A tax cannot be "repugnant" to the Constitution save in the fabled Land of Hyperbole.
"It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act." - Marbury vs. Madison (feet obviously firmly planted in your the fabled Land of Hyperbole, emphasis mine)
And the above applies to your second paragraph...
...the US tax codes are legal--first enumerated in Art. I, Sec 8, Part 1 of the Constitution...
I'll just stop you there. No, US code is not enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution authorizes legislators to write the code and statute that are both subject to the constitutional test. The 9th and 10th Amendments prohibit Congress from going beyond the constitutional framework.
Most of what Congress does is illegal. This includes the tax code.
...expanded by the 16th amendment to allow Congress to levy income taxes without regard to apportionment or enumeration...
If so, that would mean the income tax would be an exception if the 16th Amendment authorized direct unapportionment, and there are no provisions for exceptions. To do otherwise is repugnant to the Constitution.
...Both the Constitution and the 16th amendment have been ratified by the several states...
This is true.
...Income tax has been repeatedly upheld in court challenges (including a rejection of the objection that you made based on your mis-reading of Stanton, ruled as "frivolous"), and the courts have universally accepted that it's legal.
This is true also, but only because there was no jury or the jury was not educated by the government to refute the income tax legal standing. Gee, thanks Department of Edgimication! Either way, the no-jury ruling or the uninformed-jury ruling is an example of a conflict of interest.
"Taxes are immoral as they are taken by threat of force." You fail to recognize that the laws that prevent the mob from coming in and stealing you blind and killing you are also based on a "threat of force." Are those laws, therefore, also immoral?
I make a distinction between lawful tax and unlawful tax. An unlawful tax is immoral. Your paraphrase of my position is incorrect.
It is possible to protect the innocent without using the amount of violence the current government employs. We managed to do this before the income tax. You're saying that government is, at best, the authorized use of force, and I agree. My point is that the government has overstepped its bounds and has taken its authorization beyond scope. It's out of control. We spend $2 billion each year to collect census information every 10 years. That's an example of a constitutional authorization that has gone completely beyond its mandate.
"Taxes are unconstitutional, therefore unlawful." To support this argument, you cite the Communist Manifesto (as if that had any bearing whatsoever); and improperly cite Stanton v. Baltic, using an argument that has been repeatedly rejected by the courts--you can start with Parker v. Commissioner.
I cite the Communist Manifesto because it matches the description of the income tax. Why isn't that allowed as an argument? It looks like a duck. As for the courts repeatedly rejecting this argument, I don't acknowledge tax court decisions. The only decisions that count are those involving a jury. At some point the jury will be fully informed and then prosecutors will completely stop bringing them before the jury. Then we have a constitutional dilemma because tax courts do not fulfill the mandate.
"You're misquoting scripture." I didn't have the heart to tell you, but I never quoted it. I cited two passages and extrapolated from them. One cannot be accused of "misquoting" something that one has not quoted.
*Sigh.* I was trying to simplify. Extrapolation is a form of exegesis which you failed at miserably.
"'Handwaving' is all that's required to refute your argument." If that's the only response that you have, then I suppose you're persuaded that you're correct. It is a pity that US law does not agree with your persuasion.
Indeed. I probably should have said "... is all that's required to refute your argument so far." As for the US law that I don't agree with, time to abolish it.
So why do you defend that which is repugnant to the constitution??
Based on what you've written so far, "handwaving" is all that's required to refute your argument.
Fact is, even if all taxes are legal and constitutional, we have an obligation to hold our servant government accountable.
"The privilege of giving or withholding our money is an important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative which if left altogether without control may be exercised to our great oppression; and all history shows how efficacious its intercession for redress of grievances and establishment of rights, and how improvident would be the surrender
of so powerful a mediator." - Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775. Papers 1:225
Thus, NASA projects are out of the question while this dispute exists.
They kidnap people for not paying an unlawful tax, therefore this is in fact kidnapping because it is under the color of law where now law exists.
A tax can be direct or indirect, apportioned or unapportioned. But the Constitution mandates that direct taxes be apportioned (Article I, Section 9). So if Congress suddenly decides they want to spend $6 Billion on corporate bailouts, everyone pays $20 regardless of their income. So if Warren Buffet pays $20, his secretary pays $20 too. Does that mean Warren Buffet paid less as a percentage of his personal income? Yes, but that's Constitutional. Like it or lump it. To do otherwise is repugnant to the Constitution.
The income tax is a direct, unapportioned tax based on the level of income (also known as a "graduated income tax"). This is unconstitutional (see plank 2 of 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto). Yet there is confusion on this point because the 16th Amendment states:
"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."
Believe it or not, the 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new power to tax, according to the Supreme Court ruling entitled "Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.," 240 U.S. 103, 112-113 (1916). From the ruling:
"...the 16th 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 binding-yet-completely-ignored interpretation means that although Congress can collect a tax from the States based on the average income of each person in that State, it still cannot collect this kind of tax directly from an individual. Direct taxes must be apportioned. The income tax would be an exception if the 16th Amendment authorized direct unapportionment, and there are no provisions for exceptions. To do otherwise is repugnant to the Constitution.
I think they're also turning the filters on the people when there's nobody to play:
The game: "the secret word is... current."
I said, "it is now."
Partner said, "electricity?"
I said, "it is a kind of water movement."
Partner said, "electrons?"
I realized it's not human.
Game, "Your partner wants to pass."
So I decided to play along
"It has voltage."
"It looks like shock."
"About the same size as battery."
"It is the opposite of resistance."
But it already gave up and the timer ran completely down.
Commercial nuclear reactors, at least in the US, are controlled via relays, not integrated circuits. Nuclear reactors in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation.
If you still can't access the Internet while simultaneously connected to your VPN (or Internet bound traffic is traversing the VPN, causing it to go slow), try this:
# Remove the default route Apple created. sudo route delete -net default
# Restore the default route back to your local gateway. sudo route add -net default [type your local gateway here]
# Add the correct route for VPN traffic only. sudo route add -net [type your subnet here] [type your VPN gateway here]
If you don't know what to type in those spots, neither does Apple, so quit complaining and talk to your administrator.
I am one of those nutty creationist, but I do not expect an unbeliever to accept the biblical account. I am dead set against teaching creationism in schools along side evolution as some kind of balance. I think to do so would be a disservice to the student.
Today, a well rounded education is defined in ways that are in opposition to christian beliefs. But the answer is not for christians to demand balance in the classroom. Christians should instead teach their children discernment. We should teach our children how to recognize the patterns of this world.
What business is it of mine how an unbeliever conducts his or her life? What business is it of mine how an unbeliever raises his or her children? Maybe when we christians can demonstrate by, for example, getting that divorce rate lower than the non-christian rate, then we might have a leg to stand on in the realm of family values. Besides, Paul tells christians in I Corinthians 5 not to judge those outside the church.
I think evolution is pretty far fetched, but I can't come up with a theory that science would swallow either. If I'm fine with an account of our origins that is so awesome and far fetched to the unbeliever, why would I expect something more believable from the unbeliever?
Furthermore, while a discovery like this soft tissue business is certainly interesting, if I already believe the bible is the authority on our origins and such, why would I need external evidence like this? I'll read it and move on. It doesn't rock my world.
Technically, you would only need one time traveler convention. Time travelers from all eras could meet at a specific place at a specific time, and they could make as many repeat visits as they wanted. We are hosting the first and only Time Traveler Convention at MIT in one week, and WE NEED YOUR HELP!"
But if it gets popular, theyll run out of space pretty quick.
What if two different browser are behind a NAT. Is it possible for Google to attribute one broweser's search to the other? How potentally embarrasing! I'm a bad speller and find Google is way better at figuring out what I'm trying to mash into the keyboard.
Slashdot Mirror
"It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act." - Marbury vs. Madison (feet obviously firmly planted in your the fabled Land of Hyperbole, emphasis mine)
And the above applies to your second paragraph...
I'll just stop you there. No, US code is not enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution authorizes legislators to write the code and statute that are both subject to the constitutional test. The 9th and 10th Amendments prohibit Congress from going beyond the constitutional framework.
Most of what Congress does is illegal. This includes the tax code.
If so, that would mean the income tax would be an exception if the 16th Amendment authorized direct unapportionment, and there are no provisions for exceptions. To do otherwise is repugnant to the Constitution.
This is true.
This is true also, but only because there was no jury or the jury was not educated by the government to refute the income tax legal standing. Gee, thanks Department of Edgimication! Either way, the no-jury ruling or the uninformed-jury ruling is an example of a conflict of interest.
I make a distinction between lawful tax and unlawful tax. An unlawful tax is immoral. Your paraphrase of my position is incorrect.
It is possible to protect the innocent without using the amount of violence the current government employs. We managed to do this before the income tax. You're saying that government is, at best, the authorized use of force, and I agree. My point is that the government has overstepped its bounds and has taken its authorization beyond scope. It's out of control. We spend $2 billion each year to collect census information every 10 years. That's an example of a constitutional authorization that has gone completely beyond its mandate.
I cite the Communist Manifesto because it matches the description of the income tax. Why isn't that allowed as an argument? It looks like a duck. As for the courts repeatedly rejecting this argument, I don't acknowledge tax court decisions. The only decisions that count are those involving a jury. At some point the jury will be fully informed and then prosecutors will completely stop bringing them before the jury. Then we have a constitutional dilemma because tax courts do not fulfill the mandate.
*Sigh.* I was trying to simplify. Extrapolation is a form of exegesis which you failed at miserably.
Indeed. I probably should have said "... is all that's required to refute your argument so far." As for the US law that I don't agree with, time to abolish it.
So why do you defend that which is repugnant to the constitution??
Based on what you've written so far, "handwaving" is all that's required to refute your argument.
Fact is, even if all taxes are legal and constitutional, we have an obligation to hold our servant government accountable.
"The privilege of giving or withholding our money is an important barrier against the undue exertion of prerogative which if left altogether without control may be exercised to our great oppression; and all history shows how efficacious its intercession for redress of grievances and establishment of rights, and how improvident would be the surrender of so powerful a mediator." - Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North, 1775. Papers 1:225
Thus, NASA projects are out of the question while this dispute exists.
%s/where now law exists/where no law exists
They kidnap people for not paying an unlawful tax, therefore this is in fact kidnapping because it is under the color of law where now law exists.
A tax can be direct or indirect, apportioned or unapportioned. But the Constitution mandates that direct taxes be apportioned (Article I, Section 9). So if Congress suddenly decides they want to spend $6 Billion on corporate bailouts, everyone pays $20 regardless of their income. So if Warren Buffet pays $20, his secretary pays $20 too. Does that mean Warren Buffet paid less as a percentage of his personal income? Yes, but that's Constitutional. Like it or lump it. To do otherwise is repugnant to the Constitution.
The income tax is a direct, unapportioned tax based on the level of income (also known as a "graduated income tax"). This is unconstitutional (see plank 2 of 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto). Yet there is confusion on this point because the 16th Amendment states:
"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."
Believe it or not, the 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new power to tax, according to the Supreme Court ruling entitled "Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.," 240 U.S. 103, 112-113 (1916). From the ruling:
"...the 16th 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 binding-yet-completely-ignored interpretation means that although Congress can collect a tax from the States based on the average income of each person in that State, it still cannot collect this kind of tax directly from an individual. Direct taxes must be apportioned. The income tax would be an exception if the 16th Amendment authorized direct unapportionment, and there are no provisions for exceptions. To do otherwise is repugnant to the Constitution.
Therefore, NASA is funded unlawfully.
Right, kidnapping and rape is not violence. Thanks for the perspective.
No, but NASA is funded under threat of violence. It's immoral.
Should products and services be provided under threat of violence? This include products and services provided by NASA.
Ron Paul Is Dead just like Unix Is Dead and Apple Is Dead.
Or they try to take a picture of them.
People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation.
People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation.
But I don't wanna be a pirate!
It's very smart of Apple to payroll a slashdot user to make write great comments like this. Good job.
Will someone please think about the children!
I, for one, welcome our new Mactel overlords.
Introducing: iDeath '05
I agree.
I am one of those nutty creationist, but I do not expect an unbeliever to accept the biblical account. I am dead set against teaching creationism in schools along side evolution as some kind of balance. I think to do so would be a disservice to the student.
Today, a well rounded education is defined in ways that are in opposition to christian beliefs. But the answer is not for christians to demand balance in the classroom. Christians should instead teach their children discernment. We should teach our children how to recognize the patterns of this world.
What business is it of mine how an unbeliever conducts his or her life? What business is it of mine how an unbeliever raises his or her children? Maybe when we christians can demonstrate by, for example, getting that divorce rate lower than the non-christian rate, then we might have a leg to stand on in the realm of family values. Besides, Paul tells christians in I Corinthians 5 not to judge those outside the church.
I think evolution is pretty far fetched, but I can't come up with a theory that science would swallow either. If I'm fine with an account of our origins that is so awesome and far fetched to the unbeliever, why would I expect something more believable from the unbeliever?
Furthermore, while a discovery like this soft tissue business is certainly interesting, if I already believe the bible is the authority on our origins and such, why would I need external evidence like this? I'll read it and move on. It doesn't rock my world.
Since when were macs and Windows compatible with each other? Wndows programs don't work on macs and macs programs don't work on Windows.
Yeah, you're right. They must be a bunch of idiots or something. I mean, Windows HTML and Mac HTML is so different and all.
Technically, you would only need one time traveler convention. Time travelers from all eras could meet at a specific place at a specific time, and they could make as many repeat visits as they wanted. We are hosting the first and only Time Traveler Convention at MIT in one week, and WE NEED YOUR HELP!"
But if it gets popular, theyll run out of space pretty quick.
Not quite.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of imac beowulf clusters!
What if two different browser are behind a NAT. Is it possible for Google to attribute one broweser's search to the other? How potentally embarrasing! I'm a bad speller and find Google is way better at figuring out what I'm trying to mash into the keyboard.
Good call. That was exactly what was wrong for me. Thanks!