Posted on 06/26/2007 6:50:48 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Ron Paul(R) 2008 The only candidate
that seems to make sense IMHO.
Maybe thats why the dark powers-that-be
hate him so much. Mmmm?
You clearly don't understand that an Amendment to the Constitution is not a law.
You clearly do not understand Article VI, where it says the Constitution [including its valid Amendments] is our supreme Law of the Land.
It changes the Constitution itself. An Amendment cannot be declared unconstitutional.
You are wrong. - The USSC allowed arguments on that very issue in the 1920 Prohibition Hearings.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The USSC issues opinions on constitutional validity all the time. It is their job.
The Supreme Court has no power to declare an Amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional.
Wrong. You need to re-read Article III, Section 2.
The Supreme Court can only interpret what the Amendment means.
Simply not true. Nothing in the Constitution supports your theory.
In the 1916-1920 cases dealing with the 16th Amendment, the Court explicitly said it interpreted the 16th Amendment very narrowly, applying it only to income taxes and not to all direct forms of taxation.
So what? - In 1920, they heard broad and lengthy arguments about the constitutionality of the 18th. - Then rejected them without comment, - in effect decreeing the amendment valid.
The Supreme Court has no power to overturn an Amendment.
It can issue an opinion as to its validity.
So, are you going to explain how the tax laws as enforced violate due process,
Read the 'bold' parts.
So your idea of showing that the income tax is unconstitutional is to cite a case saying you can't take property without due process. Where does Harlan (in his dissenting opinion) talk about how the way the income tax is implemented is unconstitutional? Oh wait, he doesn't, since the income tax didn't come until decades later.
You asked for info on how due process works. Harlans quote explains exactly that.
And oh wait, you can't be thrown in prison for not paying your taxes until a trial is held. "Due process" doesn't meant "the government can't take your money."
Exactly my point. Due process must be used before the government can take your money.
Thanks for admitting my point. - They outlined a Law of the Land that citizens [sworn to support & defend] could never overwhelmingly agree to amend the Constitution to take away basic rights like speech or bearing arms.
You're wrong. The Constitution doesn't prevent 90% of the country from going loopy and passing a Constitutional amendment barring all firearms from individuals except for police, Armed Forces, and National Guard. They could do it, and you couldn't argue "Well, the 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to bear arms." The response would be "The 29th Amendment says otherwise, trumps the 2nd Amendment, and you're going to jail for owning a handgun." Not pretty? It isn't, but it could happen under our Constitution if enough people agree.
Good grief. In effect you're claiming that our Republic is ruled by the will of a super majority, not by the rule of constitutional law. - This philosophy is akin to pure socialism.
The good news is that it's hard to amend the Constitution. To be honest, you can't be this ignorant. I believe the other poster earlier was correct in saying you do understand it, you just don't like it.
Correct, - I don't like socialistic majority rule theories passed off as conservatism.
I stuck with this because I can't stand it when people spout off legal opinions without any idea about what they are discussing (or even worse, they have a little legal knowledge from reading websites intended to provide unbalanced reasoning for some proposition).
Are you claiming to be some sort of authority on legal opinions?
But to be honest, it's not fun anymore. You do understand, I think, but just don't like it. Not an unfamiliar position for a libertarian, I'd guess.
Gotta love the old anti-'libertarian' dig.
Anyway, I prefer to deal with people who like to discuss and argue reality, like how US laws and the US Constitution really work.
I prefer to deal with people who support and defend our Constitution, but I like to discuss and argue reality with those who don't.
He he. Now that's funny.
No, its a statement of fact you cannot refute, - thus the silly "He he".
I like how you added the "[including its valid Amendments]" to Article VI. You see, the Article VI that I read says nothing about valid Amendments. It simply says the Constitution, which includes ALL amendments.
The 18th was repealed, it is no longer valid - and never was.
You need to re-read Article III, Section 2.
He he, once again. The Article III that I read says nothing about determining the validity of amendments.
Again, you ignore what it does say - the courts "Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,--".
No court has ever said the courts can overturn an amendment to the Constitution.
The USSC heard arguments in 1920 to overturn the 18th amendment. Your inability to address that fact is laughable.
Again, you're reading what you want to. You're actually taking a case where the Court heard arguments about whether it could declare an Amendment unconstitutional and somehow equating it with the idea that the Court has the power to do it.
Everyone involved in the Prohibition Hearings 'somehow equated' the idea that the Court had the power to do it. No rational objections to that concept have ever been made - during or since.
The federal courts don't give advisory opinions. They visit a case or controversy and make a decision.
Exactly what the USSC did in 1920, - they heard the controversy and made an [unexplained] decision.
They don't render advisory opinions as to whether something is invalid or unconstitutional.
They render opinions as to whether something is unconstitutional. Get real.
Besides, I'd love to read the logic of a Supreme Court case declaring that an Amendment to the Constitution, lawfully ratified, is somehow unconstitutional.
So would I. Just think about how such a decision could have altered prohibitional history. - No gang wars over booze, no gun prohibitions, possibly no 'war on drugs'.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Due process must be used before the government can take your money in a tax dispute.
Due process does not mean you must have a trial before the government can take your money. It means you must be provided process that is due under the circumstances. To my knowledge, the U.S. has never required you to be put on trial or have a hearing before paying excise taxes, duties, customs, or any other taxes. They simply require you to pay your taxes and, if you don't and they find out, they put you on trial. Try again!
No need to try again. You made my point again .
I don't like socialistic majority rule theories passed off as conservatism
I never said passing an Amendment banning firearms is conservatism.
You said it is constitutional to pass an Amendment banning firearms. - I said that is not a conservative position. - Read much?
Every Amendment that has been added to the Constitution by the appropriate process is, by definition, Constitutional.
So you claim. That exact issue has been argued before the SCOTUS, which they refused to address in their 1920 opinion.
To say otherwise puts us under tyranny of judges who can simply declare Amendments, such as those that might limit their power, unconstitutional.
Get real; the People and their legislators can overrule repugnant Court opinions. They did so with the repeal of prohibition.
We're pretty close to that already. Wanna make it easier on them?
You're the one advocating the power to ban guns thru amendments, not me.
Your inability to understand that arguing a position doesn't mean it was a valid proposition to begin with is laughable. Keep the jokes coming.
Weird comment. Do you really think the Supreme Court wastes its time by allowing arguments on invalid propositions?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You said it is constitutional to pass an Amendment banning firearms. - I said that is not a conservative position. - Read much?
Testy, testy. You're changing your arguments, trying to argue something that's not been argued.
Another amusingly irrational comment. You cannot deny saying it is constitutional to pass an Amendment banning firearms. - Or that I said yours is not a conservative position. - So now you're simply claiming I'm somehow trying to "change" the argument.
Who said banning firearms was conservative?
I said it is NOT a conservative position.
I just said that it can be done if enough Senators, Representatives, and states vote for it.
That's a socialistic 'majority rule' position. Admit it.
I find your position quite amusing.
The Supreme Court heard arguments about whether it was constitutional to have a deadline provision in the amendment's ratification process, not on whether an amendment itself unconstitutional. Get your facts straight, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Yes. Read Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. In it, the plantiffs attempted to argue that banning racial discrimination violated the 13th Amendment, a position that the court in its opinion stated had no merit.
Well wait a minute here. I pay thousands to the Federal Government in taxes to secure and protect our borders. Yet the Federal Government and those in D.C. have not only encouraged this lawless invasion, they have actually aided and abetted this illegal invasion.
Are they now going to refund the tens of thousands of dollars they have confiscated from me? Since our elections and electoral process is now being undermined, and compromised, what recourse do I have?
The Feds and our so-called leaders have told us over and over it's not practical to round up 30 million illegal aliens.
If 30 million Americans refuse to pay the Federal Government taxes for failing and refusing to secure and protect our borders, will the Federal government tell us it's just not practical to round up 30 million Americans?
The Supreme Court heard arguments about whether it was constitutional to have a deadline provision in the amendment's ratification process, not on whether an amendment itself unconstitutional. Get your facts straight, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Bold opinion, totally false:
"-- The Supreme Court issued its most sweeping decision concerning the Eighteenth Amendment in June 1920.
Seven cases, each raising fundamental questions concerning the constitutionality of the amendment, were consolidated by the Court and labeled the National Prohibition Cases.
A host of highly regarded attorneys, including Elihu Root, William D. Guthrie, and Levy Mayer, as well as Herbert A. Rice and Thomas F. McCran, attorneys general for Rhode Island and New Jersey respectively, represented the appellants. The oral arguments lasted for five days, an unusually long time for even the most important cases.
Attorney General Rice began by arguing that the amendment invaded the sovereignty of Rhode Island and her people, an invasion not contemplated by the amending clause of the Constitution. Rhode Island had not ratified the Eighteenth Amendment. The amending power, Rice contended, was provided to allow for the correction of errors in the fundamental instrument of government. The first ten amendments were adopted to insure against the encroachment by the federal government upon state functions and powers. If the amending power were to be construed as to allow any type of amendment, the boundary between federal and state authority could be shifted at will, and the people of a state would be at the mercy of others in matters of political institutions and personal rights.
Attorney General McCran, arguing along the same lines, stressed tha4 the Tenth Amendment reserved all unenumerated powers to the states and to the people. The right to surrender such rights and powers, McCran contended, belonged exclusively to the people themselves and not their legislative representatives."
The argument of Elihu Root attracted the most attention. The former Secretary of War, Secretary of State, and senator represented a New Jersey brewer. .
Root asserted that the Eighteenth Amendment was simply unconstitutional.
The substantive portion of the so-called Eighteenth Amendment, he said, did not relate to the powers or organization of government, as constitutional provisions ordinarily do.
Rather, it was a direct act of legislation.
He denied that the amending provision of the Constitution, Article V, authorized this type of amendment.
Root pointed out that if the validity of the prohibition amendment were to be upheld, its repeal could perpetually be prevented by a minority.
Repeal could be accomplished only by the passage of another constitutional amendment which, of course, would require the approval of three-fourths of the states.
Finally, Root contended, the Eighteenth Amendment undermined a fundamental principle of the federal system by directly invading the police powers of the states and encroaching upon the right of local self-government.
If the amendment were upheld, he told the Court, the states would no longer be indestructible and the federal system of government could be completely subverted. --"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Poor you; - "you don't have a clue what you are talking about".
Don’t forget, scarface, you need to talk libertarian here. A Supreme Court case (a) where it was argued but not held that the Court could overturn an Amendment and (b) that declared the 18th Amendment unconstitutional clearly stands for the proposition that (a) the Supreme Court has the power to overturn an Amendment and (b) the 18th Amendment was invalid ‘cause some folks say so.
The federal government expenditures are far in excess of what is necessary and Constitutional. Obviously, the treasury is being plundered by our pirate-like, federal elected officials who likely take their 10%, 20%, 30% (?) cut for authorizing absurd extra-constitutional expenditures. Only the people can put a stop to this scam, so my kudo’s to tax resisters.
More “socialist” talk. I told you that I figured you dropped that word frequently. Is it in some libertarian handbook?
I use 'majority rule socialism' a lot. It's a political disease that many self described conservatives suffer from.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.