Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


The Declaration of Independence - Other Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Fri Oct 10th, 2008 12:57 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
41st Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

JDC Duncan wrote:
EXACTLY ! and the regulations enforce a law that was
declared unconstitutional .....

so, a regulation without an authorising federal law is ....?

illegal ?


Someone should inform the Supreme Court to stop ruling in tax cases if they earlier declared them unconstitutional. Don't they read their own case law? ;)

 

HankC



You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Fri Oct 10th, 2008 01:48 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
43rd Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

JDC Duncan wrote: ok, we may need another thread for this issue.
Hank, the Supreme Court has never heard a case
involving a private citizen & refusal to pay
the federal income tax

 
Remember that the Supreme Court chooses its own cases.
 
When they deny cert, in effect, the previous ruling is upheld.
 
 
HankC



You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Fri Oct 10th, 2008 04:36 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
45th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

JDC Duncan wrote:
“the other issue is that the fed income tax revenue stream,
in context of corporate, cap gains, gas tax, etc, is very
small, almost not worth the effort to collect.”

individual income and payroll taxes account for over 80% of federal receipts.


“the revenue stream is directed towards interest on the national debt.”

certainly part of it is, but the debt interest is less than 10% of outlays.


“If the income tax was "abolished", it would have little noticible effect on the budget.”

Personal income taxes provide 55% of the federal revenue stream.



I'm all for arguing for low taxes, but not for bad arguments ;)


HankC



You have chosen to ignore JDC Duncan. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Fri Oct 10th, 2008 08:15 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
47th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

laughing with you...



 Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 01:07 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
48th Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

From the Declaration of Independence:

"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do."

That means each state was a separate nation, contrary to the Union's claim; therefore each one had the right to secede, since that's one of the things that "free and independent states may of right do."

I'd just like to know what the US government has to say for itself, after killing all those people in order to stop them from being free and independent states; this was just like any other ruthless nation taking over free countries and killing people.

ole wrote: Both documents were written with a goal of government by the people. This was a first. All governments were, until that time, run by an aristocracy.(Skipping over the "democracies" of Greece and Rome.)

After a fashion, this republic still operates on that principle. In 1860, the grand experiment was challenged. One side saw in the Declaration that it could declare itself a different nation. The other side saw that the experiment would fail if a part of it could withdraw whenever it pleased.

So we had a situation that only an armed conflict could resolve.



Unless one can read plain English, as illustrated clearly above.

And ignorance of the law is never an excuse for anyone to violate it-- especially the president.

However, Lincoln clearly suspended habeas corpus in order for this reason-- i.e. that it was so plainly obvious that he was dead wrong about his claim, that the only way to pull it off was to censor the opposition.


Don't know about the rest of you, but I'm rather glad about the way it turned out.


So you're glad about leaders of your country who lied, suppressed free speech,  and murdered hundreds of thousands in order to take over their free nations and turn them into third-world occupied regions.

Last edited on Thu Nov 19th, 2009 02:32 am by ThomasWashington



 Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 01:55 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
49th Post
19bama46
Member
 

Joined: Thu Mar 23rd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 146
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Thomas Washington, Sir..

 

Thank you for reviving this thread.. I think it continues to be interesting and was delighted to see Ole's comment that you copied..

"Both documents were written with a goal of government by the people. This was a first. All governments were, until that time, run by an aristocracy.(Skipping over the "democracies" of Greece and Rome.)

After a fashion, this republic still operates on that principle. In 1860, the grand experiment was challenged. One side saw in the Declaration that it could declare itself a different nation. The other side saw that the experiment would fail if a part of it could withdraw whenever it pleased.

So we had a situation that only an armed conflict could resolve.


Ole, if I may,  you stated that in 1860 the experiment was challenged and  one side saw the DOI as a means of declaring itself a different nation while the other side thought the grand experiment would fail if a part could withdraw...paraphrased...

Why would secession result in failure of the "Grand Experiment".. Would not the US have continued on, or would it have imploded over the loss of the southern brethren?

 

Ed

 



 Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 02:34 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
50th Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

HankC wrote: JDC Duncan wrote:
EXACTLY ! and the regulations enforce a law that was
declared unconstitutional .....

so, a regulation without an authorising federal law is ....?

illegal ?


Someone should inform the Supreme Court to stop ruling in tax cases if they earlier declared them unconstitutional. Don't they read their own case law? ;)

 

HankC

 

According to Lincoln, the Supreme Court only had the power on rule on cases before it-- not the law.



 Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 02:46 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
51st Post
19bama46
Member
 

Joined: Thu Mar 23rd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 146
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The supreme court does not review laws for constitutionality, but when they accept a case, it is the law as it pertains to that case that they are reviewing. They will either affirm the law, (allow it to stand) or strike down the law (declare it unconstitutional)

Last edited on Thu Nov 19th, 2009 02:47 am by 19bama46



 Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 04:30 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
52nd Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

But Lincoln said that the Supreme Court couldn't even do that.  To wit from his First Inaugural address:

 

 I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the style="COLOR: #000000; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #00fc7c"Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

In other words, Lincoln claimed that the Supreme Court had no power of juicial review over federal laws that came before it in cases.

Now compare that, to his 1856 Fremont campaign speech:

Do you say that such restriction of slavery would be unconstitutional, and that some of the States would not submit to its enforcement? I grant you that an unconstitutional act is not a law; but I do not ask and will not take your construction of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States is the tribunal to decide such a question, and we will submit to its decisions; and if you do also, there will be an end of the matter. Will you? If not, who are the disunionists--you or we?

 

Thus Lincoln not only denied the power of judicial review once he became president, but he held that view only when it proved convenient for him. Note that the above case was made on August 1, 1856-- shortly before the outcome of the Dred Scot case, which Lincoln felt sure would be decided in favor of the Free states.

Then, after the Court ruled entirely with the slave states and slave-owners, Lincoln made the following speech:


...we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits. And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up," shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made.

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. That is what we have to do. How can we best do it?



So there we have it: in 1856, when he thinks the Court will rule in his party's favor, he Lincoln says "The Supreme Court of the United States is the tribunal to decide the question of an unconstitutional act--" and challenges the other side to submit to its decision, calling them "disunionists" if they refuse.

Then when the court rules against him and his party, in 1858 he says "we must work to overthrow that dynasty--" i.e. he refuses to submit to the Supreme Court... thus making him and the Republicans "disunionist" by his own definition.

Then in 1861, President Lincoln says that the Supreme Court is simply "binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit--" ONLY-- while claiming that it has NO power of judicial review over the underlying legislation!

In short, Lincoln seems to be the father of the term, "the politics of convenience;" meanwhile the nickname "Honest Abe" appears to be born purely out of sarcasm. 

Last edited on Thu Nov 19th, 2009 04:41 am by ThomasWashington



 Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 08:18 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
53rd Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Not sure where you read he 'refuses to submit to the Supreme Court'.
 
Rather he is saying that since the Court must be obeyed, the Republicans must work to get their kind on the bench...
 
 
HankC



 Posted: Fri Nov 20th, 2009 01:28 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
54th Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

HankC wrote: Not sure where you read he 'refuses to submit to the Supreme Court'.
 
Rather he is saying that since the Court must be obeyed, the Republicans must work to get their kind on the bench...
 
 
HankC


Where does he say that? He certainly doesn't abide by his prior word that "we will submit to its decisions, and there will be an end the matter."

Likewise, he said nothing about any "loophole" of gaining hegemony to stack the bench with puppet-activists-- and so he was completely dishonest, as he always was.

Likewise, the INSTANT Lincoln became president, he unilaterally overturned 58 years of Supreme Court precedent regarding judicial review of federal law under Marbury v Madison, and claims federal law entirely they privy of the Congress and president, regarding both policy and habeas corpus;  and with Congress conveniently absent, he essentially assumes the reins of supreme reign-- which is more than enough to wag the dog into full-scale war when Congress rejoins.

Lincoln also deliberately refused to call Congress into Emergency-Session after the first secession, despite having more than 70 days to do so before his inauguration; this proves that he PLOTTED to usurp dictatorial power.

Finally, the Republicans deliberately refused to respect Dred Scot in both the territories and the states, regardless of what the Supreme Court said-- or Lincoln promised-- thus making him the disunionist by his own definition.



 Posted: Fri Nov 20th, 2009 03:17 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
55th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Where do you get the idea that Lincoln could call Congress into session before he was inaugurated?


HankC



 Posted: Fri Nov 20th, 2009 03:41 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
56th Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The Constitution. As president-elect; Lincoln not only could call an emergency-session of Congress to convene on the day of his inauguration: but in fact he was REQUIRED to do so, if he intended to act in a manner requiring it.

Congress had plenty of time after the first secession, to convene on March 4, 1861, but Lincoln never called them into session-- despite clear evidence that he had EVERY intention of acting as he did, as early as December 20 of 1860.


Thus, he deliberately REFUSED to call Congress into emergency-session, so that he could seize full national power and become a bona fide despot-- just like happened with the Weimar government in 1933, which was expressly stated in Mein Kampf to be the example-precedent.

Last edited on Fri Nov 20th, 2009 03:47 pm by ThomasWashington



 Posted: Fri Nov 20th, 2009 03:47 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
57th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

In what way did 'Republicans refuse to respect Dred Scot'?
 
You seem to confuse the words 'respect' and 'like'.
 
A person can disklike a law without breaking it...
 
 
HankC



 Posted: Fri Nov 20th, 2009 03:52 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
58th Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

HankC wrote: In what way did 'Republicans refuse to respect Dred Scot'?
 
You seem to confuse the words 'respect' and 'like'.
 
A person can disklike a law without breaking it...
 
 
HankC



But they can't contructively VIOLATE the law without breaking it, either directly or through act of omission.

They passed laws aganst slavery in the territories, blocked the admission of new states which wanted to be slave-states; and they refused to do anything about states that wouldn't allow slaves to pass through them,  or  gave sanctuary to slaves that escaped into them. That's ALL direct or constructive violation.

The Republican party's purpose behind this, was solely to pander to abolition-groups in order to gain congressional hegemony, with which to impose illegal taxes on the southern states.

Last edited on Fri Nov 20th, 2009 03:55 pm by ThomasWashington



 Posted: Fri Nov 20th, 2009 03:53 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
59th Post
19bama46
Member
 

Joined: Thu Mar 23rd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 146
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ThomasWashington wrote: The Constitution. He WAS president-elect; therefore he not only could, but he was REQUIRED to do so, if he intended to act in a manner requiring it.

However he deliberately REFUSED to call Congress into emergency-session, so that he could seize full national power and become a bona fide despot-- just like happened with the Weimar government in 1933, which was expressly stated in Mein Kampf to be the example-precedent.


UH... could you prehaps show us exactly where in the constitution you hae found this gem....

As president elect he had no power whatsoever to do anything other than to present himself to be sworn in.



 Posted: Fri Nov 20th, 2009 03:56 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
60th Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

It's clearly implied in the power and duties of the president-elect-- as well as plain common-sense-- for the president-elect to give Congress advance notice to adequately respond to impending emergencies pertaining to their duties and functions in government, in response to his intended acts as president.

Clearly, Lincoln did intend this, but didn't want Congress there when it happened; he wanted to unilaterally define national status, sovereignty, boundaries and authority; order invasions, suspend habeas corpus, effectively disband the Supreme Court, and otherwise seize national power,  without any pesky Congressmen getting in his way-- at least until his plans were well under-way.


General Jack Ripper, eat your heart out.

Last edited on Fri Nov 20th, 2009 04:09 pm by ThomasWashington



 Current time is 07:56 pmPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4357 seconds (12% database + 88% PHP). 39 queries executed.