Judge Orders a Web Site Selling Tax-Evasion Advice to Close

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready The vote by the elected representatives to "install" prohibition, was viewed by many (such as myself) as the first signs of bi-partisan usurpation of the Constitutional Authority of the United States Government.

This isn't the first time I've said this sort of thing, but why not look at the immediate human cost as opposed to the Constitutional one?

That is the most directly offensive angle, I think. After all, this isn't just about a constitutional system, but about attacks against ordinary people, most who haven't directly harmed anybody.

If this tyranny is government-supervised, I say put the people first.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gramps, I have been trying to stop feeding the trolls, so please stop baiting me.....

Gramps said: This isn't the first time I've said this sort of thing, but why not look at the immediate human cost as opposed to the Constitutional one?

The only human cost I am concerned with is the one I am responsible for, as a citizen, as an individual, and as a human being. (the three are not mutually interchangeable) The current system deals in law, and I want to bring about change, so I focus on law, REAL law, common law, the Constitution.

Gramps said: That is the most directly offensive angle, I think. After all, this isn't just about a constitutional system, but about attacks against ordinary people, most who haven't directly harmed anybody.

Well, you can have your point of view, but I don't share it.

Gramps said: If this tyranny is government-supervised, I say put the people first.

In my opinion, you need to ground yourself in reality, and what actually brings about change as opposed to blindly railing at the system because you don't like it.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I just want to remind everyone of something...... Prohibition was unconstitutional, before and AFTER it was made a law...... much like income tax. We the People stood their ground against the prohibitionists, and I respect them for it. They woke many people up to the lies that are the fed.

Prohibition (of alcohol) became constitutional when a constitutional amendment was passed. It became illegal when the amendment was repealed.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chancellor said: Prohibition (of alcohol) became constitutional when a constitutional amendment was passed. It became illegal when the amendment was repealed.

I suppose if language correctness, and or semantics, is more important than addressing what really took place.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready As I said, I disagree. It was made part of the Constitution, but its body of text and limitations on peoples liberty was BLATANTLY unconstitutional, and BLATANTLY violated the rights of individuals, which were never amended directly.

It wasn't blatantly unconstitutional, it was Constitutional for the time that it was in the Constitution.

Violating the rights of individuals or not is not a measure of Constitutionality. The only valid measure of Constitutionality is whether or not something was in agreement with the Constitution. Obviously, if something is added to the Constitution via amendment, it is Constitutional. Otherwise, things like direct election of Senators and the prohibition of slavery are unconstitutional (since they controvert earlier parts of the document).

No, it was passed, but not adopted by the people, and was revoked by the people, AGAINST the will of the court and representatives.

Quote by: U.S. Constitution, Article V - Amendment The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

I don't see where it says "adopted by the people" in there, maybe you can help me.

Simply being adopted, does not make a law worthy of being enforced, respected, upheld or LEGAL.

Regardless, the proper addition of something to the Constitution by the amendment process makes something Constitutional, period. I am not claiming it does anything else.

The Constitution does not give the Federal Government authority to regulate or ban consumption of any product, nor does it place our bodies under the control of anyone other than ourselves.

The Constitution gave the federal government this authority upon passage of the prohibition amendment, which upon passage was the Constitution.

Good idea? No.
"Right"? No.
Respected by the citizens? Mostly no.
Constitutional? Yes.

Prohibition was NEVER Constitutional, however, it was a part of the Constitution for a short time.

This statement is illogical. "Part of the Constitution" = Constitutional.

The words WERE part of the Constitution, no doubt, but they were never passed into law WITHOUT PRE-EXISTING CONFLICT with the written document as it stood.

Your assertion here has no basis in law. The ORIGINAL Constitution says in Article V that the Constitution may be changed by the amendment process. There is no rule that Amendments cannot have a "pre-existing conflict" with earlier parts of the Constitution, otherwise many of our Amendments would not exist - direct election of senators and the 13th Amendment, as I pointed out above. Are you suggesting the 13th Amendment is "unconstitutional"? People in DC shouldn't have the right to vote for the President? Presidents shouldn't be limited to 2 terms?

The Constitution provides for Amendment. If it is changed, the changes are Constitutional.

Individual rights were a direct conflict with the concept of prohibition, and it was unconstitutional on its face.

No, it was Constitutional on its face. In the Constitution=Constitutional.

You are confusing the meaning of the term Constitutional with other concepts. Constitutional ONLY means in agreement with the Constitution, nothing else.

You assume you can get representatives who can make it into the process past the corrupt groups who have usurped our nations laws, election laws, campaign donation laws, etc?!? LOL

The people deserve exactly the government they get.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready By the way Tivo, I also wanted to note: The vote by the elected representatives to "install" prohibition, was viewed by many (such as myself) as the first signs of bi-partisan usurpation of the Constitutional Authority of the United States Government.

I'm sure that was a sentiment of the day. Sentiments do not determine Constitutionality, the words in the Constitution do. When the 18th Amendment was ratified, Prohibition became Constitutional. When the 21st was ratified, it ceased to be so.

[Osborn F Enready]

Tivo said: It wasn't blatantly unconstitutional, it was Constitutional for the time that it was in the Constitution. Violating the rights of individuals or not is not a measure of Constitutionality. The only valid measure of Constitutionality is whether or not something was in agreement with the Constitution. Obviously, if something is added to the Constitution via amendment, it is Constitutional. Otherwise, things like direct election of Senators and the prohibition of slavery are unconstitutional (since they controvert earlier parts of the document).

Not only is that patently false, but totally ignorant of the FACT that humans are fallible, as are politicians.

Are you saying that any amendment passed, regardless of its contents, is Constitutional? (say for instance, a majority of special intrest groups succeed in garnering support from congress and the senate, as well as the president to pass a bill that would allow cannibalism of certain races, sexes or creeds)

That is patently absurd, and beyond reason Tivo, and it is that exact mentality that is forcing more and more people to lose total respect for our government and its lack of Constitutional checks and balances. The language of the Constitution was abused by the concept of prohibition, and its passage was grievously unconstitutional, regardless of what scumbags were seated to vote it in, out or otherwise.

Tivo said: I don't see where it says "adopted by the people" in there, maybe you can help me.

Consult ratification and the peace the existed after its passage. The people have the right to repeal law in individual cases via jury nullification, and the right to repeal law via the supreme court, if that court lives up to its objective bias as INSTRUCTED via the Constitution. If not, the people have the right to revolt, and emplace a new government.

Tivo said: Regardless, the proper addition of something to the Constitution by the amendment process makes something Constitutional, period. I am not claiming it does anything else.

It wasn't, I repeat, WAS NOT a proper addition to the Constitution. Did you read ANY of the links I posted? The passage of time has shown the egregious lack of oversight and public intrest the Congress took in that matter, and it IS relevant to the context of the event.
Since when is pandering to a small group of political activists, more important than addressing the will of the people, and acknowledging the checks on power embodied in the Constitution? Can you show me where it says that in the document Tivo?

Tivo said: The Constitution gave the federal government this authority upon passage of the prohibition amendment, which upon passage was the Constitution. Good idea? No. "Right"? No. Respected by the citizens? Mostly no. Constitutional? Yes.

We can agree to disagree then, because I surely do.

Tivo said: This statement is illogical. "Part of the Constitution" = Constitutional.

Again, I disagree. Simply being part of something means nothing if it contradicts other parts of the document, that are guarantees.

Its addition was "illogical", and the people rectified it when their elected representatives FAILED to do so.

an analogy:

If a Math book is printed, and there is a misprint in an answer, who is wrong, the answer which is misprinted, or the student who did the work correctly and arrived at a different answer.

I think the answer should be GLARINGLY OBVIOUS to someone with a SHRED of common sense, regardless of what law, what politicians, what ANYONE says!

Tivo said: Your assertion here has no basis in law. The ORIGINAL Constitution says in Article V that the Constitution may be changed by the amendment process. There is no rule that Amendments cannot have a "pre-existing conflict" with earlier parts of the Constitution, otherwise many of our Amendments would not exist - direct election of senators and the 13th Amendment, as I pointed out above. Are you suggesting the 13th Amendment is "unconstitutional"? People in DC shouldn't have the right to vote for the President? Presidents shouldn't be limited to 2 terms? The Constitution provides for Amendment. If it is changed, the changes are Constitutional.

The Constitution can be amended, but it MAY NOT be amended to abridge the rights of citizens, which prohibition SURELY did.

What part of inalienable or unalienable is not understood by the law student and professors?

Tivo said: No, it was Constitutional on its face. In the Constitution=Constitutional. You are confusing the meaning of the term Constitutional with other concepts. Constitutional ONLY means in agreement with the Constitution, nothing else.

So which is it?!? In agreement with =Constitutional, or PART OF = Constitutional?!?

Seems you have given two definitions in your own posts, perhaps you're confused? Regardless, I know my rights, and no law, no court, no agent of any government or military will remove them without just cause, without meeting resistance equal to that in which they exercise against me. THAT is my right.

Tivo said: The people deserve exactly the government they get.

The Lawyers deserve to be held accountable equally to the politicians when the system breaks, the people revolt, and "restructuring" takes place.

Point?

Tivo said: I'm sure that was a sentiment of the day. Sentiments do not determine Constitutionality, the words in the Constitution do. When the 18th Amendment was ratified, Prohibition became Constitutional. When the 21st was ratified, it ceased to be so.

Maybe you should soldify your own definitions before you espouse such nonsense?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Not only is that patently false, but totally ignorant of the FACT that humans are fallible, as are politicians. Are you saying that any amendment passed, regardless of it contents, is Constitutional?

Any changes to the Constitution could be considered Constitutional.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Yes gramps, they "could be" considered constitutional, but then again, there is debate about the VALIDITY of that "consideration", and the depth at which that consideration should be afforded by the people, regardless of its issuers fancy hat, position, or claimed powers.

[Contumacious]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Violating the rights of individuals or not is not a measure of Constitutionality. [

HUH?


We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;
:rolleyes:


Now , under the collectivist philosophy known as fascism the rights of the individual are subservient to those of the fatherland:


.The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...

Benito Mussolini

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Not only is that patently false, but totally ignorant of the FACT that humans are fallible, as are politicians. Are you saying that any amendment passed, regardless of its contents, is Constitutional? (say for instance, a majority of special intrest groups succeed in garnering support from congress and the senate, as well as the president to pass a bill that would allow cannibalism of certain races, sexes or creeds)

Precisely.

These are the requirements for an Amendment:

- Passed by a yes/no vote by 2/3 of both houses of Congress.
- Passed by a yes/no vote by a simple majority of 3/4 of State legislatures.

There is nothing about how much debate needs to take place, what public sentiment has to be, etc. It is a bad idea to pass an Amendment without these things, but it passes the requirements of the Constitution laid out in Article V.

For someone that claims to be all about originalist doctrine of Constitutional readings, you draw a lot of assumptions about the amendment process that simply are not there.

We are talking about what is Constitutional, not what is right, what are inalienable rights, etc. Constitutional is one very specific thing, and that is contained in the Constitution.

That is patently absurd, and beyond reason Tivo, and it is that exact mentality that is forcing more and more people to lose total respect for our government and its lack of Constitutional checks and balances. The language of the Constitution was abused by the concept of prohibition, and its passage was grievously unconstitutional, regardless of what scumbags were seated to vote it in, out or otherwise.

You say the passage was grievously unconstitutional. Show me how the passage of the 18th Amendment violated the amendment process found in Article V. What step contained in Article V was not taken?

What you mean is it was grievously unfair, illogical, bad, violating the rights of people, etc. All of which I agree with. But to be unconstitutional in the way it was passed, it would have to violate Article V's provisions for Amendments, which it did not.

Consult ratification and the peace the existed after its passage. The people have the right to repeal law in individual cases via jury nullification, and the right to repeal law via the supreme court, if that court lives up to its objective bias as INSTRUCTED via the Constitution. If not, the people have the right to revolt, and emplace a new government.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution as written. Since the 18th Amendment was part of the Constitution during that time, the Supreme Court could not overturn acts like Volkstead.

It wasn't, I repeat, WAS NOT a proper addition to the Constitution. Did you read ANY of the links I posted? The passage of time has shown the egregious lack of oversight and public intrest the Congress took in that matter, and it IS relevant to the context of the event.

"Oversight" and "public interest" are not found in Article V. It had the votes needed to carry. That is all that matters. Read Article V and tell me where oversight or public interest are needed to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Again, for someone so concerned with the actual words in the document, you throw them out pretty quickly when you don't agree with what gets accomplished.

Since when is pandering to a small group of political activists, more important than addressing the will of the people, and acknowledging the checks on power embodied in the Constitution? Can you show me where it says that in the document Tivo?

Where it says what? The passage of the 18th Amendment was in accordance with Article V.

Again, I disagree. Simply being part of something means nothing if it contradicts other parts of the document, that are guarantees.

Well, you are wrong.

The Constitution "guaranteed" that Senators were to be chosen by the State Legislatures. Is the Amendment that changed that unconstitutional?

The Constitution "guaranteed" that blacks could be slaves and would be counted as 3/5 of a person in the census. Is the 13th Amendment unconstitutional?

Its addition was "illogical", and the people rectified it when their elected representatives FAILED to do so.

The 18th Amendment was ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. In fact, only Connecticut and Rhode Island, out of all the states, rejected the Amendment.

an analogy: If a Math book is printed, and there is a misprint in an answer, who is wrong, the answer which is misprinted, or the student who did the work correctly and arrived at a different answer. I think the answer should be GLARINGLY OBVIOUS to someone with a SHRED of common sense, regardless of what law, what politicians, what ANYONE says!

Your analogy is not applicable. The 18th Amendment was duly ratified by the procedure found in the Constitution. It was not a typo. Philosophically, was it a "mistake"? Most likely, but LEGALLY, it was part of the Constitution and therefore Constitutional.

The Constitution can be amended, but it MAY NOT be amended to abridge the rights of citizens, which prohibition SURELY did.

LOL you are out of your mind. The very NOTION of a Constitution abridges the rights of people by creating a government that is empowered to enact laws for the good of the people, laws which may restrict the rights of citizens - the right to swing my fists, etc. That is called the "social contract"

ALL of the "Reserved Powers" - taxation, commerce clause, international treaties, etc, restrict the rights of citizens to do those things because they become purview of the federal government.

Furthermore, show me. QUOTE ME, not from your own warped notion of the Constitution, QUOTE ME where the Constitution says it may not be amended to restrict the rights of citizens. I want Article, Section, Clause, and a quote. Otherwise, bullshit.

What part of inalienable or unalienable is not understood by the law student and professors?

None.

We are discussing CONSTITUTIONAL, which is different from inalienable. The Constitution does not deal strictly in inalienable rights - is the electoral college an inalienable right?

So which is it?!? In agreement with =Constitutional, or PART OF = Constitutional?!?

Both. Something that is in agreement with the Constitution is Constitutional - a federal law coining money or regulating interstate commerce, for example.
Something that is contained in the Constitution is obviously Constitutional, like any of the Amendments, habeus corpus, etc.

The Black's Law Dictionary definition is simple:

Quote by: Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition (2004) constitutional, adj. Proper and valid under a constitution

Seems you have given two definitions in your own posts, perhaps you're confused?

Reading the thread, I think it is obvious to any sane reader who is confused, and it isn't me.

Regardless, I know my rights, and no law, no court, no agent of any government or military will remove them without just cause, without meeting resistance equal to that in which they exercise against me. THAT is my right.

And what does that have to do with whether something is Constitutional?

The Lawyers deserve to be held accountable equally to the politicians when the system breaks, the people revolt, and "restructuring" takes place.

Huh? Lawyers? What do they have to do with it? They only control about 2 million votes assuming every single one of them votes. There are well over 200 million people who could vote in this country. If all of them intelligently exercised their rights, what could a 1% bloc of them accomplish?

Quote by: Contumacious Quote by: tivodan1116 Violating the rights of individuals or not is not a measure of Constitutionality. HUH? We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; :rolleyes:

Ok, you are a liar. You said in your intro post you have a degree in law from University of Miami. This post proves you do not.

That quote is from the Declaration of Independence!!! Our laws stem from the Constitution.

Wow. Just wow. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Contumacious]

Quote by: tivodan1116 That quote is from the Declaration of Independence!!! Our laws stem from the Constitution.

HUH?

May I suggest that you lay "Mein Kempf" down long enough to read :

The Rights Retained by the People: The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment Volume 2
Edited by Atty. Randy E. Barnett

You will then see that the natural rights identified by the Hon Thomas Jefferson were incorporated into the 9th Amendment.


TaTa:rolleyes:

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I suppose if language correctness, and or semantics, is more important than addressing what really took place.

The only thing that matters is what the actual words of the Constitution state or what its 27 amendments state. That, and that alone, is what makes something constitutional.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: grandpa Any changes to the Constitution could be considered Constitutional. Grandpa h.

Changes made to the Constitution by way of the amendment process are constitutional. You or I don't have to like a particular amendment but as long as the process was correctly followed my choice is to either live with it or foment revolution.

[Contumacious]

Quote by: Chancellor Changes made to the Constitution by way of the amendment process are constitutional. You or I don't have to like a particular amendment but as long as the process was correctly followed my choice is to either live with it or foment revolution.

The purpose of creating a government is to secure our rights to life, liberty, property and to the pursuit of happiness.

Obviously if I have a right to property , and to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures, and the government contends that they have a right to enter my property to see if I am cultivating marihuana and or opium then they are clearly transgressing upon my right even if the nine bureaucrats who sit on the so-called supreme court state otherwise.:rolleyes:

[Osborn F Enready]

I couldn't agree more Contumacious.

[Autolykos]

Tivo Dan, as a law student, can you point me to the law that requires income-earning Americans to pay income taxes?

Thanks.

- Rob

[Contumacious]

Quote by: Autolykos Tivo Dan, as a law student, can you point me to the law that requires income-earning Americans to pay income taxes?Thanks.- Rob

Here is a copy of the pertinent sections of the Internal Revenue Code

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Contumacious HUH? May I suggest that you lay "Mein Kempf" down long enough to read :

Godwin's Law: As an internet debate progresses, the likelihood that someone will make a comparison to Hitler or the Holocaust approaches one.

Congratulations, you just reproved the law... Proud? :rolleyes:

The Rights Retained by the People: The History and Meaning of the Ninth Amendment Volume 2 Edited by Atty. Randy E. Barnett You will then see that the natural rights identified by the Hon Thomas Jefferson were incorporated into the 9th Amendment.

The 9th Amendment is law. The Declaration of Independence is not.

Furthermore, the Ninth Amendment does not say that the government cannot add amendments which might add to the government's power. All the 9th says is that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are not an exhaustive list.

Quote by: Contumacious The purpose of creating a government is to secure our rights to life, liberty, property and to the pursuit of happiness.

I absolutely agree.