Posted on 02/28/2014 12:15:20 PM PST by Phillyred
If some folks had their way, a three-person tribunal, and not the President, would provide leadership of the “United States of Earth,” in a nation where divorce is illegal.
As we all know, Congress and the states can change the U.S. Constitution through the amendment process, but it doesn’t happen often. And as the cases above show, some proposals stand a better chance than others.
Since the Bill of Rights and the first 10 amendments passed in 1791, only 17 amendments have been added to the Constitution. And one of those, the 18th Amendment establishing Prohibition, was repealed. The last amendment passed was the 27th Amendment, which was ratified in 1992. It bars Congress from giving itself a pay raise during its current session.
To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it.
The bar is high for a proposed amendment to make it to the ratification process. In all, more than 11,000 amendments have been proposed in congressional history, according to the Senate’s historian. Just 37 proposed amendments were approved by Congress for submission to the states; 27 were approved including the Bill of Rights; one amendment in the original Bill of Rights was rejected; and six others congressionally-approved amendments weren’t ratified by the states.
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
What have you got against the troy ounce?
So am I, and I was still scratching my head over the original post when I saw your post.
Is this a suggestion that the legal concept of piercing the corporate veil be discarded, or that corporation officers, or the owner of a corporation sole, are subject only to the jurisdiction of their place of residence, and not in other jurisdictions where the corporation does business?
I think it’s some sort of sovereign-citizen nonsense like the idea that only corporations have to pay income taxes and the IRS snookers people into signing as if they’re corporations.
See, for example, Taliser's comments on other threads about the corporate distincton:
Why "Religious Freedom" Laws are Doomed
U.S. Judge Strikes Down Texas Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Perhaps Talisker can explain it.
See, for example, Taliser's comments on other threads about the corporate distincton:
Why "Religious Freedom" Laws are Doomed
U.S. Judge Strikes Down Texas Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Perhaps Talisker can explain it.
If all the Confederacy desired was the perpetuation of slavery, all they had to do was to remain in the union.
With the Dred Scott case intact, the Corwin Amendment sent out for ratification, and Lincoln's endorsement...which meant that there was no governing authority to threaten slavery, then remaining in the Union meant less risk.
The facts contradict your conclusion.
To correct your thinking, it was secession that created the new government, and of course the seceded states were no longer under Union authority.
That was not the South being “at war”; it was simply secession.
The war started in Lincoln's office when he initiated the blockade and thus brought war to the South.
Too much Hittite influence. ;)
Because we're Americans and use the avoirdupois ounce; also, the 1/1,500 oz works out to roughly a dollar [IIRC] and would thereby minimize system-shock of abandoning fiat monies.
There is no thinking to correct. I didn’t say that secession didn’t create the confederacy; I said that along with that and firing on Sumpter they considered themselves no longer under the Constitution and it was the union intent to bring them back into the union. War was the end result of secession and Sumpter.
To correct your misconception; the firing on Sumpter occured on 12 April 1861. The blockade proclamation was issued 19 April 1861, 7 days after and as a result of the firing on Sumpter which was the initiation of hostilities by the south. The south brought war to the north 7 days before any blockade was ordered, not the other way around.
Democrats forced secession and hostilities; disregarding the Constitution just as they disregard the Constitution today. Are you arguing for that democrat party disregard of the Constitution?
We’ve been using the troy ounce for precious metal weights in America for a long time.
And 1/1500 of a troy ounce of gold is closer to a dollar than is 1/1500 of an avoirdupois ounce, at current prices.
The south seceded to keep slavery in spite of Corwin and other offers to retain slavery but limit it to the states that already had it. The south could have stayed with the union by accepting Corwin or one of the other similar offers that were supported by Lincoln. They arrogantly decided that even though Lincoln supported Corwin and would not declare slavery illegal by presidential decree. The south acted like the Palestinians who have been repeadedly offered all of their demands yet that still isn’t enough.
They had simply to stay with the union with multiple assurances that they could keep their “peculiar” democrat institution. They chose secession and starting a war because the great satan Lincoln had been elected and they wanted slavery only on their terms, in all states.
I don’t see any facts that contradict the conclusion that for the south it was all about slavery.
Maybe so, but I'd rather have a standard weight and measure system regardless of the material being weighed.
And 1/1500 of a troy ounce of gold is closer to a dollar than is 1/1500 of an avoirdupois ounce, at current prices.
Probably true, it's been a fair while since I ran the numbers.
As with all of my posts, I am speaking entirely ex-recto.
Might as well go metric, then.
Why?
Imperial is great:
1 Gal = 4 Qt = 128 oz = 2**7 oz
½ Gal = 2 Qt = 64 oz = 2**6 oz
¼ Gal = 1 Qt = 32 oz = 2**5 oz
½ Qt = 16 oz = 2**4 oz = 2 c = 1 Pt
¼ Qt = 8 oz = 2**3 oz = 1 c = ½ Pt
4 oz = 2**2 oz = ½ c = ¼ Pt
2 oz = 2**1 oz = ¼ c
1 oz = 2**0 oz
( 1½ oz = 2**0.5849625 = 1 shot -- but this isn't an imperial measure. )
I'm a programmer, so powers of 2 are very common for me.
How did we get sidetracked into liquid measures? I thought the topic was how best to weigh gold, and I still maintain that if you want to use ounces, use troy ounces as is traditional. If you want to use the same system of weights for everything, then metric weights are as good a choice as any.
Probably because the solid measures are related: 16 oz = 2**4 = 1lb and 1/16 oz = 2**-4 oz = 1 dram.
Holy crap... I was boggling at your chart before reading your comment... what the Hell is a 2**7?
Saw the word “programmer” and it all made sense... wow, it’s been a while since I used double asterisks instead of that goofy circumflex accent symbol.
Scoutmaster: So am I, and I was still scratching my head over the original post when I saw your post. I think it goes further than that. See, for example, Taliser's comments on other threads about the corporate distincton: Why "Religious Freedom" Laws are Doomed/U.S. Judge Strikes Down Texas Ban on Same-Sex Marriage. Perhaps Talisker can explain it.
You both went through law school and presumably passed the bar, yet neither of you knows that unincorporated natural persons have rights, while corporations have privileges and no rights? And you call yourself “Lurking Libertarian,” and “Scoutmaster”? LOL!
Well I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that the difference between rights and privileges are rather significant. Such as the significance between a free people and slaves, for example.
Maybe you should sue your law schools and get your money back. Understanding what a corporation is, as well as its unique legal identity, is a fairly important thing for a law school to teach. You see what happens when you go to correspondence school instead of the real thing?
Oh also, what exactly is a soveriegn citizen? A citizen, to my understanding, is a corporate member of the United States. Whereas sovereign means independent. So how can a corporate body be sovereign? Since you are a lawyer, maybe you can explain that. I'd sure appreciate it, because I have no idea what you are talking about.
And as for that tax thing - is that what Justice Roberts meant by the “two powers?” Is that why the enforcement authority of the IRS carefully specifies applicability only to corporations and corporate officers and those responsible for reporting corporate financials to the government - and nobody else? You know, like it says in §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) of Title 26?
But why should I explain anything, when we can all learn about this subject from the Chief Justice of the United States?
One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America
You know, I believe you both when you claim to be lawyers.
Oh yes I do indeed. You show every indication of it. LOL!
nitzy: My guess is that he is saying no government can presume jurisdiction over your body or property simply because you are alive inside a territory over which they claim jurisdiction. They can however claim juridiction over those who choose to submit themselves to their jurisdiction. I think this is part of the sovereign citizen ideology. As with all of my posts, I am speaking entirely ex-recto.
That's close to what I'm saying, nitzy, except that I don't think the phrase "sovereign citizen" is correct for the reasons I pointed out above. What I am actually stating, however, is that you can be presumed as operating in a corporate capacity without your consent or notification, and that's what has to stop. Corporations have no rights, because the government creates them and wholly controls their existence. Whereas we happen to have a COnstitution that regards human beings as created by God and given rights by God. Call that an "ideological" difference of definitions if you will, but it also happens to be legal fact - rights versus privileges. Oh yeah - it's also the concept that this entire country is built upon - just sayin'.
I don’t activate this Federalist/Anti-Federalist ping list very often, but while the article is interesting, the discussions on the thread are fascinating. Good food for thought.
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.