Pirates of the Constitution

Quote by: Kamehameha34 So in your world, government is divorced from logic. I guess that makes sense, with some of the policies you've been supporting.

My world? I live in the real world. What world are you living in? Government appears often to be divorced from "logic" until you begin to understand how public policy is actually made. The logic has to do with how individuals perceive their role in government and their self-interest.

For the outside observer, it may appear illogical. It's not illogical to the inside observer. This doesn't mean that the public policy that develops is necessarily good public policy from the outside observer's point of view.

Unfortunately, life, law, economics, politics, etc. are not as simplistic as you would like.

Regards
S.

[Kamehameha34]

You're not even trying to substantiate your claims. I'm not going to entertain this "laws can be constitutional while not really being constitutional" bunk anymore.

We don't divorce logic while examining laws, and their forsaking of the constitution.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You're not even trying to substantiate your claims. I'm not going to entertain this "laws can be constitutional while not really being constitutional" bunk anymore.

You're leaving?

Regards
S.

[Kamehameha34]

I should have left by your first concession of the point.

[xyzer]

Be more careful of your wording Kamehameha. I refer to..

You've done nothing to refute the fact that tax laws are still unconstitutional.

.Don't you mean tax law is not prescribed in the Consitution, but it is constitutional if passed by the legislative branch and made a law in accordance with the constitution? As an add on it resulted from the logic that there must be some way to generate income to run a government. So in fact logic does play a part in lawmaking.

[Kamehameha34]

Don't you mean tax law is not prescribed in the Consitution, but it is constitutional if passed by the legislative branch and made a law in accordance with the constitution?

No. They violate the fifth amendment, due process and property rights.

As an add, on it resulted from the logic that there must be some way to generate income to run a government.

The government needn't rely on coerced taxation. Voluntary taxation would achieve its purposes.

[Osborn F Enready]

Kameha said: The government needn't rely on coerced taxation. Voluntary taxation would achieve its purposes.

A-HA! It would, if the government truly operated on the "conscent" of the governed.

[xyzer]

How does this..

No. They violate the fifth amendment, due process and property rights.

Morph into this from the V Amendment?Kameha
"nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law"
Due process relates to the law, does it not?..your money is your property isn't it?.

Article I section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, duties and imposts.....ergo. The income tax as legislated doesn't amount to illegal coercion does it? It may be a matter of definition to you since Section 8 doesn't specifically address income tax but the law has not been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

And as Osborn suggests our rule of law is based on laws made by the majority in the legislative body..this implies consent by the majority, The jails are peopled by many who disagree with the laws.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 [Taxes] violate the fifth amendment, due process and property rights.

The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

And every time a tax protester has argued in court the notion of taxes being unconstitutional they have lost.

If you want to better understand just how wrong you are, see Tax protester constitutional arguments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards
S.

[banko]

Oh I am sure all you will here now is that the supreme court is flawed or some crap like that.

[Kamehameha34]

Article I section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, duties and imposts.....ergo. The income tax as legislated doesn't amount to illegal coercion does it? It may be a matter of definition to you since Section 8 doesn't specifically address income tax but the law has not been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Correct, it does not specify income tax.

The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

So now you know the problems with having a government document that contradicts itself.

And every time a tax protester has argued in court the notion of taxes being unconstitutional they have lost.

I really don't care. That has nothing to do with the air-tight proof I've provided.

If you want to better understand just how wrong you are, see Tax protester constitutional arguments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You see, now I'm just beating my head against a wall with your linking to arbitrary wikipedia pages. If you think you have a point, address my syllogism, which proves explicitly that income tax contradicts the bill of rights.

Pointing out the obvious--the 16th Amendment is an amendment. There's no contradiction.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You see, now I'm just beating my head against a wall with your linking to arbitrary wikipedia pages. If you think you have a point, address my syllogism, which proves explicitly that income tax contradicts the bill of rights.

Given that all courts have determined that your interpretation--proof as you call it--is wrong, it's impressive how you continue to maintain your position. It's also impressive how inured you are to any argument, including the text of the Constitution itself, that demonstrates your error.

It's also impressive that you would expect me to accept your interpretation of the Constitution rather than that of all the courts--including he Supreme Court--that have heard your arguments. Why would I do that? That would be idiotic. You have no credentials that I'm aware of that would make think that your views should take precedence over a century or more of legal rulings, some by learned judges.

It's even more impressive that you maintain your view given that it's entirely moot. As only a handful of tax protesters agree with you and all the courts and legal precedence disagree, your arguments have no legal weight. They are in the real world meaningless. Actually, less than meaningless because if you relied on them as a defense for not paying taxes you would be deemed a "willful" offender.

So, as your view is without practical merit, why do you vex yourself or "beat your head against the wall" bothering with it? Why engage in utterly futile, hopeless causes that everyone in a position to matter has judged nonsense?

At any rate, I admire your tenacity, as sadly misplaced as it might be. Too bad your tenaciousness isn't about something important.

You can stop beating your head against the wall now--unless, of course, you enjoy the pain. I disagree with you based on the evidence, and I will always disagree with you until a competent court accepts your interpretation of the Constitution and taxes.

Let me know if and when you actually apply the courage of your convictions, and the ruling handed down by the judges when you do.

And lastly, the law is not about--and has never been about--syllogisms. The law--as offensive as it might be to you--is not a formal system of logic. The law is what society says it is through its legislatures and courts. If you're going to discuss the law in a meaningful way, you're going to have accept that fact. Failure to accept that fact is as foolish as trying to change quantum theory by reading Captain Marvel to physicists.
.

Regards
S.

[Kamehameha34]

Given that all courts have determined that your interpretation--proof as you call it--is wrong

The courts can determine that three is four. That doesn't make it true, and it doesn't reverse an objective syllogism.

This is what they've done, in conjunction with congress. They've slapped an amendment completely out of line with the rest the constitution onto the very same constitution, and it has been upheld by the courts - creating a country that gives an enumerated right to the government to violate the enumerated rights of the people.


The courts are supposed to be a filter. Filters aren't 100%. Objective logic is.

Why engage in utterly futile, hopeless causes that everyone in a position to matter has judged nonsense?

If by "position to matter" you mean government position, then you really need to read up on US history.

The government doesn't decide which protests are nonsense. The fact that you even suggest this makes clear to me the reason for your bullish misunderstanding of the constitution.




The rest of your post is a who's who of logical fallacies. Appeal to authority, ad hominem, ad populum. Yet more evidence of your forsaking of logic.

[Osborn F Enready]

SDBest said: It's also impressive that you would expect me to accept your interpretation of the Constitution rather than that of all the courts--including he Supreme Court--that have heard your arguments. Why would I do that? That would be idiotic. You have no credentials that I'm aware of that would make think that your views should take precedence over a century or more of legal rulings, some by learned judges. It's even more impressive that you maintain your view given that it's entirely moot. As only a handful of tax protesters agree with you and all the courts and legal precedence disagree, your arguments have no legal weight. They are in the real world meaningless. Actually, less than meaningless because if you relied on them as a defense for not paying taxes you would be deemed a "willful" offender.

yet in another thread says this:

As for jury nullification, it was jury nullification that struck down Canada's anti-abortion laws. As a result in Canada women have the right to choose. Jury nullification is often the last recourse for those charged under unjust laws.

So these same "un-learned" people you applaud for "fixing" unjust laws in one thread, are the same you condemn in another for trying to "fix" unjust amendments? Faith in the people, or not?!?

Really SDBest, it seems as though you are a collective cheerleader with an aire of "elitism" about you.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready yet in another thread says this: So these same "un-learned" people you applaud for "fixing" unjust laws in one thread, are the same you condemn in another for trying to "fix" unjust amendments? Faith in the people, or not?!? Really SDBest, it seems as though you are a collective cheerleader with an aire of "elitism" about you.

Were we talking about jury nullification in previous posts? I wasn't aware of that. I don't recall condemning jury nullification. Clearly in those tax cases that went before juries (I assume there were some), the juries found the tax laws reasonable and constitutional.

But feel free to not pay your taxes, inform the IRS, and put your fate in the hands of a jury. Your attorney can explain in detail about jury nullification. If your insistence on the righteousness of your position is a measure of its validity, no doubt the jury will acquit you and may in the process, depending on the jury's findings, strike down the U.S. tax code.

I await the jury's decisions.

Regards
S.