I don't watch baseball much, so maybe I'm missing something, but... won't those ads be essentially invisible? I've never seen a close up of one of the bases on TV, and I doubt they're advertising to the players alone...
Wouldn't the Supreme Court have a pretty easy time hearing and striking down that case? Hell, if your argument is so obvious, wouldn't the other courts do it for them?
p.s. what happened to your reply to my post? You said you'd take your time, but I didn't expect it to take this long... or maybe that was just a face saving statement?
If Article I, Section 8 allowed Congress to pass the income tax as it exists today, and create the IRS as it exists today, then please explain the necessity for the 16th Amendment.
If you'll wipe the spittle off your face, you'll note I quoted the 16th Amendment right below my quoting of Article I.
Ratification of the 16th Amendment was also conditional on its being a temporary measure, as opposed to a cash cow for a massive Federal Totalitarianocracy.
Doesn't change the fact that they decided to keep it, eh? Like it or not, it's a constitutional amendment.
The Founding Fathers specifically stated in two seperate places that the Congress may not lay direct tax, except in proportion to the census. They couldn't have been more clear if they'd carved it into Jefferson's skull and stuck his head on a pike in the middle of Philly.
The Founding Fathers also established an amendment process in Article V, permitting an overwhelming majority of Congress and the States to change the Constitution.
You could always argue that the 16th Amendment repealed these parts of the Constitution, but it does no such thing. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has already taken care of settling any dispute you and I might have about this. They did so in 1916, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US
From that decision:
"The Sixteenth Amendment as obviously intended to simplify the situation and make clear the limitations on the taxing power of Congress and not to create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system.
The Sixteenth Amendment does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, as that authority was already possessed, or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income tax and another; but its purpose is to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from consideration of the source whence the income is derived.
The Income Tax provisions of the Tariff Act of 1913 are not unconstitutional by reason of retroactive operation, the period covered not extending prior to the time when the Amendment was operative; nor are those provisions unconstitutional under the due process provision of the Fifth Amendment; nor do they deny due process of law, nor equal protection of the law by reason of the classifications therein of things of persons subject to the tax."
Whoops, there it goes. You may find it hard to argue with that, but the Supreme Court would respectfully disagree. If someone has the money to take such a case all the way to the Supreme Court, we might all get a huge (as in 100%) refund from Uncle Sam in the next few years.
Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F2d, 200, 201 (5th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) in which the court described the argument that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified as being "totally without merit."
United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir.), cert denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) in which the Court affirmed Foster's conviction for tax evasion, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified.
United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9th Cir. 1986), cert denied 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) in which the Court states: " . . . that the sixteenth amendment has been ratified . . . is conclusive upon the Courts" and upheld Stahl's conviction for failure to file and making a false statement.
Miller v. United States, 868 F2d 236, 241 (7th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) in which the Court said, "We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the Constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment . . . have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure." The Court labeled their position "patently frivolous" and levied sanctions against them.
Considering every court has thrown the tax doubters out on their asses, I'd say that's fairly good proof that their arguments don't have any legitimacy.
Yes, the argument is that Amendment 16 wasn't properly ratified.
Looking at Article I, though, shows that's not a valid objection - Amendment 16 merely removes the "but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" part of Article I.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Amendment 16 of the US Constitution:
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.
Doesn't it have to be able to move easily without falling down before it can do tasks like watering plants, feeding cats, and getting the paper?
Baby steps.
Everyone was agape when the first robots walked, then walked up stairs, etc. Now we have ones that can dance reasonably well. We can't jump right into full human-replacement mode just yet.
While church members/pastors/fathers/whatever may not get rich, my eyes were opened one day walking through O'Hare, and seeing a couple of Catholic bishop types and their Louis Vuitton luggage waiting for a limo...
Dude, they can't have sex, cut 'em a little slack. *g*/insert young boy joke here
With all due respect to Google, and god knows they're one of the few companies that seems to get "it" right, what with uncluttered interfaces, unbiased services, and unobtrusive text ads -- Google also records the IP address along with the search terms of every search.
C'mon, this is called server logging and is on every single website in the world, right out of the box as a default feature.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't watch baseball much, so maybe I'm missing something, but... won't those ads be essentially invisible? I've never seen a close up of one of the bases on TV, and I doubt they're advertising to the players alone...
Wouldn't the Supreme Court have a pretty easy time hearing and striking down that case? Hell, if your argument is so obvious, wouldn't the other courts do it for them?
p.s. what happened to your reply to my post? You said you'd take your time, but I didn't expect it to take this long... or maybe that was just a face saving statement?
p.s. http://www.fraudsandscams.com/sixteenth.htm
If you'll wipe the spittle off your face, you'll note I quoted the 16th Amendment right below my quoting of Article I.
Ratification of the 16th Amendment was also conditional on its being a temporary measure, as opposed to a cash cow for a massive Federal Totalitarianocracy.
Doesn't change the fact that they decided to keep it, eh? Like it or not, it's a constitutional amendment.
The Founding Fathers specifically stated in two seperate places that the Congress may not lay direct tax, except in proportion to the census. They couldn't have been more clear if they'd carved it into Jefferson's skull and stuck his head on a pike in the middle of Philly.
The Founding Fathers also established an amendment process in Article V, permitting an overwhelming majority of Congress and the States to change the Constitution.
You could always argue that the 16th Amendment repealed these parts of the Constitution, but it does no such thing. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has already taken care of settling any dispute you and I might have about this. They did so in 1916, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US
From that decision:
Whoops, there it goes. You may find it hard to argue with that, but the Supreme Court would respectfully disagree. If someone has the money to take such a case all the way to the Supreme Court, we might all get a huge (as in 100%) refund from Uncle Sam in the next few years.
Considering every court has thrown the tax doubters out on their asses, I'd say that's fairly good proof that their arguments don't have any legitimacy.
Yes, the argument is that Amendment 16 wasn't properly ratified.
Looking at Article I, though, shows that's not a valid objection - Amendment 16 merely removes the "but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" part of Article I.
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Amendment 16 of the US Constitution:
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.
Sorry, but I find it hard to argue with that...
Not under copyright law, no. Under contract law, which licenses fall under, certainly is such a thing.
Licenses fall under contract law, not copyright law.
Yes, and as has been pointed out time and time again, you're technically not buying the product, you're paying for a license to use it.
Doesn't it have to be able to move easily without falling down before it can do tasks like watering plants, feeding cats, and getting the paper?
Baby steps.
Everyone was agape when the first robots walked, then walked up stairs, etc. Now we have ones that can dance reasonably well. We can't jump right into full human-replacement mode just yet.
While church members/pastors/fathers/whatever may not get rich, my eyes were opened one day walking through O'Hare, and seeing a couple of Catholic bishop types and their Louis Vuitton luggage waiting for a limo...
/insert young boy joke here
Dude, they can't have sex, cut 'em a little slack. *g*
do you understand that those books present false facts and distorted truths?
Perhaps, but people say that about The Book of Mormon, too.
It has warmth and a non-static environment.
You left out the "as we know it" qualifier on the word "life".
With all due respect to Google, and god knows they're one of the few companies that seems to get "it" right, what with uncluttered interfaces, unbiased services, and unobtrusive text ads -- Google also records the IP address along with the search terms of every search.
C'mon, this is called server logging and is on every single website in the world, right out of the box as a default feature.
Blocking cookies doesn't do anything, either.
It entertains me that many of the arguments against PHP in the enterprise can be summed up as "well, it's possible to do it poorly."
If there were only some way to work scramjets into the war on terrorism....
How about the idea that's been floating around of a hypersonic bomber capable of reaching any target in the world within two hours?
... unless you consider that iTunes is the industry leader, pushed with an aggressive marketing campaign...
They've been blocking around 70% spam on average, with 1% false positive rate, and only about 0.1% false negative rate
How can you get a 0.1% false negative rate when 30% of spam is getting through?
It also returns to purchase luxury goods and services produced in the US to feed their growing middle classes.
Why do you lump all Christians together as nutty liberal haters that love big oil?
He didn't?
born-again evangelican christians
Yeah, but no one ever established the punishments.
Hell, not even Slashdotters would watch it.
Investigator: OH MY GOD! LINE FIVE IS STOLEN FROM MICRO-FORD-AOL-SOFT-WARNER!
Software Pirate: Oh no. You have found me. I am in trouble.
I mean, honestly, it's difficult to make something like that interesting viewing.
Heh... I dare you to find anyone who owns the sim who hasn't tried...
This was before Sept. 11th, too.