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

[tooAlive]

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.

Sorry Joe, not all of us subscribe to your filthy communist ideals.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

The income tax is Constitutional, read the 16th amendment you fucking moron.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

You are, of course, incorrect. The document exists that protects our rights from government. But of course, you wouldn't know what that document is.

 

[regent]

But Lincoln came after Aristotle, Christ, Locke, and Jefferson so why didn't Lincoln have to follow natural law?

OMG!! Dear, the idea of democracy was established 1000's of years ago but that does not mean it was instantly accepted everywhere and forever. Evolution science etc etc take time to take root. Over your head still??

When did natural law begin?

with Aristotle, most significantly, but why do you ask?????????????? Do you have any idea why you ask???????????

If property rights were natural law, why in the Constitution was the government given the power to take that property with due process. Can the government take other natural rights with due process?

 

[Mr Natural]

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.

The income tax is Constitutional, read the 16th amendment you fucking moron.

But, but, but . . .

The 16th Amendment was enacted during the Woodrow Wilson (a know Communist) administration so it doesn't count.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

2) I agree that taxation is only lawful where people consent to it; otherwise it is taxation without representation or tyranny and against the spirit of the laws as social contracts based on consent of the governed

1) I disagree here (and only agree with you on the concept that natural laws and rights are inherent from God/human natural and the point of the Constitution is NOT to give govt authority but to define and limit what the federal govt was set up to do)
a) the First Amendment states Congress shall NOT make laws that do X Y and Z
it does not give power to Congress or Govt but makes statutory in writing the rights of the
people that are inalienable as inherent by natural laws governing humanity. To me, this is like the laws of God always existed in heaven, but were handed to the people publicly in writing through Moses and the 10 commandment on Tablets. That is how I see the weight of the 10 Articles of the Bill of Rights and 10 in the Code of Ethics for Govt Service
(ethics-commission.net) these are the natural laws given to Gentiles to uphold through the State and civil laws; similar to the sacred laws given to the Church in Scripture
b) the Constitution was only ratified with the agreement that the Bill of Rights would be added later to specific the rights reserved to the people and the States. So it was a condition in order for the Constitution to be passed, and is not separable from it.

In fact, I would go so far as to say if I had to choose between the two,
I would govern by the First Amendment and Bill of Rights (plus 14th Amendment and Code of Ethics)
which covers the same powers of the people which collectively become the three branches of govt.
But not vice versa. I would not authorize or enforce the body of the Constitution without the
Bill of Rights which makes statutory the concepts of due process, and right to petition by free speech, press and assembly etc.
You can govern a nation and any people by community exercising these concepts,
as they are based on natural laws that apply to all relations and all humanity.
I would throw in consent of the governed (from the DOI) and
equal protection of the laws from the 14th Amendment
and from the Supreme Court motto equal justice under law.
If you don't have the spirit of the laws making legally binding
social contracts, then anyone can take the letter of the law
out of context and violate the consent and due process of others.
So I put the spirit of the laws first, where people form contracts by
mutual agreement and freely informed consent, and any other laws follow from there!
NOT the other way around, or else you invite and reward
tyranny oppression and subversion of the democratic process by bullying and exclusion.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

emily, do you ever reply to anyone?

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

Dear CJ and JS:
I would say yes and no.
1. Yes I understand the idea that if people depend on govt for property rights, and give too much authority to govt to make those decisions, we can lose our property when that authority is abused. It happened in my neighborhood long before KELO came out and scared everyone, who ran to their State legislatures to write corrective laws to prevent overstepping authority to seize property based on tax revenue as serving public interest!
2. And I also agree with CJ that since rights are inalienable then just because we agree to make decisions publicly through govt does NOT mean we consent to authorize govt to take our rights away!
3. However, there is a difference between inalienable rights such as intellectual freedom that are independent of other people vs. property rights that may involve disputes with land that could have claims from others for the same reason.

You have the inalienable right to own your own property.
But where conflicts exist and other people are claiming the same rights,
the only way I see to prevent govt or third parties from having more say
than you in resolving a dispute is to claim equal govt authority to make any
such decision by CONSENSUS. So you are NOT giving govt more authority
than yourself in final say over how a dispute over property is settled.

This idea of consent of the governed or right to enforce consensus as the
standard on decisions could be derived from free exercise of religion in Article 1
or from equal protection of persons under Article 14, but is not directly stated.

if you believe in consensus and practice it, it could be argued as your
religious freedom to have this standard enforced for you instead of
imposition by any party even govt against your will so long as you
also respect the same equal will for others including govt. So that
would be a combination of the 1st and 14th Amendment if
consensus-based govt is your belief that you practice, and are
not just using this to defy authority but actually enforce it yourself.

This would also enforce the idea that rights are inalienable and
given to people by God, and don't depend on govt, but vice versa,
that govt depends on reflecting the will and consent of the people.

So that is what I believe in enforcing, although it is not
written directly in the laws. I found consent of the governed
stated in the Declaration of Independence, and a form of
it as authority of the people being inviolate stated in the
Texas Bill of Rights under #2. It is mainly enforced
by practicing it, which makes sense if the authority
of govt is derived from the will and consent of the people!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

thought so.

emily is a special kind of troll

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

P.S. Joe if you really want to separate your money based on your labor from federal money based on reserve notes, I recommend consulting with Paul Glover of Ithaca HOURS who teaches how to set up local labor backed currency that is legal and independent of the Fed. The legal requirements are that the currency is circulated locally within a certain geographic region, the bills are larger in denomination than $1 and smaller in size than a $1 bill, and any taxes normally paid on exchanges or income are still paid to the respective sources using their respective currencies. See Ithaca Hours - Local Currency - Ithaca, New York or
Home This does not compete with federal reserve money but allows businesses and individuals to circulate their own currency to support their local economy and minimalize the money going out of the community by investing in local businesses.

Anyone can do what the investors did who set up the Fed and write out contracts agreeing to invest in schools or business communities, and paying each other shares or interest on any loans made to each other. If this is set up as a business, any expenses can be deducted from income so more money is invested locally and less money is paid to govt. That way you can control where your money goes, and build any social program you want based on a business church or nonprofit. With churches or nonprofits it is possible to get exemptions from property taxes so that is more localized control and less given to govt.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sweet Emily - Leon Russell

 

[emilynghiem]

emily, do you ever reply to anyone?

Hi Dante are you being sarcastic?
If anything I overreply to people.

I got your msg and went to the board.
That long thing WAS my attempt to reply to you,
sorry if I overdid it.

There were too many interconnected points,
I was asking your help to pinpoint and narrow it down further.

I thought a troll was just someone who posts and runs
to stir up others but not discuss or resolve anything.

I AM trying to find ways to resolve all these issues
but it takes time to organize since I find them interrelated.
My approach to resolving church-state issues by reconciling each one covers just
about everything out there.

Sorry this wasn't clear.
if anything I am more an anti-troll than a troll.
When I try to engage with trolls and find out what
their pet issue really is, that usually kills their fun and they run off.

Unlike the trolls I see, I am SERIOUS about
trying to pinpoint these issues down to things
that can be resolved and then promote those solutions.

Thanks for your help to clarify, Dante!

I will check if you replied to my post
and will try to pick one key issue out of that mess
that we could actually stop and debate, without already reaching
an agreement in the process of pinpointing!

 

[emilynghiem]

thought so.

emily is a special kind of troll

???

is posting messages to troll (as in fish) for non-trolls who will actually resolve things by reaching consensus a form of trolling? or the opposite of trolling?

p.s. i also went back and replied to your direct msg as well? sorry I don't always know where to post what on this thing.

 

[emilynghiem]

So are you saying that politics takes precedence over natural law?

dear, it did for about 5 million years until Aristotle Christ Locke Jefferson Buckley Friedman and Reagan came along.

But Lincoln came after Aristototle, Christ, Locke, and Jefferson so why didn't Lincoln have to follow natural law? When did natural law begin?

Dear Regent: Under natural laws, where there is unresolved conflict and "unforgiveness" from the past projected forward (such as tribal conflict in Africa that allowed for slavery and oppressive genocide) then people suffer enslavement either spiritually politically or both.

We would have to agree to follow natural laws of consent of the governed and consensus in decisions to end the political abuse of bulling by greater physical economic or social forces. Until we reach that level of social maturity and spiritual agreement to equally uphold justice for all people, then we will see these political games and backlash going on.

People will take the path of least resistance, trying to balance freedom with security, until the conflicts are resolved. in the case of govt-endorsed oppression and dominance by unequal political or economic force, people will choose to give govt that authority in order to have security while working to democratize the masses to liberate all people from this in the future. In the meantime, there is compromise to buy time for the learning curve to push forward. And yes, this does create social debts and damages to account for in the meantime.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Hey LL: I bet if you and I talked long enough to get to know each other's systems of thoughts, I could pinpoint what in your perspective is the "equivalent" of what Christians or Deists mean by God. So it may not be the same thing as a personified God, but for all practical purposes of discussion and agreeing what causes problems and what are ideal solutions in life, aligning along common concepts and principles works just as well. It's the spirit of how we do things and relate to each other which determines if we are in harmony with whatever you call this ideal good or "God's will" in life, how we define what is the ideal good for all humanity,
and how do we get there. and where Jesus represents divine forgiveness so collective justice and peace is possible to establish, yes, that is the key to agreeing on truth to set humanity free from divisive strife and suffering; so that Jesus does represent the key to the peacemaking or salvation process for all humanity, which I describe in secular terms as "Restorative Justice" to ensure good faith relations, regardless if we are theist or nontheist.

 

[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.

The income tax is Constitutional, read the 16th amendment you fucking moron.

dear, if I disagreed I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??? or run away with your liberal strawman between your legs once again.

See why we are absolutely positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Restorative Justice" to ensure good faith relations, regardless if we are theist or nontheist.

dear, history is about liberalism versus conservatism, not RJ. When Red China switched from liberal communism to conservative capitalism millions stopped starving to death and instead starting getting rich.

Get it?? Millions and millions now live thanks to conservatism. These are people that liberalism had been killing by the millions.

 

[Toronado3800]

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.

The income tax is Constitutional, read the 16th amendment you fucking moron.

dear, if I disagreed I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??? or run away with your liberal strawman between your legs once again.

See why we are absolutely positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow.

Ed, am I taking your quote out of content?

He quoted you saying the tax was unconstitutional and the income tax was ruled unconstitutional. See the parts underlined in red...

 

[Toronado3800]

"Restorative Justice" to ensure good faith relations, regardless if we are theist or nontheist.

dear, history is about liberalism versus conservatism, not RJ. When Red China switched from liberal communism to conservative capitalism millions stopped starving to death and instead starting getting rich.

Get it?? Millions and millions now live thanks to conservatism. These are people that liberalism had been killing by the millions.

Is China your ideal economy then? You keep bringing it up as an example while putting ours down.

 

[Votto]

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

This is why atheism is such a vital aspect of socialism and Marxism. To think that men were created "free" by a higher authority is treasonous.