PDA

View Full Version : The Law Is The Law?




John T. Kennedy
01-11-2008, 02:42 PM
Yesterday on CNN I heard Ron Paul say he would pardon all those convicted of non-violent drug crimes. But at the debate when illegal immigration came up he said "The law is the law and it should be enforced".

Which is it? Why should some laws be enforced and others be gutted by pardon?

Brutus
01-11-2008, 05:36 PM
Please point to the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to determine what chemicals may be ingested? An amendment was required to make Prohibition pass Constitutional muster. Federal drug crimes are therefore non-crimes. He wouldn't be able to affect State laws or pardon people convicted in State courts.

The Federal lack of authority for controlling the borders isn't as clear.

Also, this is similar to the problem of Social Security. It ought not to be, but the social chaos caused by removing it is considered to be too great without transition (some argue that cutting the chord suddenly is a better solution quite convincingly, but this is Dr. Paul's position) to allow social structures to resume their functions.

I don't speak for Ron Paul.

danberkeley
01-11-2008, 05:38 PM
Because some (read most) federal laws are unconstitutional... in other words, federal drug laws are unconstitutional, while the federal governement has jurisdiction over immigration,

theczar1776
01-11-2008, 06:09 PM
Good point, but still, why not leave it up to the states to decide on immigration. This is a stupid argument, of course, but i still am curious what arguments may be made for or against it.

Brian in Maryland
01-11-2008, 06:11 PM
Please point to the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to determine what chemicals may be ingested? An amendment was required to make Prohibition pass Constitutional muster. Federal drug crimes are therefore non-crimes. He wouldn't be able to affect State laws or pardon people convicted in State courts.

The Federal lack of authority for controlling the borders isn't as clear.

Also, this is similar to the problem of Social Security. It ought not to be, but the social chaos caused by removing it is considered to be too great without transition (some argue that cutting the chord suddenly is a better solution quite convincingly, but this is Dr. Paul's position) to allow social structures to resume their functions.

I don't speak for Ron Paul.

Why wouldn't a president be able to pardon a person convicted of a state crime?
If a person's rights are being violated they are being violated.:mad:
The purpose of a government is to protect the rights of the people.

drpiotrowski
01-11-2008, 06:27 PM
Immigration is an issue that the federal government has authority to deal with, as provided by Article I. Section 8:

"[Congress shall have the power] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

You mention non-violent drug criminals. The federal government has no authority to pass any laws regarding an individual's chemical choices, therefore federal law is not "the law" here, but is rather null and void.

Hope this clears things up.

John T. Kennedy
01-11-2008, 06:31 PM
Please point to the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to determine what chemicals may be ingested?


What gives the constitution legitimate authority?

drpiotrowski
01-11-2008, 06:35 PM
Why wouldn't a president be able to pardon a person convicted of a state crime?
If a person's rights are being violated they are being violated.:mad:
The purpose of a government is to protect the rights of the people.

From what I gather, the President only has the power to pardon those who have committed crimes against the laws of the United States (i.e. Federal Laws).


Article II. Section 2.
"and he [the President] shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

Normally, when "United States" is written in the constitution, it refers to the federal government. Usually, if individual states are included within the definition, the words "or each individual state" are added.

This is merely my hypothesis. More research into the corresponding federalist papers would be helpful here. I'll look into this later, because I'm interested, too.

drpiotrowski
01-11-2008, 06:36 PM
What gives the constitution legitimate authority?

"We The People."

John T. Kennedy
01-11-2008, 06:59 PM
"We The People."

Who would that refer to? At the time of ratification only a very small fraction of Americans were even allowed to vote, and not all who had the vote supported the Constitution. Women, slaves, native Americans and even most men without property had no say in the document. Hard to see how it could be binding on them. And even among voters there were plenty of dissenters; why would it be binding on them?

And what would their agreement have to do with us today anyway?

Who is "We The People"?

John T. Kennedy
01-11-2008, 07:16 PM
"We The People."

If the Confederates were free to withdraw from this supposed agreement, as Dr. Paul holds, then isn't any American equally free to do the same?

dougkeenan
01-11-2008, 07:39 PM
Alright, no Confederates are to be pardoned for the drug crimes. Oh waitaminute... that batch of lies bundled as a Drug War wasn't inflicted on "We the People" back then.

I suppose - if you want to be a dick about it - your argument might preclude President Paul from pardoning women, blacks, and Indians along with white men. But don't you think it's better for our candidate to exonerate all victims of this ridiculous farce equally?

NMCB3
01-11-2008, 07:40 PM
What gives the constitution legitimate authority?Nothing.

drpiotrowski
01-11-2008, 08:32 PM
Who would that refer to? At the time of ratification only a very small fraction of Americans were even allowed to vote, and not all who had the vote supported the Constitution. Women, slaves, native Americans and even most men without property had no say in the document. Hard to see how it could be binding on them. And even among voters there were plenty of dissenters; why would it be binding on them?

And what would their agreement have to do with us today anyway?

Who is "We The People"?

Your response is the exact reason why I said "We The People." There's really no authority behind the constitution other than the value a society decides to place upon it. If we give it authority, it has it. If we don't, it doesn't. "We The People" applies to the original drafters and signers of the constitution, but also us if we choose to acknowledge it.




If the Confederates were free to withdraw from this supposed agreement, as Dr. Paul holds, then isn't any American equally free to do the same?

This starts entering into the very interesting realm of social contract theory. Read Locke or Rosseau. This is not so much a matter of law as it is individual convictions. The constitution doesn't seem to take a stand on it either way.

danberkeley
01-11-2008, 10:04 PM
This is merely my hypothesis. More research into the corresponding federalist papers would be helpful here. I'll look into this later, because I'm interested, too.

Much of the Federalist was written by Alexander Hamilton who wanted strong "national" government versus a strong "federal" government. This fact causes confussion when reading the Federalist because the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably.

Zym
01-11-2008, 11:34 PM
Troll alert, don't bump, search all his posts, all anti-paul. he's trying to stir the pot.

driller80545
01-11-2008, 11:39 PM
When presidents and congressmen etc are sworn in they swear to uphold the constitution for whatever that's worth. Sounds like a potential perjury charge to me

pdavis
01-12-2008, 12:02 AM
Immigration is an issue that the federal government has authority to deal with, as provided by Article I. Section 8:

"[Congress shall have the power] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

You mention non-violent drug criminals. The federal government has no authority to pass any laws regarding an individual's chemical choices, therefore federal law is not "the law" here, but is rather null and void.

Hope this clears things up.

Immigration and nationalization are not the same thing.

Dave Pedersen
01-12-2008, 12:20 AM
I found Badnarik's seven hour video seminar on the constitution very helpful. Our individual rights are determined based on the premise of private property rights. Our federal government is a public service body authorized by the consent of the governed. The constitution is a contractual agreement between all who enter public service and the original signers of the constitution. We the people inherit the benefits of that contract and we only need to ensure compliance of the public servants to uphold their oath of office.

Easier said than done but we are a nation of laws and the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any legislation passed contrary to the constitution is null and void and does not apply and is not enforceable.

Today legislators are in the habit of simply ignoring the constitution and its restraints on the government. They simply mirror the general public's habit of ignoring the constitution. Without thorough constitutional education as the top priority to teach every generation our nation continues to be in peril.

Only one remedy exists and that is constitutional education which must be instilled in our culture and institutions at every opportunity throughout all generations. This objective alone can solve our problems and without it no effort no matter how well intended can provide lasting relief. Ron Paul can become president and many constitutionally educated people can become legislators but if we fail to establish constitutional education as being more imperative than the learning of mathematics we will only have forestalled the inevitable loss of our Republic.

Kalash
01-12-2008, 01:50 AM
More on Badnarik et al;

http://revolutioni.st/cclass.html - I have his 7 hour class in mp3 format if anyone wants them.

http://revolutioni.st/liberty.html - The Philosophy of Liberty Expanded - with narration (and less annoying music) and commentary about how our government has faltered over the years.

http://revolutioni.st/drugs.html - The views of the different candidates

http://mike.revolutioni.st - my current case, comments on constitutionality, fairness...
And a 2 1/2 hour radio show that I did with an 18 year retired Law Enforcement officer - and we agreed on nearly EVERY point (I don't think Marijuana is less dangerous than MDMA. That's the only thing we didn't agree upon...)

I had a BIG personal win in court today.

I retained my counsel - as standby counsel - and claimed/asserted/was granted the privilege of exercising my right to demur in Federal court (despite Federal Court rule 12 (a)1 - which abolishes Demurrer's in Federal Criminal (and civil - same rule number) court.)


In English...
The court is allowing me to break the rules in order to file my motions challenging the laws as they are written.
I can file motions, talk to the court, all without the hindrance of an attorney that refuses to bend certain non-binding rules in order to assert an unalienable right. (While retaining him to fall back upon if my motions fail.)

The trial date was pushed back to April 8th (from Jan. 29th) and I have opened communications with the court.

I'm on my way to liberation from these insane, unconstitutional statutes!
=D

Kalash
01-12-2008, 02:07 AM
Yesterday on CNN I heard Ron Paul say he would pardon all those convicted of non-violent drug crimes. But at the debate when illegal immigration came up he said "The law is the law and it should be enforced".

Which is it? Why should some laws be enforced and others be gutted by pardon?



Just to touch on this...

It is, "The law should be enforced..." under the SUPREME Law of the Land.

Individual rights are paramount.
Congress MAY NOT infringe upon those rights - to do so is unconstitutional.

An unconstitutional law/statute/dictum/etc is not a law/statute/etc...
It is not binding upon anyone.
No one has to obey it.
No court has to/is capable of enforcing it.


The claim and exercise of a protected right cannot be converted into a crime.

How is the possession of property you bought/paid for/contracted for consensually - with another adult - NOT a protected right?


The problem with illegal immigration - as always - is that it is a byproduct of our welfare state.
If there is going to be a criminal protection racket PAYING for special services for special groups of people...

There HAVE to be laws preventing unauthorized groups from taking the goods/services/STOLEN MONEY that they have not contributed to.

If they want to become a victim of the criminal protection racket (i.e. taxation - for more, see http://adventuresinlegalland.com - Marc Steven's site) by becoming a LEGAL immigrant and paying their protection money (taxes), that's fine.
If NOT, in order to give what's been promised to the victims of taxation, illegal immigration MUST be stopped.

Government benefits are PRIVILEGES.
Not rights.

Denying someone these privileges is not a crime.
Therefore the law is valid.


Possession of property, which you own, is a RIGHT.
The allegation that you are in possession of property - without any claim that the property is NOT yours... no claim that ANYONE owns the property...
It cannot be a crime.

Prohibition of property possession/use - so long as the rights of another are not infringed upon - is NOT a power of the Federal Government.
See the 18th and 21st Amendments.

If they HAD the power to prohibit in the constitution, the 18th amendment would never have been written.
If the 18th amendment was still in effect, one could argue for drug prohibition. The 21st amendment takes care of that.

The federal government does not have the authority to deprive you of your rights.

And now, we're back at http://revolutioni.st/ivc.html - Individualism v. Collectivism.

The Constitution prohibits the government from implementing collectivist concepts as law.

The Constitution does nothing more than LIMIT the government to ensure that all sovereign citizen's RIGHTS are not infringed upon by the government.

That's it.


You do NOT have a SINGLE constitutional right... As this implies that the constitution grants you rights.
You have constitutionally PROTECTED rights - superior to and existent prior to the creation of government.

For fun, check out U.S. code Title 18 Chapter 13 sections 241 and 242.
A quick google search will pull them up.

Jeremiah
01-12-2008, 02:43 AM
What gives the constitution legitimate authority?

I am not an American but I believe the answer to your question is God and the People as expressed in the founding documents of the nation of the United States of America.

According to the Declaration of Independence, individual human beings, the People, receive unalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of virtue (happiness) which are endowed by their Creator, and the government is instituted to protect these rights. From this Declaration, which established the United States of America as a nation amongst the other nations of the world, flows the Constitution which was the legal foundation and structure of the new nation. (If you wish to Amend the Constitution then there is a proper procedure to do so requiring the consent of the People.) Following on from the Constitution is the Bill of Rights which are the first ten Amendments to the Constitution further elucidating the natural rights of the individual members of the nation. Other amendments followed over the years to enunciate and clarify the application of the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution in the historical life of the nation.

This is my understanding of the source of the legitimacy of the Constitution. I am not a lawyer or a judge but I can read and understand plain English. This was the intent of the men who established the United States of America, that ordinary citizens could understand and apply their founding principles and thereby hold the officials of their government to account. This is also the purpose of the Ron Paul Revolution, to restore these documents and these principles to the People.

misterbig
01-12-2008, 08:01 AM
What gives the constitution legitimate authority?

This guy is a troll. Stop feeding him.

FreeTraveler
01-12-2008, 08:15 AM
Good point, but still, why not leave it up to the states to decide on immigration. This is a stupid argument, of course, but i still am curious what arguments may be made for or against it.

Well, the best argument IS that it's a stupid argument, but if you can't use that one, point out that the Constitution guarantees us free passage between states, so allowing states to set immigration policy would allow one state to effectively set the policy for all states.

VoluntaryMan
01-12-2008, 08:17 AM
Yesterday on CNN I heard Ron Paul say he would pardon all those convicted of non-violent drug crimes. But at the debate when illegal immigration came up he said "The law is the law and it should be enforced".

Which is it? Why should some laws be enforced and others be gutted by pardon?

Why is it that his opponents have no problem looking the other way or granting amnesty to non-citizens who break of immigration laws, laws that represent the 1st mandate of any nation, the duty to ptotect it's national borders, but they are willing to lock citizens up in a dungeon with sodomites, because those citizens are guilty of nothing more than growing plants on their on property? It's my understanding that Dr Paul wants to overthrow ALL unconstitutional laws, even if he has to use pardons and encourage civil disobedience (i.e., non-violent resistence to bad law) to do so. I see no contradiction in that.

VoluntaryMan
01-12-2008, 08:23 AM
Good point, but still, why not leave it up to the states to decide on immigration. This is a stupid argument, of course, but i still am curious what arguments may be made for or against it.


Because that would have the effect of militarizing the borders between the states, something of forefathers sought to avoid. Besides, it is the duty of the national gov't to defend the national border, even if that border also happens to be a state border.:rolleyes:

torchbearer
01-12-2008, 08:24 AM
Yesterday on CNN I heard Ron Paul say he would pardon all those convicted of non-violent drug crimes. But at the debate when illegal immigration came up he said "The law is the law and it should be enforced".

Which is it? Why should some laws be enforced and others be gutted by pardon?

To Pardon is apart of the law too.

VoluntaryMan
01-12-2008, 08:37 AM
To Pardon is a part of the law too.

Good point. In fact, it's part of the balance of powers, to allow the executive to correct a legislative or judicial error.

torchbearer
01-12-2008, 09:08 AM
Good point. In fact, it's part of the balance of powers, to allow the executive to correct a legislative or judicial error.

I make a few good points every now and then...

FreeTraveler
01-12-2008, 09:20 AM
This guy is a troll. Stop feeding him.

Note the thread title. This is evolving into an interesting discussion.

torchbearer
01-12-2008, 09:28 AM
Note the thread title. This is evolving into an interesting discussion.

I find trolling threads to be good opportunities to educate through calm logical debate. :cool:

VoluntaryMan
01-12-2008, 09:33 AM
I find trolling threads to be good opportunities to educate through calm logical debate. :cool:

It would make an interesting poll, to discover how many RP supporters started out as trolls on this forum. I'd make that poll myself, if I only knew how.

torchbearer
01-12-2008, 09:37 AM
It would make an interesting poll, to discover how many RP supporters started out as trolls on this forum. I'd make that poll myself, if I only knew how.

Over my tenure here.. I've had several former troll/agents pm me with their conversion... one guy was actually a tancredo supporter... i remember that... because it struck me as odd.

VoluntaryMan
01-12-2008, 09:40 AM
Over my tenure here.. I've had several former troll/agents pm me with their conversion... one guy was actually a tancredo supporter... i remember that... because it struck me as odd.

I would think that a Tancredo, Keyes, or Hunter supporter might be a more likely convert than any of the others. Maybe I'm missing something, though.

Deborah K
01-12-2008, 09:43 AM
What gives the constitution legitimate authority?


I can't believe you asked that but since you did, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. :confused:

torchbearer
01-12-2008, 09:46 AM
I would think that a Tancredo, Keyes, or Hunter supporter might be a more likely convert than any of the others. Maybe I'm missing something, though.

I thought it was odd because I didn't think Tancredo had any supporters... ;)

You are right about Tancredo supporters. they were easier to convert, which makes sense why that troll was slain so easily.
He was a supporter, just didn't know it yet.

nickcoons
01-12-2008, 09:48 AM
What gives the constitution legitimate authority?

The method of answering your question, I suppose, depends on where you are headed with this.

Your end goal may be to say that the Constitution has no legitimate authority, therefore the federal government is not bound by it. If so, then my response would be that the Constitution is what gives the federal government its legitimate authority. Without the Constitution, there is no federal government.

Or you may be heading towards the other side, which is that the Constitution, like other contracts, can only bind those that have voluntarily taken part in it, and that the "limits" implied on the people by the Constitution (powers that the federal government has) do not apply to those of us living today. If this is where you're headed, then the answer is a bit more complex.

But the short answer is this. The original 13 states agreed to the Constitution, and each new state entering into the union thereafter has agreed to it, so the Constitution is binding upon the states to give the federal government the powers that are specifically enumerated.

Starting from a clean slate, anarchy (which doesn't mean chaos, it simply means no government), the people endow the states with certain powers, and the states use some of that authority to endow the federal government with far fewer powers. This last process manifest itself in the form of the Constitution.

torchbearer
01-12-2008, 09:51 AM
The method of answering your question, I suppose, depends on where you are headed with this.

Your end goal may be to say that the Constitution has no legitimate authority, therefore the federal government is not bound by it. If so, then my response would be that the Constitution is what gives the federal government its legitimate authority. Without the Constitution, there is no federal government.

Or you may be heading towards the other side, which is that the Constitution, like other contracts, can only bind those that have voluntarily taken part in it, and that the "limits" implied on the people by the Constitution (powers that the federal government has) do not apply to those of us living today. If this is where you're headed, then the answer is a bit more complex.

But the short answer is this. The original 13 states agreed to the Constitution, and each new state entering into the union thereafter has agreed to it, so the Constitution is binding upon the states to give the federal government the powers that are specifically enumerated.

Starting from a clean slate, anarchy (which doesn't mean chaos, it simply means no government), the people endow the states with certain powers, and the states use some of that authority to endow the federal government with far fewer powers. This last process manifest itself in the form of the Constitution.

Bravo!
Cliff's Notes even. I love it. I want to publish it! :cool:

VoluntaryMan
01-12-2008, 09:58 AM
I thought it was odd because I didn't think Tancredo had any supporters... ;)

You are right about Tancredo supporters. they were easier to convert, which makes sense why that troll was slain so easily.
He was a supporter, just didn't know it yet.

Fair enough.:D

torchbearer
01-12-2008, 10:07 AM
//

John T. Kennedy
01-12-2008, 04:28 PM
Troll alert, don't bump, search all his posts, all anti-paul. he's trying to stir the pot.

Anti-Paul? I thnk Paul's obviously the best candidate by far, and all the other candidates are monsters. I'm not pro-constitution though, so naturally I have some questions.

Dr. Paul is running as the champion of the Constitution. Surely it's fair to ask why he thinks it should have authority, no?

John T. Kennedy
01-12-2008, 04:36 PM
Our federal government is a public service body authorized by the consent of the governed.

Dr. Paul holds that the confederacy was free to withdraw it's consent to be governed under the Constitution. Wouldn't any individula have the same right? In fact I don't so consent any more than the Confedercy does.

Would President Paul allow me to secede?

johngr
01-12-2008, 04:40 PM
I can't believe none of you legal experts in 5 pages has come up with the right answer.

The Presidental pardon power outlined in Article II, Section 2 is virtually unlimited. Two ways it is limited are the he can't pardon people who have been impeached and he can only pardon US citizens.

By the way presidents can pardon people wholesale. The pardons by President Washington of the Whiskey Rebels were challenged to the supreme court and they upheld the power of the president to pardon classes of people in US v. Klein.

John T. Kennedy
01-12-2008, 04:44 PM
An unconstitutional law/statute/dictum/etc is not a law/statute/etc...
It is not binding upon anyone.
No one has to obey it.
No court has to/is capable of enforcing it.

Fine, but what makes the Constitution binding on Americans? The Constitution grants the government with various powers over me - the power to tax, etc.

Why is that binding on me?

Melissa
01-12-2008, 04:44 PM
I can't believe none of you legal experts in 5 pages has come up with the right answer.

The Presidental pardon power outlined in Article II, Section 2 is virtually unlimited. Two ways it is limited are the he can't pardon people who have been impeached and he can only pardon US citizens.

By the way presidents can pardon people wholesale. The pardons by President Washington of the Whiskey Rebels were challenged to the supreme court and they upheld the power of the president to pardon classes of people in US v. Klein.

Ok I read them all and there was some great replies but I would have to bet this is the best answer so far.

John T. Kennedy
01-12-2008, 07:39 PM
I can't believe none of you legal experts in 5 pages has come up with the right answer.

The Presidental pardon power outlined in Article II, Section 2 is virtually unlimited. Two ways it is limited are the he can't pardon people who have been impeached and he can only pardon US citizens.


Setting aside the question of why the Constitution has any binding authority, where does it say he can only pardon citizens? In Article II, Section 2, I read: "...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Where does it say he can only pardon US citizens?

Dave Pedersen
01-12-2008, 07:49 PM
Dr. Paul holds that the confederacy was free to withdraw it's consent to be governed under the Constitution. Wouldn't any individula have the same right? In fact I don't so consent any more than the Confedercy does.

Would President Paul allow me to secede?

Ok then if you are not in any way in contract with the federal government what difference does it make? You only benefit from the constitution. The constitution does not impose anything on the individual and so you only fail to recognize the rights which the constitution secures on your behalf. I think every state should secede from the federalis as a way to come out from under the effects of their habitual breach of contract.

Gilby
01-12-2008, 08:01 PM
Fine, but what makes the Constitution binding on Americans? The Constitution grants the government with various powers over me - the power to tax, etc.

Why is that binding on me?

It's not binding on you. They do not have any powers over you.

The constitution is a contract that charters an entity and lays out it's purpose and powers. Those who formed the contract can not give any more powers to this entity than they have. In a free society, they can be given no powers over you. It's a contract between the states, therefore it is only binding between the states, this new entity, and anyone that contracts with this entity. You are simply a beneficiary of this contract just like you may be a beneficiary of a corporation.

They do not have the power to tax you directly. They have the power to tax the states directly. They have the power to tax your use of their property.

The government does not follow natural law anymore. Ron Paul wants to restore that.

Sey.Naci
01-12-2008, 08:04 PM
Immigration is an issue that the federal government has authority to deal with, as provided by Article I. Section 8:

"[Congress shall have the power] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

You mention non-violent drug criminals. The federal government has no authority to pass any laws regarding an individual's chemical choices, therefore federal law is not "the law" here, but is rather null and void.

Hope this clears things up.What he said.

I'm a Canadian but think that in this case, our systems work similarly. Immigration is partly a defense issue, in which case, it makes sense to be under federal authority. But social issues such as education and health are under provincial (state) authority.

Canada also has its War on Drugs, not quite as bad as you have up there, but nearly so. Our neanderthal government is trying to take us backwards from where we had progressed in terms of how we view marijuana. It had been the case that, while possession of marijuana was still considered as a crime in the courts, our police forces would look the other way if they found someone in possession of the dreaded weed. Now, thanks to our Harper government, there has been a concerted crackdown. Not coincidentally, this crackdown has come largely at the behest of the U.S., which has been in a tizzy over the export of marijuana seeds to its fair shores.

John T. Kennedy
01-12-2008, 10:14 PM
The constitution does not impose anything on the individual and so you only fail to recognize the rights which the constitution secures on your behalf.

Doesn't the constitution claim authority for the federal government to tax me?

What if I want to let a Mexican citizen come live with me in Nevada next week? Dr. Paul seems to claim authority for the government to prevent that, but I don't see how you can say it's not interference with my property rights.

Doesn't the Fifth amendment say my property may be taken by the U.S. for public use?

John T. Kennedy
01-12-2008, 10:24 PM
They do not have the power to tax you directly. They have the power to tax the states directly.



The 16th amendment is unconstitutional?

Dave Pedersen
01-12-2008, 10:38 PM
Doesn't the constitution claim authority for the federal government to tax me?

What if I want to let a Mexican citizen come live with me in Nevada next week? Dr. Paul seems to claim authority for the government to prevent that, but I don't see how you can say it's not interference with my property rights.

Doesn't the Fifth amendment say my property may be taken by the U.S. for public use?

It does not interfere with your property rights just as if you decided to detonate a nuclear bomb on your property it would not interfere with your property rights to stop you. Rights supersede other rights based on effect. Rights are only rights to the extent they do not infringe on other people's rights.

If you bring an illegal across the national border you infringe on the rights of everyone who is protected by the national constitution since the authority to restrict border crossings is presumably granted to the national level of government as a portion of their responsibility to protect our borders from invasion. You would be participating in an invasion of one person or 30 million people contrary to the authority and responsibility of the federalis to prevent this from happening in the interest of national sovereignty and national defense.

Gilby
01-12-2008, 10:41 PM
The 16th amendment is unconstitutional?
No, it authorizes the government to tax you for using their property or power by using the income produced from that use as the basis for how much to tax you. If you are not using their property or powers, then you are not liable to pay income taxes to them. The amendment is valid, but the application of it is unconstitutional.