Free Republic

Then I invite you to visit our FReepathon thread, where many of our hardest working FReepers are conservative women.

I'm not saying that there are no conservative women; I'm saying even the most conservative of [American] women has picked up flavors of feminism from its all-pervasive nature in our society.

they dont vamp on white women..because by and large white WOMEN dont hold positions of “power”

Really?
I thought it was because, by and large, the women of America have swallowed the poison that we call feminism.
It's so pervasive that I would be shocked to find one that hadn't 'marinated' at least a little.

OneWingedShark: "First off, Section V of the proposal means that this is not an ad hoc group, but rather sets forth the means by which a valid grand jury is to be instituted. Moreover, Section 4 obviously does not prohibit the members of a Grand Jury from facing justice as well as preventing the courts from meddling with the composition thereof. — As far as I can tell you wish that the grand jury is placed squarely in subordination to the judiciary."

Malarkey! Section V of your proposed Grand Jury amendment indicates that, "The local Sheriff of each county shall appoint the members of the federal Grand Jury for that county.." If somehow you imagine that the Sheriff appointing them makes this group not be any sort of "ad hoc" group, and one deliberately chosen for their beliefs, you're off your rocker!

Oh, does this mean that the cabinet is ad hoc because the President makes the appointments? Ridiculous!

What you've provided license for is those angry mobs in Ferguson to be their own grand jury, provided they only can force someone of like-mind into the office of Sheriff.

First, the Sheriff is one of the biggest checks against contraconstitutional government there is, he can stop federal agents and send them packing. (Link)
Second, given that this moves the grand jury from the purview of the federal courts to that of local law-enforcement this makes cases against the federal government enter the realm of possibility again.
Third, I've not said anywhere that any of my ideas are without danger — but given that without changes those in power are disinclined to surrender that power [and likely will need to have it wrested away by force of arms] the dangers are minimal compared to rolling over and accepting the status quo even as it slides ever towards tyranny.

I apologize for my lack of diplomacy in needing to state this so directly, but this idea is nothing short of galactically stupid.

No, continuing to allow the federal government to reign in supremacy especially where the supremacy clause gives no legitimacy is galactically stupid. In order to change that, we need to unchain the institutions they have bound up and bind up the tyrannies that their usurpations have unbound.

Your side comment section on the Grand Juries, already shows you do not understand grand juries, the legal system, common law, and the Magna Carta, all while fabricating your own history of this country. This is only part of why having an Article V convention right now is such an extremely bad idea, ignoring those who fully intend the overthrow of our form of government, not just doing so by unintended ignorance.

Then enlighten me; all you've done so far is assert that I'm wrong.
I do not want an appeal to what we're doing now, I don't even want an appeal to what we've done for 50 or 100 years.
Show me where the Magna Carta and the history there is wrong.

No, the recognition of Rights being applicable to the States involves no such "textual transformation of the Constitution", but rather only necessitates a valid understanding of that document. In FACT the Bill of Rights does not CREATE those rights, but only references them in regard to the construction of the federal government itself, which is the business of the Constitution! Even as indicated in the 9th Amendment itself, there are further rights not so enumerated by the Constitution.

Nowhere did I assert that rights just come from the Bill of Rights.
In fact, your constant assertion that I do assert this, even implicitly, makes me question your intellectual honesty in this discussion.

I believe natural rights exist, and I believe that the Bill of Rights is a codification of the guarantee of recognition of those rights — but, again, not all of those rights mentioned therein are natural rights. A Jury-trial, for example, is not a natural right because it is not inherent in the nature of man — the right to have an opinion and make it known, that is a natural right... the right not to have the law's changes applied retroactively is a natural right, because man is not recognizance and adhering to the whole law today even should it change tomorrow is the best that man can do and man cannot [in general] see in the future what is legal today that might be illegal tomorrow.

But I have not been talking about natural rights, in general, though they do underlie many of the proposed changes:

1. No tax, fee, fine, or judgement —federal, State, or subdivision of either— shall ever be withheld from any wage. — acknowledges the right a worker has to his wage.
2. No property shall be seized for failure to pay taxes until after conviction in a jury trial; the right of the jury to nullify (and thereby forgive) this debt shall never be questioned or denied. — Reiterates what the 5th Amendment recognizes: that the stripping of property w/o conviction is unjust.
3. No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever apply varying rates to those in its jurisdiction. and
   No federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent shall ever be exempt from any tax, fine, or fee by virtue of their position. — reiterates the classical jurisprudence maxim that all are equal before the law.
4. Fiscal Responsibility Amendment — Limits what another can do in you name, preventing them from inbebting you to the point of slavery.
5. Commerce Clause Amendment — Sets limits on a power that has been taken wildly out of context. (Have you ever noticed that the interstate commerce lies betwixt foreign and domestic nations? This means that it is the same power over import/export.)

In fact, I find it interesting that you are so vehement against the Grand Jury amendment — are you perchance a judge or lawyer? &mdsah; and instead of being at all constructive in your criticism, you seek to tear down and quite frankly insult me and my work.

Did you ever see him act or behave like he wasn't?

Now that I think of it, not really.
(Then again, I don't really follow celebrity news.)

Neither having a currency based on physical asset, nor any limit to debt would at all effect the welfare state in any way. These are both falsehoods, based on.. I-don't-know-what.

By basing your currency on a physical item you necessarily constrain the maximum availability to that which exists and the difficulty of obtaining the material — scarcity is exactly that realization.
If the amount of debt which can be accumulated is tied to the amount of that physical commodity, then the amount which can come into welfare is necessarily constrained.

However the Article V proponents entirely IGNORE those existing enumerated powers, instead implicitly validating unrestrained government operating outside the prescribed limits of those powers by their proposed amendments. That is unconscionable, exceedingly ignorant and creates an unrecoverable destruction to our Liberty.

Really?
If, for example, the courts usurp the power to regulate intrastate commerce and it becomes entrenched into the legal-system to such a degree that it becomes enshrined into laws — how does one turn that back? Especially when the tainted poison has been accepted to all branches of the government and dissenting views are essentially denied because it lacks standing. (Shut up, peon: the constitution means what we say it does! Get back in line and quit rocking the boat!)

There's no direct correlation whatsoever between the existence of a welfare state and the currency not being tied to a commodity.

But there is a correlation between incurring debt to support welfare and the welfare state. Granted, if you limit what is spent on welfare to payable income you can have some sort of welfare state, but limited… but having an actual limit keeps means that some welfare program cannot be expanded to the "unsustainable" proportions that define a welfare state. In that manner limiting the amount of debt, and the currency, constrains the beast that is welfare.

OneWingedShark indicated, "Ah, and does that not stink more? After all the power of presentment is mentioned in Amendment 5, so to remove it should require a Constitutional amendment, no?"

You were responding to my reference to "independent presentments" being made by a grand jury, without any direction provided by the Court system. While the 5th Amendment indicates that no person shall be made to answer for a capital crime without " presentment or indictment" by a grand jury, nowhere does that involve that idea that every presentment by a grand jury must followed -- which is a flaw of logic.

Furthermore your argument ignores the penchant for grand juries to "indict a ham sandwich." And, NO, the recognition that the conclusions of grand juries might be flawed, or wrong, does not involve, as you indicate, "stripping away the power of presentment." No such body or singular individual should have that singular authority. Just being "the people" does not grant them with enlightenment or wisdom, as those same "the people" occupy every other position in government too, and all are flawed.

Even the power of indictment held by a legitimate grand jury, does not empower any ad hoc group of individuals calling themselves a grand jury with any authority at all, particularly not extending to anything beyond that group itself. We don't recognize mob rule, in whatever form, no matter what fabricated, corrupt rationalization might be applied to justify it.

While the claim that the independent presentments are no longer valid, is a false fabrication stemming from only one advisory note comment having no legal authority, this does not imply that all presentments must be followed, as they are not necessarily valid. So, no, an amendment to the Constitution is not necessary for the court to ignore an independent presentment.

First off, Section V of the proposal means that this is not an ad hoc group, but rather sets forth the means by which a valid grand jury is to be instituted. Moreover, Section 4 obviously does not prohibit the members of a Grand Jury from facing justice as well as preventing the courts from meddling with the composition thereof. — As far as I can tell you wish that the grand jury is placed squarely in subordination to the judiciary.

If the grand jury's composition and actions are restricted to those acts and members which the judiciary approves, is it at all unreasonable to assume that their actions and membership will be constrained to that which profits the judge? And if so, then is it not exceedingly unlikely that a criminal wearing a black robe, wrapping himself in law, will ever be brought to justice (especially as they gather to themselves more and more power)?

OneWingedShark: "Again, I disagree — the income tax is a single point: when the laborer is paid — the sales tax is essentially every financial transaction in the commercial sector. (Also note, I've not said anything about the welfare state — that would be resolved by the move to a physically-based currency and limitation on the amount of debt that could be assumed and so becomes a non-issue in light of such an amendment."

Congratulations, you've just presented the federal government's own rationalization by which it not only enslaved every one of us, but also reduced our labor to having no value.

As I've indicated, in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, despite the existence of the 16th Amendment

Either a constitutional amendment alters the Constitution or it does not, if the former then to say 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. means that the Congress has that power regardless of what the previous state of the Constitution was, correct? Now, given that it says without apportionment this means that the power so referred is not bound by apportionment; and to say without regard to any census or enumeration means that it is without regard to census or enumeration.

That the court says it gave no new powers is irrelevant and misleading — the removal of qualifications/restrictions on the power of taxation is technically not granting a new power… but it certainly is expanding the power into scopes it previously was not and to those areas which it was previously forbidden the power is new. (Just like breaking a dam and letting water into a new area does not create new water might indeed create a new lake which is, indeed, water.)

I would be fascinated to hear specifically HOW I might be "talking out of both sides of my mouth" regarding 14th Amendment incorporation.

Where you say: That doctrine of "incorporation" was only the "magic" fabrication by which the Federal government justified its usurpation of an authority to police rights when those rights were specifically listed in the Constitution to exclude any federal government action whatsoever. However those rights themselves are also equally applicable to the States themselves.

What you are doing is validating the textual transformation of the Constitution and applying it w/o an amendment. — i.e. the "magic" of a living constitution as 'enlivened' by judicial activism rather than actual amendment. *spit*

In short, words mean things, to take the 1st and alter "Congress" to mean any portion of government, federal or state is to deny the possible necessity of an actual amendment. (After all, if it is based on a preexisting right, and all such rights are applicable to both federal and state then that right must apply to the State as well, right? So, if there is, eg, a right to marriage then the Courts can obviously impose homosexual marriage, right?) Not at all.

Or, to put it another way, not all of the preexisting rights are natural. The 7th amendment provides a jury trial for common law controversies exceeding $20 — is there some human property that makes $20 relevant? Is there some magic to a jury trial? (The primary advantage of the jury is, in fact, that they are distinct and separate from the judge and, as they decide the verdict, removing from them a large temptation towards corruption.)

Moreover, the Bill of Rights was a creation of the states to be applied "against" the federal government — this is obvious from the preamble:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added

Finally, incorporation is terrible because it elevates the courts above the Constitution. We've already seen that they elevate themselves above the law, so why not the supreme law?

I believe it would be a difficult debate to argue we are not all habituated to dutifully pay income tax, with both politicians and private individuals telling us it is our patriotic duty. I merely indicated that your argument seemed (at that point) to be inured to paying income tax by your indication that it should be limited at a certain percentage, and then followed up by an argument of what I strongly believe the founder's original intent to have been: that taxation on wages was a direct tax and that had to be applied to the states according to the census of enumeration. Not only does this deliberate hurdle prevent the federal government from exercising agendas involving individuals, but it also protects the fact that only the States themselves have direct authority on the citizenry.

Hm, I see what you mean.
I still believe that a national sales-tax would be setting up for something far, far worse.

I wouldn't be opposed to the federal government taxing the states who then collect in the manner they chose, but even with that I believe that their power should be limited: no graduated rates, no seizing of property prior to conviction, a limit to the maximum any income tax might have — IOW, the things addressed in my proposed amendment.

Hm, that’d be nice.

Yes reverse everything Barak Obama has done

It's not enough — merely leaving intact the corrupt agencies and returning them to 2008 is not the answer; we need to go further — for example, instead of reforming the ACA, or merely repealing it, we need to destroy the Wickard interpretation of the commerce clause... that not only destroys the ACA, but a multitude of regulatory agencies like the BATFE.

> How about getting the government out of our business?

Aye — Gov being in the business of health insurance is EXACTLY what the ACA is.
I can think of little more destructive than the Wickard interpretation of the Commerce Clause especially as that mode of thought is DIRECTLY responsible to the liberty-/constitution-killing abomination that is the War on Drugs which, in turn, laid down the “exigent circumstances” mindset upon which the War on Terror is founded.

The abuse from commerce clause’s [mis]reading is not the cause of all of our governance ills, but it certainly is involved in a disturbing number of them.

Feminism: The mode of thought that hates everything feminine.

leave it to the LefTards in this state to club us with our own stick!!

That's why, when proposing a law, always ask how can this be used against me? — that, and realizing that there are a lot that can be covered with the nine common law felonies.

They’ve trampled Article 4 Section 4 continuously, especially the second clause.

Which is why I would be all for forcing the issue -- all it would take is a shingle southern border-state governor to declare a state of invasion and deploy the national guard to secure the border, perhaps even calling up the unorganized militia, and then demanding the federal government assist.

That is interesting.

Similarly the commandment thou shalt not KILL-which some scholars believe(and as most people have always acted) was originally thou shalt not MURDER;

Back when the King James bible was Authorized Kill and Murder were essentially synonyms, and this remains even today as one of the definitions of Kill is "to murder" and seen in phrases like "there's a killer on the loose!" (if it were someone who merely ended some life like, say, a hunter that sort of warning would be seen as inappropriate).

Isaiah 5:20 — Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Proverbs 17:23 — Corrupt judges accept secret bribes, and then justice is not done.
2 Peter 2:19 — They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.

But, here’s something that ought to be asked — If the Constitution is the source of governmental authority in the US, then what authority does a non-Constitutional government? Are we to obey people who jump out yelling “I’m the authority!”? — This is to say, are all positions that claim authority actually authority?

Sorry, I was thinking 2008 and 2012... I guess I need some coffee.

President Obama was swept into office in 2012 because the Republican candidate stood for nothing.

And moreso in 2016 — Romney is, politically speaking, indistinguishable from Obama. (And if November 2014 to now has taught us anything it's just how stupid those claiming that congress would hold his feet to the fire actually are — I mean look at how they "oppose" Obama, who isn't even "their guy".)

In fact, that the Republican Party has consistantly stood for nothing is the reason I didn't vote for them in 2014; I knew that their win would not be taken as a repudiation of the Democratic Party's policies, but rather as proof that (a) no actions are actually needed, and (b) yelling I'm not a democrat [even if rolling over for them] is enough to win.

The entire Patriot Act is a misguided assault on the constitution and liberty.

I'm of the opinion that it is not misguided, but an intentional assault thereon — the agency-powers and policies that have grown from the Patriot Act are, IMO, far too planned to have simply "grown". The ATF runs guns because that was what the elite wanted; the NSA spies w/o warrants on citizens because that is what the elite want; the TSA exists and conditions the people to accept government intrusion because that is what the elite want.

I, for one, would like to see the Patriot Act expire — but that's not enough, we still have to pull up the tyranny-weeds from that box of seeds.

You say you disagree, but then don't indicate why. I submit that the reason you do not provide any rationale is that you there is not actually one, and you're just repeating the habituation you've been subjected to annually like Pavlov's dog.

Well, mostly because it was late and I wanted to make it a quick post — but look here, you've revealed yourself as not only willing, but eager, to impute upon me unthinking/brainwashed (and ill-will?). Something I suspected given your post #239 wherein you talk out of both sides of your mouth regarding incorporation.

But, since you ask about why I disagree it is this: your assertion that wages are merely equivalent exchange of labor for money is actually the model wherein a person's labor has no intrinsic worth. You see, given a pile of wood, tools, and a laborer the resultant dog-house's value is not merely cost+labor, but cost+labor+utility. This is to say that the usefulness of the work is also a factor and why a brain-surgeon's wage is not going to be equal to a short-order cook's. — moreover, there is also the agreement with the employer (who in essence judges the utility of the laborer), there is a parable in the bible where a group of people were operating under your:

(Matthew 20:1-16)
“For the Kingdom of Heaven is like the landowner who went out early one morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay the normal daily wage and sent them out to work.

“At nine o’clock in the morning he was passing through the marketplace and saw some people standing around doing nothing. So he hired them, telling them he would pay them whatever was right at the end of the day. So they went to work in the vineyard. At noon and again at three o’clock he did the same thing.

“At five o’clock that afternoon he was in town again and saw some more people standing around. He asked them, ‘Why haven’t you been working today?’

“They replied, ‘Because no one hired us.’

“The landowner told them, ‘Then go out and join the others in my vineyard.’

“That evening he told the foreman to call the workers in and pay them, beginning with the last workers first. When those hired at five o’clock were paid, each received a full day’s wage. When those hired first came to get their pay, they assumed they would receive more. But they, too, were paid a day’s wage. When they received their pay, they protested to the owner, ‘Those people worked only one hour, and yet you’ve paid them just as much as you paid us who worked all day in the scorching heat.’

“He answered one of them, ‘Friend, I haven’t been unfair! Didn’t you agree to work all day for the usual wage? Take your money and go. I wanted to pay this last worker the same as you. Is it against the law for me to do what I want with my money? Should you be jealous because I am kind to others?’

“So those who are last now will be first then, and those who are first will be last.”

To assert that there is only the fundamental exchange equivalency WRT work and wage is to set up the foundation for a framework of labor-laws which would strip the hirer of the ability (a) to evaluate the utility of the labor [and laborer] and [when aggressively enforced] (b) to be generous.

A sales tax is not the same thing as a tax on personal income, and by that we've already invited the federal government "into every financial transaction" and also enabled the Social Engineering of the welfare state.

Again, I disagree — the income tax is a single point: when the laborer is paid — the sales tax is essentially every financial transaction in the commercial sector. (Also note, I've not said anything about the welfare state — that would be resolved by the move to a physically-based currency and limitation on the amount of debt that could be assumed and so becomes a non-issue in light of such an amendment.)

A tax on income is undeniably a direct tax to the individual, and as required by the Constitution, even after the 16th Amendment, all (other) direct taxes must be applied the States proportionally.

The graduated/progressive income tax is therefore a violation — while it could be argued that a flat tax rate is proportional (on income, rather than the debt's amount). Amendment 16 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. — by that, it seems that a income tax may indeed be without proportion.

---

As far as independent presentments being inappropriately removed as valid process, that never occurred by any law, or even official precedure, but actually occurred as a result of the Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and not actually a part of that Rule 7 itself, but rather only a Note 4 to Rule 7 by the Avisory Committee,

Ah, and does that not stink more? After all the power of presentment is mentioned in Amendment 5, so to remove it should require a Constitutional amendment, no?

Much like the decision of Sparf, the right of nullification by the jury exists but there's no obligation to inform of the right... and the judge can apparently declare a mistrial if it is brought up by an officer of the court. So, by forced ignorance, the right is lost.

But, in short, I do not believe that the current relation of the government to the jury (either grand or petite) is healthy or as it should be. You yourself brought up the indict a ham sandwich saying, and that is directly a result of stripping away the power of presentment because all that leaves the Grand Jury with is the indictment. So, like the Federal Reserve whose only tool is print money! the grand jury can only indict under this system. As for petite juries, nullification was mentioned, but there's also the will you convict even if you disagree with the law? questionnaire and judges have been known to deny them access to the text of the law.

In short, I do not believe that the juries should be subordinate/dependent on the government — to do so is to make them into rubber-stamp appearance-of-legitimacy style organizations beholden to the government [which even you must agree is corrupt] rather than actually being about justice.