Posts
Prohibition and why most federal laws banning things are unconstutional.
In 1920 the 18th Amendment to the Constitution was passed to and prohibition began.
So answer this question!
If congress can regulate anything they want and ban things then why was it necessary to pass the 18th Amendment to ban liquor? And later repeal it to legalise it?
The answer is simple they do not have the power to ban anything unless the constution allows them to do it. True they can regulate the Interstate commerce in products but they can not regulate the "instate commerce".
If congress needed the the 18th Amendment to ban liquor then how do they ban and regulate the instate sales of drugs without a similar admendment allowing them to do so?
How can they regulate instate gun sales?
How can they regulate wages?
How can they regulate any business that is not invlved in Interstate commerce?
Sunday, October 22, 2006
The Interstate commerce clause Forbids federal regulation of instate activities!
The Constitution of the United States is not some esoteric document, written to be understood only by people with high IQs and postgraduate education. It is written in rather plain language.
There is even a sort of instructions guide on what the Constitution means in The Federalist Papers -- a collection of popular 18th century essays by those who helped write the Constitution, explaining why they did what they did.
Despite all this, appellate court decisions interpreting Constitutional law today are often a huge maze of tangled reasoning, obscure concepts and complex confusion. The motto over the entrance to the Supreme Court of the United States says, "Equal Justice Under Law" but sometimes you might wish that it said: "Brevity is the soul of wit."
It is not that the cases are so complicated in themselves but that high-IQ judges have turned simple realities into complex metaphysics. A few years ago, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 that carrying a gun near a school was not interstate commerce. To most people, the decision was obvious. So why 5 to 4?
You might think the decision should have been nine to nothing and it should not have taken more than one page to explain. Yet the good justices tied themselves into knots with lengthy explanations of their votes for and against.
The reason this decision was so complex and caused such consternation among some legal scholars was that previous generations of Supreme Court justices had turned the Constitution's simple concept of interstate commerce into a complicated rationalization of Congress' ever expanding exercises of power that it was never given when the Constitution was written.
Although the 10th Amendment says pretty plainly that the federal government can do only what it is specifically authorized to do, while the people can do whatever they are not specifically forbidden to do, this was not good enough for those who had visions of a more active government in Washington.
The terribly clever people who were put on the courts kept "interpreting" Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce so broadly that anything they wanted to regulate was called "interstate commerce." Thus the interstate commerce clause was used to virtually repeal the 10th Amendment.
Judges got so clever back in the 1940s that even a man who grew food for himself in his own backyard was said to be engaged in interstate commerce -- and therefore subject to the power of Congress.
After generations of this kind of runaway "interpretation" of the Constitution, it was a shock to some legal scholars when the Supreme Court decided -- 5 to 4 -- that Congress could not pass a federal law forbidding people from carrying guns near local schools.
Most states had such laws anyway, and all states had the authority to pass such laws if they wanted to, so this decision did not leave school children unprotected. It just put a stop to one of the thousands of extensions of federal power beyond what the Constitution authorized.
These over-extensions of federal power were not due simply to the ideological biases of judges, though that was undoubtedly a big factor. It also grew out of judges with more brainpower than was necessary to deal with 90 percent of the cases that came before them. High IQs and low self-discipline led to more wrecks in the law, just as among municipal transit drivers.
The Constitution of the United States is not some esoteric document, written to be understood only by people with high IQs and postgraduate education. It is written in rather plain language.
There is even a sort of instructions guide on what the Constitution means in The Federalist Papers -- a collection of popular 18th century essays by those who helped write the Constitution, explaining why they did what they did.
Despite all this, appellate court decisions interpreting Constitutional law today are often a huge maze of tangled reasoning, obscure concepts and complex confusion. The motto over the entrance to the Supreme Court of the United States says, "Equal Justice Under Law" but sometimes you might wish that it said: "Brevity is the soul of wit."
It is not that the cases are so complicated in themselves but that high-IQ judges have turned simple realities into complex metaphysics. A few years ago, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 that carrying a gun near a school was not interstate commerce. To most people, the decision was obvious. So why 5 to 4?
You might think the decision should have been nine to nothing and it should not have taken more than one page to explain. Yet the good justices tied themselves into knots with lengthy explanations of their votes for and against.
The reason this decision was so complex and caused such consternation among some legal scholars was that previous generations of Supreme Court justices had turned the Constitution's simple concept of interstate commerce into a complicated rationalization of Congress' ever expanding exercises of power that it was never given when the Constitution was written.
Although the 10th Amendment says pretty plainly that the federal government can do only what it is specifically authorized to do, while the people can do whatever they are not specifically forbidden to do, this was not good enough for those who had visions of a more active government in Washington.
The terribly clever people who were put on the courts kept "interpreting" Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce so broadly that anything they wanted to regulate was called "interstate commerce." Thus the interstate commerce clause was used to virtually repeal the 10th Amendment.
Judges got so clever back in the 1940s that even a man who grew food for himself in his own backyard was said to be engaged in interstate commerce -- and therefore subject to the power of Congress.
After generations of this kind of runaway "interpretation" of the Constitution, it was a shock to some legal scholars when the Supreme Court decided -- 5 to 4 -- that Congress could not pass a federal law forbidding people from carrying guns near local schools.
Most states had such laws anyway, and all states had the authority to pass such laws if they wanted to, so this decision did not leave school children unprotected. It just put a stop to one of the thousands of extensions of federal power beyond what the Constitution authorized.
These over-extensions of federal power were not due simply to the ideological biases of judges, though that was undoubtedly a big factor. It also grew out of judges with more brainpower than was necessary to deal with 90 percent of the cases that came before them. High IQs and low self-discipline led to more wrecks in the law, just as among municipal transit drivers.
Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment
The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never ratified by a majority of the sovereign States.
This is the Amendment that allegedly entitled the Federal Agent (government) in the federal territory of Washington, D.C. and their private collection company, the IRS, to collect "income tax" as falsely declared to be ratified in February 1913.
Even if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified, according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, it has always been unconstitutional for the U.S. Federal Government to directly tax We the People in their property, wages, salaries, or earnings. The judges of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected any claims that the 16th Amendment changed the constitutional limits on direct taxes in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, when they ruled that it "created no new power of taxation" and that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals".
read here
The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never ratified by a majority of the sovereign States.
This is the Amendment that allegedly entitled the Federal Agent (government) in the federal territory of Washington, D.C. and their private collection company, the IRS, to collect "income tax" as falsely declared to be ratified in February 1913.
Even if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified, according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, it has always been unconstitutional for the U.S. Federal Government to directly tax We the People in their property, wages, salaries, or earnings. The judges of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected any claims that the 16th Amendment changed the constitutional limits on direct taxes in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, when they ruled that it "created no new power of taxation" and that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals".
read here
Was the 16th Amendment really passed?
The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification.
In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states, and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified the Amendment. Continuing his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC, Bill Benson discovered his Golden Key. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process!
The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.
The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.
When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited every state capitol and knew that not a single state had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. 33 states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess. Since 36 states were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified.
full story and news about the cort fights to remove the 16th Amd read here.
The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification.
In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states, and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified the Amendment. Continuing his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC, Bill Benson discovered his Golden Key. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process!
The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.
The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.
When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited every state capitol and knew that not a single state had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. 33 states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess. Since 36 states were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified.
full story and news about the cort fights to remove the 16th Amd read here.
"The income tax is bad because it has robbed you and me of the guarantee of privacy and the respect for our property that were given to us in Article IV of the Bill of Rights. This invasion is absolute and complete as far as the amount of tax that can be assessed is concerned. Please remember that under the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress can take 100% of our income anytime it wants to. As a matter of fact, right now it is imposing a tax as high as 91%. This is downright confiscation and cannot be defended on any other grounds."
"The income tax is bad because it was conceived in class hatred, is an instrument of vengeance and plays right into the hands of the communists. It employs the vicious communist principle of taking from each according to his accumulation of the fruits of his labor and giving to others according to their needs, regardless of whether those needs are the result of indolence or lack of pride, self-respect, personal dignity or other attributes of men."
"The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by steeply graduated taxes on income and heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die."
[As matters now stand, if our children make the most of their capabilities and training, they will have to give most of it to the tax collector and so become slaves of the government. People cannot pull themselves up by the bootstraps anymore because the tax collector gets the boots and the straps as well.]
"The income tax is bad because it is oppressive to all and discriminates particularly against those people who prove themselves most adept at keeping the wheels of business turning and creating maximum employment and a high standard of living for their fellow men."
"I believe that a better way to raise revenue not only can be found but must be found because I am convinced that the present system is leading us right back to the very tyranny from which those, who established this land of freedom, risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to forever free themselves...
read the full story here
"The income tax is bad because it was conceived in class hatred, is an instrument of vengeance and plays right into the hands of the communists. It employs the vicious communist principle of taking from each according to his accumulation of the fruits of his labor and giving to others according to their needs, regardless of whether those needs are the result of indolence or lack of pride, self-respect, personal dignity or other attributes of men."
"The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by steeply graduated taxes on income and heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die."
[As matters now stand, if our children make the most of their capabilities and training, they will have to give most of it to the tax collector and so become slaves of the government. People cannot pull themselves up by the bootstraps anymore because the tax collector gets the boots and the straps as well.]
"The income tax is bad because it is oppressive to all and discriminates particularly against those people who prove themselves most adept at keeping the wheels of business turning and creating maximum employment and a high standard of living for their fellow men."
"I believe that a better way to raise revenue not only can be found but must be found because I am convinced that the present system is leading us right back to the very tyranny from which those, who established this land of freedom, risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to forever free themselves...
read the full story here
The Democratic Party a tool that every major enemy of this country has been able to use to advance their objectives.
Read more here
There is no limit to how low the Democrats have been willing to sink to achieve their ideological agenda..
The say they want a Democracy but in a real democracy Americans would be allowed to vote on every bill congress passes and allowed to vote on all tax bills.
Read more here
There is no limit to how low the Democrats have been willing to sink to achieve their ideological agenda..
The say they want a Democracy but in a real democracy Americans would be allowed to vote on every bill congress passes and allowed to vote on all tax bills.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)