!!! you mean it's actually in the Constitution?

 

[Joe Steel]

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?

By having a lot of brain cells and being able to use them.

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

That depends on what you mean by "creating wealth." Explain yourself.

 

[Joe Steel]

dear, our country is based on natural inalienable rights that are not subject to government whims. That way liberal government cant take them away. Now you've got the basics.

Utter nonsense.

All rights are created by constitutions, statutes, judicial decisions or, in rare cases, convention and they may be as easily abrogated as created. They are not creatures of nature or God's concern for humanity.

 

[JoeB131]

[

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.

They also believed Slavery was nifty and bleeding someone was a good medical treatment.

Reality - there is no god and there are no rights. There are privilages the rest of society decides you have.

Any moron who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese-Americans- 1942".

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They also believed Slavery was nifty and bleeding someone was a good medical treatment.

so did someone say they were write about everything?????? Strawman????? Was Einstein right about everything?????

Reality - there is no god and there are no rights. There are privilages the rest of society decides you have.

too stupid!!! if Nazis decide Jews don't get the priviliage to live that doesn't change the Jewish right to live. Gods or natures laws must be obeyed in the end if we want to live peacefully. A natural law is one that must be obeyed to avoid liberal human guessing. Now you have the basis for Aristotle and Locke.

Any moron who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese-Americans- 1942".

to stupid!! Germans Japanese and Italian Americans lost some rights then because they were potential spies during time of war. It turned out liberals were more likely to spy than Japanese.

 

[bodecea]

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?

Ask the native americans and the mexican americans in the 1800s about that one.