Sounds about right.Originally Posted by johnwk
Reply With QuoteSite Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Sounds about right.
That's precisely what johnwk is doing. Never mind that the language of the Constitution doesn't restrict when Congress can enact a direct tax. Never mind that the people behind the ratification documents knew this and proposed amendments that would impose restrictions. Never mind that none of these proposed amendments was ever enacted. No, johnwk will just do an end run around the amendment process and stretch and distort the language of the Constitution to include restrictions that the ratifiers knew weren't there.
Last edited by Sonny Tufts; 12-04-2017 at 10:00 AM.
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
I have already responded to your above unsubstantiated nonsense as follows:
The power to lay and collect an apportioned direct tax is in our Constitution! But thank you for posting your unsubstantiated opinion. Now, let us take a look at some authoritative sources which confirm you are full of bull-crapski when it comes to the supremacy of “legislative intent”.
One of the rules of our Constitution [Amendment Seven] is to follow the rules of "common law", which means adhering to the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, which includes direct taxes.
And one of the long standing rules under the common law with regard to the meaning of laws, which includes our Constitution, is to enforce its “legislative intent”. In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."
It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."
And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent:
”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."
This very rule concerning legislative intent is also stated by Jefferson in the following words:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
And the noteworthy Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law [1858] confirms the truth of the matter as follows:
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.
In fact, being obedient to the documented legislative intent of our Constitution was acknowledged in HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
”The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.”
And where is our Constitution’s legislative intent to be found? It is found by researching the debates during which time our Constitution was framed and ratified, e.g., Madison’s Notes on the Convention, Hamilton’s Notes, The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, Elliot’s Debates, etc., are some of the sources used to document the legislative intent of our Constitution.
Now, go back to POST NUMBER 118 which contains sufficient documentation, of those who ratified the Constitution, and establishes when the apportioned tax was intended to be used, and then get back to me.
JWK
The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers. Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
Do you really want substantiation that none of the proposed amendments was ever adopted? Read the Constitution and see if any are there.
There is one documented fact you have ignored in your end run around Article V: in listing the direct tax restriction as a proposed amendment to the Constitution, the people writing the ratification documents for certain of the States intended that the restriction be adopted in accordance with the normal amendment process. But it wasn't.
Have you ever wondered why, if the people ratifying the Constitution in the States that you cited really wanted the proposed direct tax amendments, their representatives in Congress never acted on them? I know the answer: only 6 of the 13 States ratifying the Constitution expressed a desire for a further direct tax amendment, and South Carolina merely expressed a desire that direct taxes be used under certain circumstances. But the other 6 States ratified the Constitution without expressing any limitation on direct taxes. So it seems you want to circumvent Article V in two ways: you want to avoid amending the Constitution to add language that not only isn't there but that was known to not be there; and you wish to have the desires of only 54% of the States be taken into account instead of the 75% required by the Constitution. Your disdain for the Constitution is something else.
The ratifying documents may be read here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/18th.asp
You have a nasty habit of inserting things into the Constitution that aren't there. All the Constitution says about common law is that jury trial shall be preserved in civil suits where the value in controversy exceeds $20 and that no fact determined by a jury shall be re-examined except according to the common law rules. It does not say that all other common law rules are to be applied, or do you really think that the Constitution mandates that an accused cannot testify in his own behalf or that a married woman can't enter into contracts or manage her own property, both of which were the rules at common law?
Last edited by Sonny Tufts; 12-04-2017 at 01:34 PM.
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
What you seem to "know" is bull-crapski. Nothing of significance!
Of the first 12 proposed amendments to our Constitution, and contrary to your absurd contention, there was no amendment to require direct taxes only be used in case of emergency. Why on earth would such an amendment be necessary when this very intention was repeatedly expressed during the Constitution’s framing, and likewise expressed during state ratification debates, and also demanded in a number of the state ratification documents? The legislative intent requiring direct taxes to be limited to emergencies is abundantly clear.
Stop trolling the thread with your nonsense.
JWK
There you go again misrepresenting the meaning of our Constitution.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Additionally, as I previously pointed out, ”In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."
I know your kind has a desire to allow judges and Justices make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean in order to impose their personal sense of justice, fairness or reasonableness. In other words, you like our Constitution to be a rubber ruler, susceptible to a stretching to accommodate the personal whims and fancies of our Washington Establishment and our Global Governance Crowd
Give it a break. You are losing any credibility which you may have, and I suspect that is not very much.
JWK
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
Last edited by johnwk; 12-04-2017 at 04:22 PM.
If it was so clear, why (a) wasn't it included in the original constitutional language, and (b) did 6 ratifying documents ask that the Constitution be amended to include the direct tax limitation?
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
Your repeated questions which appear above, have been repeatedly addressed, e.g., see post number 125.
Give it a freaken break.
The legislative intent requiring direct taxes to be limited to emergencies is abundantly clear when reviewing the historical evidence.
JWK
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us