Prove the Benefits of Libertarianism

[Osborn F Enready]

jsmith36 said:
So, I think that's everything. To recap:

1. I agree that the debate on the Federal Reserve deserves its own thread.
2. I agree that the debate on the theory of corporate personhood deserves its own thread.

I say:
Agreed.

jsmith36 said:
3. I ask for more evidence/warrants to support your five contentions.

I say:
Please, look into the court case being brought by "we the people" foundation. I am a public High School educated, ex-serviceman. I never claimed to be, or need to be a lawyer to prove my case since my case is rather clear cut, and I beleive a jury of my peers could be made to see this.

I don't wear the burden of this argument alone, as existed long before I came along to this earth. This argument has been being argued since the concept of an income tax, and has been stealthily avoided by the supreme court except when brought about by corporations. That alone I use as more proof to the fact that the court refuses to accept reality, or constitutionality. They are not to serve the corporations, but the people. Who are "they" to decide not to hear a case brought by petition of redress of grievance?

jsmith36 said:
4. I ask you to clarify the points that didn't seem to have any relevance or impact (mostly Framer's intent arguments).

I say:
Setting aside modern "new" interpretation, the framers intents are quite well explained in both the federalist and anti-federalist papers. As well, there are many books of collections of papers surrounding the forefathers, their lives and beliefs as written in their own words.

Do you dispute that the Bill of Rights directly refers to the rights of the "individuals" or "citizens" of these United States?

jsmith36 said:
5. I ask you to respond to the points on tax law, 16th Amendment validity, 4th & 5th Amendments, and the potentially illegal activities of the IRS.

I say:
Have you done any of this research on your own? The internet is ripe with both substantiated and unsubstantiated information on this topic. Contact me via PM and I will point you in the right direction for all your questions, because as far as proof is concerned there is no proof until you see it with your own eyes, right?

There are several people making these arguments, and any good bookstore can offer several tens or hundreds of books on this topic.

[jsmith36]

Osborn:

Please, look into the court case being brought by "we the people" foundation. I am a public High School educated, ex-serviceman. I never claimed to be, or need to be a lawyer to prove my case since my case is rather clear cut, and I beleive a jury of my peers could be made to see this.

I wasn't asking for a lawyer's opinion. You make five claims that are not, despite your statement to the contrary, clear cut. The fact that your claim is so far away from the status quo practice and belief means that you have at least a minimal burden to provide reasons why the claims you make are true. I'm not claiming the 16th Amendment was passed fraudulently; I can do the research, but since you're making the claim, you should provide at least a little explanation or reasoning. I took the claim to look at each of your claims, and provide some arguments why I think you're wrong; you could at least do the same.

I don't wear the burden of this argument alone, as existed long before I came along to this earth. This argument has been being argued since the concept of an income tax, and has been stealthily avoided by the supreme court except when brought about by corporations. That alone I use as more proof to the fact that the court refuses to accept reality, or constitutionality. They are not to serve the corporations, but the people. Who are "they" to decide not to hear a case brought by petition of redress of grievance?

The Supreme Court is under no obligation to decide every case presented to it; there are more than 8,000 petitions to the Court every term, and there is no way than can hear them all. The reference to a petition for redress of grievances in the Constitution says you can petition the "government" for a redress of grievences; this doesn't necessarily mean every citizen can bring every case to the Supreme Court and they must hear it. If you're going to claim a conspiricy in the Supreme Court to "stealthily avoid" the issue, can you present some evidence or court cases in which this occurs?

Setting aside modern "new" interpretation, the framers intents are quite well explained in both the federalist and anti-federalist papers. As well, there are many books of collections of papers surrounding the forefathers, their lives and beliefs as written in their own words.

Do you dispute that the Bill of Rights directly refers to the rights of the "individuals" or "citizens" of these United States?

This part has gotten off track a little bit. All I meant hear was there were a few hodgepodge issues that I didn't understand, and I just wanted you to clear them up. But they're minor in scope, and so can be effectively passed over here.

In terms of the Bill of Rights, it refers to the rights of "citizens" as both individuals and as a collective group, as well as to process and limitations on federal government action. Again, this point is minor in this debate.

Have you done any of this research on your own? The internet is ripe with both substantiated and unsubstantiated information on this topic. Contact me via PM and I will point you in the right direction for all your questions, because as far as proof is concerned there is no proof until you see it with your own eyes, right?

There are several people making these arguments, and any good bookstore can offer several tens or hundreds of books on this topic.

I don't want you to point me to the research. I have done some precursory readings to be able to answer your posts. But simply making claims, and then when people ask you to justify those claims, and you tell them to do the research themselves, that is not good debate. Anyone can post just about anything on the internet (as evidenced by many of the things posted on Volconvo), but it doesn't mean much if you don't give some sort of reasonable explanations as to how its viable. Most of the things I've read on the internet regarding the 16th Amendment are fanatical and lacks reason and logic, or are wishful thinking or normative claims without fact or evidence.

I took the time to respond in my last post to your original post, point by point. It might be nice to get a refutation of the evidence I provided, especially on the 4th and 5th Amendments, tax code, and reasons to support the claims you make.

[Osborn F Enready]

Well Mr Smith, give me a little time and I will answer you more completely.

I just got back from an 11 day vacation, and am still catching up on my daily life chores.

Assuming your patience will last a little longer, I will be back with a more complete answer that will hopefully satisfy your points as soon as my time allows, which should be sometime today. Fair enough?

I can support all the claims I made to an extent that they satisfy MY quest for answers. Whether or not you and I hold the same standard as truth, is another topic entirely.

I will be back with a more complete answer.

[jsmith36]

Osborn:

Sounds good... I look forward to it.

Thanks,
Josh

[zynner]

To me Libertarianism seems to lead to anarchy or nihilism, or at the very least to feudal tribal societies of the Middle and Dark Ages.

"Anarchy" = without a ruler
"Nihilism" = a belief that life is meaningless
"Feudal" = a society in which a monarch rules the society by force

Libertarianism is the belief that each individual owns himself and, therefore, has a fundamental right to live his life as he sees fit -- not as some other person sees fit. In order to get along in such a society, it is also necessary for people to acknowledge that each person has that same right. As a practical matter, the way this idea is implemented is to ban the initiation of force.

Does this kind of society necessarily lead to a feudal system? I don't see how. How can a king take control of the entire society if the initiation of force is banned? We are talking about a society where most people would agree that the initiation of force is wrong and, therefore, anyone attempting to take full control over others would both be fought and would also clearly not be a libertarian society at all.

Would it lead to nihilism? Each individual would be free to pursue his own ideals in life. How could this possibly lead to an idea that life is meaningless?

It could lead to anarchy, eventually. And that might be a good thing. Regardless, the Libertarian Party is clearly not advocating such a thing. Rather, it advocates a government that abides by the US Constitution and the various state constitutions in the USA, as well as the promotion of such ideals throughout the world (but not by initiating force).

Can anybody prove libertarianism has benefits? What would be benefits? I can point to some things that I think would be a better society in which to live if libertariansim where adopted, and point to some examples in history to support that such things would likely occur. You can draw your own conclusions.

War -- The American people have become a people who are constantly at war. Libertarianism is about smaller government, not larger government. The largest government today is at war almost all the time. The 20th century was the bloodiest century in world history with thousands of wars around the world -- at a time when the nation-state was at its strongest. The US government is constantly using taxpayers' money to go around bullying the world for the purpose of promoting the crazy schemes of the politicians. This creates enemies for America and is probably the main reason there are now millions of people who hate Americans and would like to kill them. Small governments ususally do not engage in war. War takes a war machine, which takes a large government. Want less war? Reduce the size and power of the government. Want less terrorism? Get the US gov't out of the business of killing other people through mass bombing, invasions, and installing puppet dictators. Make the US gov't smaller and you will get less war.

Debt -- The US is now the world's largest debtor. American babies born today come into this world being a virtual slave to their government. They will spend at least 50% of their working lives to pay taxes, which benefit lazy bureaucrats, lazy non-producers, and only very few really deserving people in need. Do you want to be a slave or do you want to be free? Only a small government can allow you to be free. Americans have a lot of wealth, but that is mostly due to past generations' efforts. Today, the country is a welfare state. The only reasons the European welfare states have not collapsed yet (though they are showing signs) are because a) they have not paid for their own national defense -- the Americans have, and b) they don't really pay all those taxes that their governments impose (in most countries, tax evasion will not land a person in jail, so the people take shortcuts, not to mention the wealthy have ways of escaping the heavy taxation that Americans do not). The USSR was a shining example that heavy taxation is bad. Hong Kong is a great example of low taxation creating a wealthy society. Likewise, 19th century USA is a great example of low taxation (and government spending) leading to great wealth and no debt, while late 20th century USA is a great example that high taxation (and government spending) leads to economic stagnation and massive debt.

Crime -- Laws against individual drug use and possession has caused gang warfare and murder. In the USA, 18,000 murders occur each year. Most of those occur in the inner cities. Most of those are related to drug prohibition. Just like alcohol prohibition, the government's insane drug laws do not stop people from voluntarily using drugs. It just creates mayhem and fills jail space.

Illegal Immigration -- There are two main reasons Mexicans cross the border illegally (well, the racist Mexican society and corrupt government are the driving force for why they have to do it against the law, but there are two reasons they come to the US for a better life): a) jobs and b) welfare. With a smaller US gov't, the welfare draw would be much smaller, possibly non-existent (like just 30 years ago or so). And low-paying jobs are below the government's minimum wage mandate, making the jobs themselves illegal. This underground economy does little to contribute to US economy, it mostly benefits the Mexican economy.

Education -- Americans are getting dumbed down in the government-controlled schools. It gets worse every year and public schools often look like prisons. Free the kids of government mind control, open it up to free market competition, and it would revolutionize the society, as well as the economy.

There are so many benefits to a smaller government that it is impossible to list them all, and most are interlinked with other things.

The opposite of liberty is tyranny. It's a sliding scale. Either the people fear the government (tyranny) or the government fears the people (liberty). (Thomas Jefferson or one of those dudes said that -- and it is true today just as it was then.)

~ zynner

[zynner]

While there might not be any Libertarian governments to point to as an example, there must be examples where elements of the Liberatarian agenda has been tried ... Are there any other examples to point to?

The USA had no income tax until 1913. Between 1791 and 1913, the USA went from being 13 little colonies on the other side of the world -- across an ocean that took weeks to cross -- into the world's wealthiest nation. It only took about 5 or 6 generations.

Hong Kong went from a little rock with no natural resources to the world's freest economy and one of the world's richest societies -- all within about 1 or 2 generations.

Cuba went from being one of the world's richest societies to one of the poorest -- all within 1 generation.

In 1890-1930, Argentina was one of the world's wealthiest nations. It became one of the poorest -- within 1 or 2 generations.

Switzerland was the last holdout to maintain some sort of a gold standard to back its currency -- within 20 years (1972 to 1990), it was the #1 strongest currency in the world and the Swiss became a wealthy society -- a nation of few natural resources.

Hasn't a national sales tax, in lieu of income tax, been tried anywhere?

The Bahamas has no income tax. Haiti has high taxes. And Cuba has a virtual 100% income tax. Check out their economies.

The current president of Panama went to school in the USA. He implemented massive economic changes, including low taxes and less government. In just 20 years or so, it is the most prosperous nation in Central America.

The wealthiest country in South America is Uruguay -- a nation with no personal income tax and (relatively) small government.

New Zealand implemented smaller government ideas several years ago and the economy boomed. Since then, it has been sliding -- while it also creates a larger government.

Hong Kong and Singapore have the wealthiest nations in Southeast Asia due to economic freedom (low taxes, low government spending, low regulations on business). Malaysia and Indonesia are right in the same neighborhood and cannot get going, economically (not to mention such big-government hellholes as Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, and Burma).

All of these countries -- Hong Kong, Singapore, Panama, Uruguay, Switzerland, etc. also tend to have lower crime rates, better education, better health care, and overall much better standard of living than their similiar-sized but big-government neighbors.

Look at the transformation of the USA from a small government to a large welfare state. Look at the increase in crime, the perpetual wars, the eroding education, the destruction of constitutional protections, etc.

The evidence is EVERYWHERE.

~ zynner

[Osborn F Enready]

JSmith asked:
When you claim that income tax, I.R.S. and Federal Reserve are unconstitutional, what do you use to support that claim.

My answer:
Firstly, the Income Tax. As I said before, the Income Tax is a direct tax from the federal government, to the individual AMERICAN citizen as used today, when it was not designed nor intended to be such. This is Constitutionally forbidden, without at minimum a specific amendment to the Constitution through the proper channels that are outlined in the Constitution.

Now, there was an amendment, the 16th, but that did not address INDIVIDUAL income to be taxed without enumeration, it simply ruled on CORPORATE income, and later when addressed by the courts that brought the amendment into effect BY corporations.

In other words, income tax is only valid to be collected on American Corporations, for their ability to "have rights in collective, as a citizen would individually" and profitting from such in ways that individual citizens, and small business can't. Income taxes are only to be levied against corporate earnings, not individual citizens, and once corporations gained the rights of individual citizens, without the threat of individual imprisonment, they sought to redefine the meaning of income tax, so that it would duly apply to individual citizens, offsetting their tax burden on the elite, to the backs of the individual laborers, farmers and small businessmen.

For example, from this site:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...ment16/01.html

"The ratification of this Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court's decision in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 1 whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States 2 was held by a divided court to be unconstitutional. A tax on incomes derived from property, 3 the Court declared, was a ''direct tax'' which Congress under the terms of Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population, although scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously sustained 4 the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War, 5 the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had ventured to utilize this method of raising revenue. 6

During the interim between the Pollock decision in 1895 and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the Court gave evidence of a greater awareness of the dangerous consequences to national solvency which that holding threatened, and partially circumvented the threat, either by taking refuge in redefinitions of ''direct tax'' or, and more especially, by emphasizing, virtually to the exclusion of the former, the history of excise taxation. Thus, in a series of cases, notably Nicol v. Ames, 7 Knowlton v. Moore, 8 and Patton v. Brady, 9 the Court held the following taxes to have been levied merely upon one of the ''incidents of ownership'' and hence to be excises: a tax which involved affixing revenue stamps to memoranda evidencing the sale of merchandise on commodity exchanges, an inheritance tax, and a war revenue tax upon tobacco on which the hitherto imposed excise tax had already been paid and which was held by the manufacturer for resale.

Because of such endeavors the Court thus found it possible to sustain a corporate income tax as an excise ''measured by income'' on the privilege of doing business in corporate form. 10 The adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, however, put an end to speculation whether the Court, unaided by constitutional amendment, would persist along these lines of construction until it had reversed its holding in the Pollock case. Indeed, in its initial appraisal 11 of the Amendment it classified income taxes as being inherently ''indirect.'' ''[T]he command of the amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived, forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imports subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class.'' 12 ''[T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.'' 13

Secondly, the I.R.S. The Internal Revenue Service is unconstitutional by action, alone. They have been created, and used, as a tool by the United States government to use threat of force, theft of property, and imprisonment as a lever against American Citizens right to withhold taxation monies from a government they are attempting to petition for redress. States, and nations, are financial corporation collectives in the name of the people, that operate in the name of the people, and are made solvent by the people through taxation as is the debt that is passed on to the people for state and government operations. One of the only effective peaceful means to attempt to correct a government of this type, run amok or adrift of the intrests of the people is to with-hold the funding, via taxation, which is done through both a petition of redress of grievance as well as tax payment protest (which is designed to cease current government function by cutting available funds). Not all IRS agents are criminals, but the organization is criminal in design, and goes against every single right listed within the Bill of Rights as an option of our government to use against its own citizens.

Where was the "demand of the people" to arrange this agency, adopt its laws, or its ideas or benefits? Where is the verifiable constitutional existence, without the 16th Amendments, "current law" supposed powers of taxation on individuals? The IRS is only valid if it operates against AMERICAN CORPORATIONS, not against American individual citizens.

Thirdly, the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is, and always has been a PRIVATE bank. It is no more Federal than Federal Express. This nations banking system, fiat system of money, and stock market as we KNOW IT today, were designed by business moguls of the late 1800's, and early 1900's due to an easily foreseen process of designed speculation that fostered the previous market crashes. These were global pirates, like the East and West India companies, run and or funded by "supposed" respectable people, like the Rockefellers, Roosevelts, Rothschilds and the Hearsts. In realtiy, they were global profiteers, specializing in creating market imbalance through war and revolt, and standing by the sidelines profitting from both sides from start to finish while at all times extorting resources, raping and pillaging and generally causing a living hell on earth for the poor societies that fell under their gun. Now, I have nothing against the history of man and his use of resources except of the toll of human life and the fixture of profit above human life and or individual rights. From our inception as a nation in the U.S., until 1913, we were a Constitutional nation with a flawed, but WORKABLE currency. The Federal Reserve was designed to bring stability, but they didn't tell the people about the inherant corruption and corporatism that came along with it. There is no way, no way, this system in any measure, could be considered constitutional, and or providing of "economic liberty" to the people, since their money is based on fiat paper, that is worthless without the "current" government using its global enforcement principals of the "value" they assign to the dollar. Gold and silver ALWAYS spend, with or without government. Paper is simply worthless, without government.

Remember, the same people that designed the "new system" of banking, were the same ones that were being scrutinized for manipulating the "previous system" of banking that was used worldwide. When they were asked to design a new system, all they did was keep the same methods in place, under prettier, "neuspeak names".

JSmith36 asked:
On the income tax, the 16th Amendment says "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"

I answer:
As I said above.... The 16th Amendment gave "no new powers of taxation" to the federal government to tax INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS, simply CORPORATIONS that enjoy the rights of individuals for the purpose of maximizing profit and effectiveness, without the penalty of individual responsibility. This entire scam of income tax on citizens was designed and brought about by burgeoning global corporations wishing to offset their tax burden onto individual citizens, and with slavery quickly losing favor in the public eye, this seemed to many elites the "answer" to offsetting the eventual loss of free labor through slavery, hence government was taken over or swayed to the WRONG side of the Constitution for incorrect assumption.

(continued)

[Osborn F Enready]

JSmith36 stated:
The Amendment is clear (and the Supreme Court has said, many times), that this allows an income tax to be collected by the Federal Government. See Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), and Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955).

I say:
Notice those cases were brought by corporations, against the U.S. Government? The Congress DOES HAVE POWER to collect INCOME TAX from U.S. Corporations, for the benefit of BEING ALLOWED TO INCORPORATE, and profit from the "beneficience" of operating OUTSIDE THE LAWS that pertain to individual citizens via INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY specifically referring to fraud and or profit from labor.

JSmith36 said:
On the I.R.S., once we establish that the income tax is constitutional, Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution says, in part, "he [the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". If Congress passes a law that says the Federal Government is going to collect income tax, the President is required to collect income tax. The I.R.S. is simply the federal agency he uses to do so.

I say:
While this may be true, in essence, this requires the LAW to be LEGAL within the bounds of Federal Limitation by the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights? If the law is bad, and is passed, and is not addressed correctly within a "reasonable amount of time" by the people, it is allowed to stand until duly challenged, to which it CANNOT BE if the court is given the full power to avoid ruling, hearing or accepting the case. This in itself, is a blatant violation of the citizens right to petition for redress of grievance, withold tax payments, or to have their full limit of free speech to be heard by the powers that be.

Do you dispute the citizens of the United States have a right to petition the government for redress of greivances, or withold tax money, as our forefathers did when setting the stage for revolt against England? Was not tax money, and/or tithe money not one of the biggest causes for our REVOLT for independence, and the ability to ONLY BE TAXED WHEN BEING GIVEN FULL AND ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION?

JSmith36 said:
Finally, on the Federal Reserve, I have found several arguments on the internet that claim that the Federal Reserve is dishonest, corrupt, evil, economically negligent, self serving, tied to the WTO and World Bank (with negative connotations), and is an evil scheme. However, I cannot find any logic as to why it’s "unconstitutional". If you'd care to outline that argument in full, I'd be happy to respond.

I say:
It is really quite simple. Congress has the power to coin money in the name of the American people. It does not have the right to create a private bank that will hold all that "gold and silver" in exchange to the American people for worthless paper, in exchange for national monetary and goods inflation and the ability of the government to "create" its own wealth with no say of the people, or check by the people on that wealth, or how and where it is spent.

Government has a clear, and defined purpose. Making money for profit or wealth redistribution is not under that umbrella of responsibility in the American Constitution without having very specific checks and balances of which none today exist.


I hope this helps to clear up, or lead to further questions of more specificity on the topics you queried my perspective on.

To me, the above clearly outlines the fundamental lie of corporate personhood as it has been foisted on the American people without their knowledge, ability to foresee or intelligently raise argument against. All Americans have already been sold out, and yet the overwhelming majority still believe they are econmicly and politically free......and that my friend is the epitome of a true tragedy.

Below, are many of my favorite quotes, all directly, or indirectly referring to the very tragedy of which I speak. Forgive me in advance for wanting to share them.

All quotes from:
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“Reason obeys itself; and ignorance does whatever is dictated to it.”
-Thomas Paine, Rights of Man ("Conclusion")

“Orwell was not wrong when he said of Western Marxists that if it paid better they'd be fascists. The chimera of absolute power has a certain hold on utopians, who claim they need to be devils to do the work of angels.”
-Victor David Hanson, 2004-Mar-31, "Question Log"

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
-Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.

“If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom, and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too.”
-W. Somerset Maugham

“To ignore the evidence, and hope that it cannot be true, is more an evidence of mental illness.”
-William Blase

“Logical consequences are the scarecrows of fools and the beacons of wise men.”
-Thomas Henry Huxley (1825 - 1895)

“The Rothschilds, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the representatives and agents---men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door neighbors, for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest---stand ready, at all times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers, who call themselves governments, to be expended in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved.”
-Lysander Spooner, 1870, in No Treason #6

“The best time to buy is when blood is running in the streets.”
-Baron Nathan Mayer de Rothschild

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
-Henry Ford

“...all of us here at the policy-making level have had experience with directives... from the White House.... The substance of them is that we shall use our grant-making power so as to alter our life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.”
-H. Rowan Gaither, Jr., President, Ford Foundation, to Norman Dodd, Congressional Reese Commission, 1954

“What luck for the rulers that men do not think.”
-Adolf Hitler

“You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy.”
-Charles Manson, leader of a murderous cult of entirely unskeptical followers

“Americans are now certifiably insane. They are crazy. They are suffering a mass psychosis. They have lost their own ability to discern right from wrong.”
-Joseph Farah. editor of WorldNetDaily, 1999-Apr-12

“One of the shrewdest ways for human predators to conquer their stronger victims is to steadily convince them with propaganda that they're still free...”
-Dr. N.A. Scott

“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.”
-Johann Von Goethe

“Evil requires the sanction of the victim.”
-Ayn Rand

“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”
-Voltaire

“No matter how far you've gone down the wrong road, turn back.”
-Turkish proverb

[Osborn F Enready]

After re-reading this thread, I also want to re-address the original poster on one key topic.

What is naturally superior on this earth?

Is nature superior to man, or man superior to nature? I would say nature is superior to man.

Is man superior to beast? I would say so, since modern man with even the crudest elements can overcome all but the fiercest beasts, even in their own element.

Is any man, superior to another man? I would say this is a loaded question. Man is complex, but inherantly all men are equal. In any given "situation", one man may be superior to another "for that specific task, situtation, action or idea". However, I would say all men are inherantly equal, and limited by the physical world, therefore, no man is superior to another since we are all limited in the same ways with which we allocate our skills, intrests and knowledge.

So, I clearly see nature as superior to man. Nature, makes man seem feeble, small and powerless, at any given time with no warning. It has, and will again wipe some or all species and/or society from the earth.

Notice I say nature, and not God, though many refer to the mysteries of nature through a God or the supposed "arms" of their God.

This to me, points directly to one thing which makes individual liberty and responsibility a self evident truth. If nothing but nature is superior to man, who can come between man and his definition of nature or beliefs other than nature itself, in the form of death?

This also to me, point directly to the notion that all men will rebel in some measure against any force that is imposed, if the force is not imposed due to some perception of being wrong and accepted as such. This leans toward minimal laws, that only govern the infringment of individual rights, and or individual responsibility.

To me, libertarianism most closely resembles this ideology and or self-perceived, and self embraced ideology that I have found myself in through life and experience as my guide. I have force, as does any man, but as an individual all men should (and do) have by instinct the basic respect to be left alone and or given basic respect for simply being encircled and controlled by nature, much like myself. Limited by natures constraints, like myself.

Life does not come with an instruction booklet, or handbook, or a list of guarantees (though some religions may claim otherwise). You are born what you are, and raised by what you came from, and seek to mark upon nature as yourself in a quest for your own rightness, and core philosophies that best expand your knowledge and make aware your soul, that is creativity. We are born into collectives and raised to be individuals, outside of taught or perceived norms if left to nature. Some seek to birth others, pieces of themselves to arm with their learned lessons, in hopes that their words mean to their children what their parents words did not mean to them. Words, history, litarary works of art, cannot teach like experience. Experience is lifes teacher, and to limit lifes experience beyond that of infringing on the rights of another, is simply criminal intent to prevent living in general, regardless of how "dutiful dignified or civillized" the intent may seem.

If there is a God, other than nature, or even if we assume nature itself is for all intents and purposes our/MANS God................THEY/HE/SHE/IT evidently trusted us with the ability to make our own decisions to find or DENY their existence. That is rational thought, skeptical thinking, reason and logic.

That alone proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, only I can accurately and honestly deem what I as an individual, desire, crave, seek or labor for. This leaves only the idea that basic right and wrong as perceived by man must revolve around the rights of man, all men. This means that we are, or should be all bound instictively by the honor and respect that is being a living, breathing man as complex as we are in a world as basic, dynamic and cruel as nature has provided. This means that something so sacred as and rare as life is given our precarious balance at the top of the natural food chain second only to nature itself, must surely be honored and respected with competent and adequate protection from any perceivable threat, as well as some law that would define the limit that is that threat so we can consistently and accurately gauge any possible situation or action that could arise. Those common threads, are what I see as the Bill of Rights as it applies to individuals and is recognized for simply noting, not granting the INALIENABLE rights of man. The fruit of a long and laborious road of blood, sweat and tears of mans children in the quest to be treated equally by others who are stonger, richer, better armed than they themselves, be it government, state, clan, tribe or any Gods religion of any name.

All people merely seek to exist, to amuse themselves, to be able to provide food and drink and to cohabitate and societize amongst those that they deem acceptable.

Who could find fault with that, if all parties are willing participants, and who dare claim to speak for those that can't speak for themselves when no answers exist outside the realm of our known world?

Is anyone following me there?

[jsmith36]

Firstly, the Income Tax. As I said before, the Income Tax is a direct tax from the federal government, to the individual AMERICAN citizen as used today, when it was not designed nor intended to be such. This is Constitutionally forbidden, without at minimum a specific amendment to the Constitution through the proper channels that are outlined in the Constitution.

First, I am not interested in what the tax was “designed or intended” to be used for, only its constitutionality. Many things have changed in the last 300 years, including the scope of the laws in our country. I grant your argument that an income tax was unconstitutional under the original constitution, but I will argue later that the 16th Amendment allows an income tax, even on individuals.

Now, there was an amendment, the 16th, but that did not address INDIVIDUAL income to be taxed without enumeration, it simply ruled on CORPORATE income, and later when addressed by the courts that brought the amendment into effect BY corporations.

I disagree with you reading of the 16th Amendment. The amendment reads:

“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.”

There is nothing in the amendment which says anything about corporate taxes. But let’s analyze the actual words:

“lay and collect taxes on incomes” – income: The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments (from The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Ed.)

“whatever source derived” – whatever: Everything or anything that: Do whatever you please (from The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Ed.)

Since you have already granted that the 16th Amendment can be used to tax the income of corporations, I don’t need to prove that it allows direct taxation. The only argument is on whether or not it applies to individual citizens. There is nothing in the text of the amendment to assume that it only applies to corporations. Simply read the words. Using a common definition of income and whatever, the Government can tax ANY AND ALL incomes, including those of individuals. The key words of income and whatever indicate that this is not limited to revenues of corporations, but income from all sources for all people.

I’m not sure what you mean by the courts that “brought the amendment into effect by corporations”, but the language of the Amendment seems simple enough. If it is income, the government can lay a tax on it. That includes the income of individuals.

In other words, income tax is only valid to be collected on American Corporations, for their ability to "have rights in collective, as a citizen would individually" and profitting from such in ways that individual citizens, and small business can't. Income taxes are only to be levied against corporate earnings, not individual citizens, and once corporations gained the rights of individual citizens, without the threat of individual imprisonment, they sought to redefine the meaning of income tax, so that it would duly apply to individual citizens, offsetting their tax burden on the elite, to the backs of the individual laborers, farmers and small businessmen.

I don’t really know what this section of your argument here really means, but I’ll take a stab at it. The 16th Amendment applies to all incomes. Corporations, as entities, have income. Therefore, Congress can collect taxes of corporate income. Contrary to your assertion, individuals involved with corporations can be imprisoned. Also, there has been no “offsetting” of the tax burden. Corporations still pay large amounts of income taxes (most economists credit the recent drop in the budget deficit that happened last quarter to higher corporate income taxes). If their goal was to “convince” the courts that the income tax should be applied to individuals, and then shift the tax burden away from corporations, they have failed miserably at the second part.

Next, you cite a Court opinion; however, this says the opposite of your position. In the quote: “''[T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged”, this is says exactly the opposite of what you are arguing. It is saying that there were no new powers of taxation, because THEY ALREADY HAD THE POWER TO TAX. The Courts by this time considered income taxes to be indirect, and thus could be allowed. The Amendment simply allowed them to do what they could already do anyway.

Secondly, the I.R.S. The Internal Revenue Service is unconstitutional by action, alone. They have been created, and used, as a tool by the United States government to use threat of force, theft of property, and imprisonment as a lever against American Citizens right to withhold taxation monies from a government they are attempting to petition for redress. States, and nations, are financial corporation collectives in the name of the people, that operate in the name of the people, and are made solvent by the people through taxation as is the debt that is passed on to the people for state and government operations. One of the only effective peaceful means to attempt to correct a government of this type, run amok or adrift of the intrests of the people is to with-hold the funding, via taxation, which is done through both a petition of redress of grievance as well as tax payment protest (which is designed to cease current government function by cutting available funds). Not all IRS agents are criminals, but the organization is criminal in design, and goes against every single right listed within the Bill of Rights as an option of our government to use against its own citizens.

The problem here is that you start from a flawed premise, which is the debate on the 16th Amendment that was covered above. If I win that the 16th amendment is valid (and, hence, so is the income tax), then your IRS argument goes away. But I’ll still cover it anyways.

There is nothing in the Constitution that allows you to withhold taxes from a government that you are attempting to petition for a redress of grievances. The First Amendment grants you the right to petition, but does not give you the right to withhold taxes during that petition. Simply put, the Constitution does not get you off the hook in paying taxes. Just doesn’t happen. If you can find a specific provision in the Constitution which does that, please let me know.

Next, your assumption that withholding taxes from the government will “cease current government function by cutting available funds” simply ignores the way government works. Even if a large number of people do not pay their taxes, the government will still continue to function without interruption by selling bonds and barrowing money from Americans. If a large majority of Americans decide to not buy the bonds in protest, the government will sell them to foreigners. If foreigners don’t buy them, the government will print more money. But there is no way that your symbolic tax avoidance has any effect on the workings of the USFG.

Where was the "demand of the people" to arrange this agency, adopt its laws, or its ideas or benefits? Where is the verifiable constitutional existence, without the 16th Amendments, "current law" supposed powers of taxation on individuals? The IRS is only valid if it operates against AMERICAN CORPORATIONS, not against American individual citizens.

We don’t live in a Democracy; we live in a Democratic-Republic. There is no “demand of the people”, only a demand of the Congress. Congress passed laws that created the IRS, and has passed many, many laws dealing with the imposition and collection of taxes. The only way that citizens can demand to do anything (aside from things on a state and local level, i.e. school district bonds, state referenda, etc.) is to let their member of Congress know their opinion, and then make a strategic choice when voting in the next election.

The rest of this part is already answered in the 16th Amendment stuff up at the top.

Thirdly, the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is, and always has been a PRIVATE bank. It is no more Federal than Federal Express. This nations banking system, fiat system of money, and stock market as we KNOW IT today, were designed by business moguls of the late 1800's, and early 1900's due to an easily foreseen process of designed speculation that fostered the previous market crashes. These were global pirates, like the East and West India companies, run and or funded by "supposed" respectable people, like the Rockefellers, Roosevelts, Rothschilds and the Hearsts. In realtiy, they were global profiteers, specializing in creating market imbalance through war and revolt, and standing by the sidelines profitting from both sides from start to finish while at all times extorting resources, raping and pillaging and generally causing a living hell on earth for the poor societies that fell under their gun. Now, I have nothing against the history of man and his use of resources except of the toll of human life and the fixture of profit above human life and or individual rights.

Thanks for the history lesson. I’m sure much of this is true, although it doesn’t really fit into this discussion. I don’t have to either agree or disagree with it to make our debate continue, as it is not vital to the issue at hand, and I don’t have time to research all of these claims.

Continued...

[jsmith36]

From our inception as a nation in the U.S., until 1913, we were a Constitutional nation with a flawed, but WORKABLE currency. The Federal Reserve was designed to bring stability, but they didn't tell the people about the inherant corruption and corporatism that came along with it. There is no way, no way, this system in any measure, could be considered constitutional, and or providing of "economic liberty" to the people, since their money is based on fiat paper, that is worthless without the "current" government using its global enforcement principals of the "value" they assign to the dollar. Gold and silver ALWAYS spend, with or without government. Paper is simply worthless, without government.

Remember, the same people that designed the "new system" of banking, were the same ones that were being scrutinized for manipulating the "previous system" of banking that was used worldwide. When they were asked to design a new system, all they did was keep the same methods in place, under prettier, "neuspeak names".

I’m really amazed that you made this argument. I’ve seen it before on the internet, but it has never, ever made sense to me. This should be something which is fairly straight-forward (most of the other issues in this debate are not). Under the Article I powers of the Constitution, the Congress has the right to “coin money, and regulate the value thereof” and to “borrow money on the Credit of the United States”. In Knox v. Lee, the Supreme Court held that, in concert, that this meant that the Government can issue paper banknotes. Again, the key tenet of Constitutional law is that if the Supreme Court says something is Constitutional, that means it is. Regardless of the intent, theory, or will of the people, the Supreme Court says what is and what is not Constitutional; they said printing money is ok, and thus the government can print money.

Here’s the link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=79&invol=457

Fiat paper is not worthless without the Government. Fiat paper is valuable as long as people are willing to accept it in exchange for goods and services. I don’t see any reason why paper is any more or less valuable than gold, silver, cigarettes, furs, or giant stones, all of which have been or are being used as currency. Next, the only reason why gold and silver are valuable is because people think its valuable. It’s known as the “Tinkerbell paradox”; currency is only valuable if you believe in it. This goes for paper money or gold. Gold has little inherent value. As a metal, it is too soft to make weapons. It has some value in electronics, but other than that, its pretty much worthless. The only reason why it was used during the mercantile era was that people were willing to trade goods and services for it.

The fact that there are places on the Earth where gold and silver are worthless is all the proof that is needed to sustain the claim that gold is not inherently valuable, meaning it falls into the same category as paper money.

As I said above.... The 16th Amendment gave "no new powers of taxation" to the federal government to tax INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS, simply CORPORATIONS that enjoy the rights of individuals for the purpose of maximizing profit and effectiveness, without the penalty of individual responsibility. This entire scam of income tax on citizens was designed and brought about by burgeoning global corporations wishing to offset their tax burden onto individual citizens, and with slavery quickly losing favor in the public eye, this seemed to many elites the "answer" to offsetting the eventual loss of free labor through slavery, hence government was taken over or swayed to the WRONG side of the Constitution for incorrect assumption.

Notice those cases were brought by corporations, against the U.S. Government? The Congress DOES HAVE POWER to collect INCOME TAX from U.S. Corporations, for the benefit of BEING ALLOWED TO INCORPORATE, and profit from the "beneficience" of operating OUTSIDE THE LAWS that pertain to individual citizens via INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY specifically referring to fraud and or profit from labor.

See above for the debate on the 16th amendment.

Also, there is nothing in the Constitution that talks about the trade off between income tax and the right of incorporation. NONE. It’s simply a figment of your imagination. In fact, the Federal Government doesn’t even regulate corporations, that’s done by the states. I’m sorry, but your entire notion of the theory of corporate personhood is completely mistaken.

While this may be true, in essence, this requires the LAW to be LEGAL within the bounds of Federal Limitation by the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights? If the law is bad, and is passed, and is not addressed correctly within a "reasonable amount of time" by the people, it is allowed to stand until duly challenged, to which it CANNOT BE if the court is given the full power to avoid ruling, hearing or accepting the case. This in itself, is a blatant violation of the citizens right to petition for redress of grievance, withold tax payments, or to have their full limit of free speech to be heard by the powers that be.

Here, your notion of the American system of justice is off its rocker. A law is legal until a Court rules that it is illegal. The Court system has the right to entertain or reject a challenge to a law as it deems necessary. All of that is consistent with the Constitution. If a bad law is passed, it stays on the books until it is overturned. You don’t get to break laws you think are unconstitutional. There is no “conscientious objector” status to paying taxes.

Next, it’s ludicrous to think that if the Court does not hear a case, that it somehow abridges your First Amendment rights. The First Amendment only covers acts of Congress (and later, acts by state legislatures). The Congress has not denied you anything; only the Court has. The Court can deny you many things, but that doesn’t mean it violates the First Amendment’s prohibition on laws enacted by Congress. Read the text of the amendment. The first word is “CONGRESS”. Next, I’ve already answered your point about the supposed “right” to withhold tax payments above, but again I challenge you to find the part of the Constitution that allows for tax avoidance for moral reasons. Next, you have the right to free speech, but you don’t have a guarantee that the “powers that be” will listen to you. You can stand in the town square, shouting to the rooftops about the issues that are important to you, but you don’t have the right to demand an audience with the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Again, the First Amendment only prohibits CONGRESS from abridging your right to freedom of speech; in this case, we’re talking about actions of the Judiciary.

Do you dispute the citizens of the United States have a right to petition the government for redress of greivances, or withold tax money, as our forefathers did when setting the stage for revolt against England? Was not tax money, and/or tithe money not one of the biggest causes for our REVOLT for independence, and the ability to ONLY BE TAXED WHEN BEING GIVEN FULL AND ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION?

This is an interesting point you make. It is important to note that our forefathers were criminals. They broke the laws of England. We tend to forget that sometimes. There is a distinction between Constitutional and morally right. You might have a moral imperative to violate a law (i.e. slavery), but your act is still criminal. I don’t deny your ability to withhold taxes from the government, in the spirit of our forefathers; but I will deem your actions as criminal. You can petition for redress your heart out; they are not required to listen, nor act upon your petition, and you will still have violated a Constitutional (albeit morally ambiguous) law.

It is really quite simple. Congress has the power to coin money in the name of the American people. It does not have the right to create a private bank that will hold all that "gold and silver" in exchange to the American people for worthless paper, in exchange for national monetary and goods inflation and the ability of the government to "create" its own wealth with no say of the people, or check by the people on that wealth, or how and where it is spent.

Government has a clear, and defined purpose. Making money for profit or wealth redistribution is not under that umbrella of responsibility in the American Constitution without having very specific checks and balances of which none today exist.

I’ve answered a lot of this above on the currency arguments, but a couple of new things here. First, the Federal Reserve is not totally a private bank. It is more accurately described as a quasi-governmental agency. For example, they are subject to the Freedom of Information Act, like other federal agencies. The chairman is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In many ways, there are the same checks and balances as the Supreme Court.

Next, the Fed does NOT hold all of the gold and silver. First of all, much of the gold is held at the Ft. Knox bullion depository (although in terms of dollar value, the Fed in New York is larger). Secondly, most of the gold held in New York is owned by other countries, other central banks, and NGO’s, not the gold of the American people (although I don’t know very many Americans who own any bullion or gold besides jewllery).

There are checks and balances on the Fed, as evidence by the fact that the Board of governors is approved by the Senate and can be removed by the Courts.

Thanks for replying,
Josh

[zynner]

Josh,

Thought I’d jump in here a bit and see if I can clarify a few things. I’m somewhat familiar with some of these arguments and why some people make certain claims. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree, but the key is that the arguments are coming from a different perspective than most people are used to.

I take it you are a lawyer. If so, you were trained in a law school. I was just listening to a “progressive” talk radio guy lament that the conservatives have “taken over” some law schools and are now teaching law to law students in ways that are not necessarily how liberal professors/administrators would teach. In other words, both sides want to influence law students to think their way so that the lawyers and judges will one day go out and remake the legal system in their own image, so to speak.

If you can grasp that, and I’m sure you can, then consider that whatever you have been taught and whatever your colleagues agree is “the law” is viewed from a certain perspective. Then, consider that the currently-accepted perspective has been intentionally shaped over the years, perhaps in ways that are far different from what the law has actually said. If one were to simply change the meanings of words, one could turn what is perceived to be “the law” on its head. Many people who make these arguments are claiming that such is the case with the American legal history.

If they are right, then power has been illegally (i.e. unconstitutionally) usurped. Here are some explanations of things you might think are bizarre:

(1) According to some, the 16th Amendment was never ratified in accordance to constitutional requirements. Secretary of State Polk simply declared that enough state legislatures had ratified it, even though they hadn’t. Sure, it would be a moot point today if the Supreme Court found this to be true because the states would just go ahead and ratify it. But the question is: Do we live within a nation of laws or not? Is this claim true or not? I don’t know, but it’s one basis for these claims and has never been addressed by those who claim these people are kooks -- why not?

(2) The word “income” in the 16th Amendment is the main source of contention. As you have suggested, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) declares what is when it comes to the laws. Prior to the 16th Amendment (passed in 1913), in 1911 (I think), the SCOTUS decided a case that declared that the Income Tax Act of 1909 was valid because “income” was the same thing as “corporate profits.” Well, if the SCOTUS has declared what the term “income” means, then that is that, right? So, here comes the 16th Amendment using the exact same term. You will find that USC26 (IRC) only uses the term “gross income” and never “income.” Odd? The 16th says Congress can tax “income,” not “gross income.” If they are the same thing, then why not say “income” in USC26? The idea here is that the SCOTUS had already defined “income” as “corporate profits,” which no individual can possibly have. You cannot use the American Heritage Dictionary to define a term for legal purposes if the SCOTUS has already defined it. Agree or disagree, it’s an interesting issue.

(3) Let me take another issue that was not addressed, to make a point. Are you familiar with how limited liability companies (LLC’s) are taxed? Generally, they are taxed as pass-through entities, like partnerships, but can also be taxed the same as corporations under certain circumstances. The IRS issued a regulation for this. How do you think that came into being? Do you think the IRS just dreamt this up on their own? Do you think Congress did? Nope. Look up the SCOTUS case of Morrissey vs. Commissioner in 1935. In that case, the court was looking at a business trust and determining how it should be taxed (as a corporation or a trust?). It declared that if certain elements were present, it would be taxed as “an association, taxable as a corporation” -- the same as a corporation. The elements were clearly spelled out -- that any entity with these characteristics would be taxed in a certain way. You will see that the IRS regulations for LLC’s follow this SCOTUS ruling, though they never mention it. Of course, this must be the way it is, since the IRS cannot overrule the SCOTUS. Shouldn’t the same be true of taxing “income” of individuals?

(4) Regarding the 16th and “no new powers of taxation” thing, it is usually taken out-of-context, from what I understand (and I am no expert, but I have read more than 99% of lawyers on the subject). We go back to 1895, when the SCOTUS overturned an attempted income tax (Pollack vs. Farmers). Very convoluted decision. Basically, there are direct taxes and indirect taxes. An income tax had always been understood (going back to English law) to be a direct tax, and prohibited by the US Constitution (pre-16th Amendment). Lincoln got an illegal one (Income Tax DUTY of 1861) passed and another attempt was made in 1894. The ruling here said that the income from rental property was direct, but that the rest of it was indirect (or some such insane illogic) and the law was declared unconstitutional. So, when the Brushaber court in 1916 was talking about no new plenary powers, it meant that the 16th Amendment was on an indirect tax on corporate profits -- remember, the 1909 case and the fact that “income” had already been defined by the court. If it sounds like gobbledygook, it’s only because those guys in black robes must have been on drugs when they came up with that stuff (to justify it, no doubt). Of course, in Brushaber, they clearly just made up out of whole cloth the notion that income taxes are indirect -- see the entire history prior. Consider this: if the Brushaber court was right, then why was there any need to have the 16th Amendment at all??? There must be more to the story than today’s lawyers are taught. To say, “the amendment simply allowed them to do what they could already do anyway” makes no sense. An amendment changes something; it does not maintain status quo. Think about it.

(5) One other thing to consider: if "income" is indirect corporate profits, then there would be no violation of the 5th Amendment, since an individual would not be forced to be a witness against himself in a criminal matter -- no constitutional conflict. However, if it is a direct tax on individual incomes (the way it is currently accepted) then there is a clear violation by the government every time any person must sign under penalty of perjury and any time their return is used against them criminally. That’s how they got Al Capone (not from tax evasion, but from perjury on his tax form). How can the 5th Amendment be violated by the 16th Amendment when the 16th does not specifically provide for the repeal of the 5th as to the subject matter of taxation?

(6) The primary reason why gold is much superior to fiat currency as a form of money is that no government can manipulate gold. Only a fraction of the current gold supply is newly mined each year, so it is a stable form of money. Fiat currency, on the other hand, is constantly manipulated by governments. The US dollar has lost more than 90% of its purchasing power during the 20th century. Yes, it's true that most people just accept any form of money, but that is not what makes any particular form good or bad. Central banks cause inflation, which destroys the wealth of the people. Gold is superior because using it eliminates the inflationary/deflationary cycles that central bankers cause by inflating and deflating the money supply.

(7) On another topic, you might check out the idea of the “original 13th Amendment.” Some say that, circa 1810-1812, a constitutional amendment was passed by both houses of Congress and ratified by enough states at that time to become part of the US Constitution. It was published in law books for several years -- and then disappeared! Former Senator Muskie took up this cause several years ago. The amendment would have stripped citizenship for any federal employee or just federal elected officials (I forget which) if they accepted gifts (i.e. bribes) or titles of nobility from any foreign nation. Well, if it really was passed, shouldn’t it be part of the Constitution? The story goes that official records were destroyed during a fire. And then, the law books that had the amendment just suddenly left it out on the next reprint. Very mysterious.

Whatever the truth of all this is, I ask you a question: Should we not have a nation where all the people, including the employees of government, abide by the laws? American legal history is filled with these kinds of apparent weird happenings that are never addressed by the courts, especially the SCOTUS. And the vast, vast majority of lawyers are never taught any of this, almost always act snooty and with disdain for anyone bringing up these subjects (even though neither they nor their colleagues have any clue as to the validity of these issues), and rarely ever do their legal duty to bring out the truth or challenge these in court.

If you, as a lawyer (I’m assuming you are), were to bring these issues up in front of a judge, you would be threatened by that judge in many cases. Mind you, the judge would not have any clue and would not bother citing you the law to make you shut up; he would just use threats. Happens all the time in courts all across America. That is very telling, from this layman’s opinion. It's a source of disdain for many of us for the those in the legal profession (those in the profession who refuse to think for themselves and challenge long-standing dogma that is clearly contrary to what the law really says).

I hope you consider some of these ideas and do the research yourself. Maybe your eyes will be open in ways you had never dreamed.

~ zynner