Are there any nice tax protesters?

[Nikki]

Oil spill has been cleaned up and moved to a separate thread.

[SteveSy]

Now, he's at the ultimate point where nothing else matters because the courts are all corrupt or are only making the decisions they do because they are afraid of the IRS.

No the courts could be corrupt, not that they are. So saying all the courts agree is nonsense to support your opinion of what the law says. If the government is truly ripping people off, the courts will be there to support them, that's what always happens with any government. Please show one instance over time where a runaway government was held back because of the courts. Courts support the legitimacy of oppressive governments they do little to nothing to suppress their activities. If judges are not following the dictated pat they are simply replaced with one's that will.

[Nikki]

Now, he's at the ultimate point where nothing else matters because the courts are all corrupt or are only making the decisions they do because they are afraid of the IRS.

No the courts could be corrupt, not that they are. So saying all the courts agree is nonsense to support your opinion of what the law says. If the government is truly ripping people off, the courts will be there to support them, that's what always happens with any government. Please show one instance over time where a runaway government was held back because of the courts. Courts support the legitimacy of oppressive governments they do little to nothing to suppress their activities. If judges are not following the dictated pat they are simply replaced with one's that will.

What part of "appointed for life" do you not understand?

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Please show one instance over time where a runaway government was held back because of the courts. Courts support the legitimacy of oppressive governments they do little to nothing to suppress their activities. If judges are not following the dictated pat they are simply replaced with one's that will.

Wow, Steve, I don't know precisely what you mean by "runaway government" being "held back" by the courts. Do you mean that you've never heard of a statute being ruled unconstitutional? Can you be a bit more specific? What kind of "runaway" activity would you like to see "suppressed" by the courts?

Certainly, if Congress passes an unconstitutional tax, the court system will rule that tax to be unconstitutional - we've seen that. Indeed, one of the frivolous arguments of tax protesters is that the Supreme Court has ruled the Federal income tax (the one we have now) to be unconsitutional (there is no such ruling). It seems a bit odd for you to now almost be implying that the courts are NOT holding back the government.

Do you know of a single Federal judge who has has ever been "simply replaced" merely for failing to follow the "dictated pat" ("path???"), whatever that means? The only way to remove an Article III Federal judge is through impeachment.

At any rate, courts are not here to suppress whatever you personally feel is inappropriate activity by government. Courts do suppress that activity where people fight about things in court and argue that something is unconstitutional -- where the court rules in favor of the party contending that a statute is unconstitutional.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

Please show one instance over time where a runaway government was held back because of the courts. Courts support the legitimacy of oppressive governments they do little to nothing to suppress their activities. If judges are not following the dictated pat they are simply replaced with one's that will.

Wow, Steve, I don't know precisely what you mean by "runaway government" being "held back" by the courts. Do you mean that you've never heard of a statute being ruled unconstitutional? Can you be a bit more specific? What kind of "runaway" activity would you like to see "suppressed" by the courts?

And exactly how long does it take for the same thing to be done just using a different method?

How many acts were held unconstitutional back in 1920-1935 and then ALL of them are now done just worded differently but accomplish the same goal?

[Nikki]

How many acts were held unconstitutional back in 1920-1935 and then ALL of them are now done just worded differently but accomplish the same goal?

I give up.

How many and which ones?

[Famspear]

In a response to a direct question, SteveSy wrote:

And exactly how long does it take for the same thing to be done just using a different method?

How many acts were held unconstitutional back in 1920-1935 and then ALL of them are now done just worded differently but accomplish the same goal?

Steve, I'll take your evasive response as your version of "duck and cover."

[SteveSy]

How many acts were held unconstitutional back in 1920-1935 and then ALL of them are now done just worded differently but accomplish the same goal?

I give up.

How many and which ones?

Gee, since you all are self proclaimed experts I thought you would have been aware of the New Deal era and the eight programs found unconstitutional. Here's a start the National Recovery Act (NRA) and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) are two.

[SteveSy]

Societies change. Technologies change. Social mores change. Don't like it? Tough sh*t. Can't deal with it? Too bad, so sad, have an issue, here's a tissue.

Laws do not change without modification just because society changes. The words are exactly the same as they were before. What you suggest is exactly what Madison argued was the poisoning of liberty. It's why people like you make oppressive governments possible...the tissues will be required for the masses that will be abused and extorted long after you are dead, where you are unable to acknowledge the stupidity in holding such a belief.

Madison – Federalist #62

The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the FEW, not for the MANY.

[SteveSy]

Yes SteveSy we ALL know that the period before 1920 was a goddamned golden age, when the strets were lined with gold, liquor was plentiful, all the men rugged, all the women pretty and government barely intruded on everyone's lives.

I never claimed it was better or worse. I feel sorry for you being so wrapped up in your unnatural hate to see what I was saying. I simply said courts do not stop oppressive governments, if anything they help promote their existence. Sure a court here or there might hold a law unconstitutional or over the line but it wont be long before that exact same act is found just and legal with the support of the same court system.

This is not to say we don't need courts, it is to say that relying on their holdings to find true meaning in the law is flawed. The law is what the law is, it's printed words on paper derived from the intended purpose of those making the law. The courts can't find meaning beyond what is written and the intentions of those originally making the laws. Any more than that and its nothing more than a way to usurp the law by decree, new versions of law that would have never made it provided they had to go through the intended process. After all that's why they usurp them....it's easier to be corrupt and avoid the checks and balances provided for in the constitution.

[Nikki]

How many acts were held unconstitutional back in 1920-1935 and then ALL of them are now done just worded differently but accomplish the same goal?

I give up.

How many and which ones?

Gee, since you all are self proclaimed experts I thought you would have been aware of the New Deal era and the eight programs found unconstitutional. Here's a start the National Recovery Act (NRA) and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) are two.

1 - Citations?

2 - And which programs are "just worded differently but accomplish the same goal"?

3 - Have any of them been determined to be unconstitutional?

[SteveSy]

I give up.

How many and which ones?

Gee, since you all are self proclaimed experts I thought you would have been aware of the New Deal era and the eight programs found unconstitutional. Here's a start the National Recovery Act (NRA) and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) are two.

1 - Citations?

2 - And which programs are "just worded differently but accomplish the same goal"?

3 - Have any of them been determined to be unconstitutional?

I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you want to play with the big kids you have to know some basics about major events in US history.

Eight acts were held unconstitutional in that era, your job is to find one where the acts in substance are still considered unconstitutional. I gave you two to start with. Any act found unconstitutional limiting government power will always be overturned by using form instead of substance. Why because the courts do not limit government power, they legitimize it.

[Nikki]

You made allegations which you refuse to back up.

Until you do so, your blathering and unfounded opinions will be deleted with appropriate comment.

Put up or shut up.

[SteveSy]

Non-responsive content deleted

Allegations require support.

You always whine when things aren't spelled out, chapter and verse, for you.

You owe us the same courtesy.

Specific citations, please.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

This is not to say we don't need courts, it is to say that relying on their holdings to find true meaning in the law is flawed.

Here we go again. We're back to the SteveSy "I decide the law for myself, yes I do, it's my right" kind of nonsense.

Steve and other crackpots believe that law somehow has a "true meaning" that (of course) Steve himself determines, and that the court rulings contradict the "true meaning" (which "true meaning" of course is nothing more than "what Steve wants the law to be" or "what Steve believes the law is"). How convenient.

I understand why you're frustrated, Steve.

[Famspear]

Oh, by the way, Steve, you're the one with the homework assignment.

And "playing with the big kids"? In what field are you claiming expertise, if any? History?

Do you really think anyone here accepts you as being one of "the big kids"?

Sell it to Irwin Schiff.

[notorial dissent]

Yes, but then here once again, we have the nascent problem of Stevie who cannot back up his delusions, for the simple fact that he opens his mouth, lets some nonsense come tumbling out, and then claims it as revealed truth and that it is everyone else’s responsibility to prove him right, which of course he never is. Steve is ever making wild or even just his usual dumb statements, and then when challenged gets offended, but does not provide anything resembling an answer. You can add history, although he claims to be a revealed master of the inner thoughts of the founding fathers, until they disagree with him, along with economics, and well, just about everything else when it domes down to it to the list of things he knows absolutely nothing about. It just goes a lot quicker when you make it up as you go and then pretend to righteous indignation when caught and challenged, as he regularly is. I think that about sums it up doesn't it Stevie

[Nikki]

Vitriol, in this instance, is unnecessary. Let the facts (or lack thereof) speak for themselves and against You-Know-Who. Moderator (in this instance, being moderate)

Damn. That was quality vitriol from aught-one. Aged over 6 years in a charred oak barrel - fiery, yet smooth, with a hint of vanilla in the after taste. It will be in the stores soon under the Lewis-Debs Fine Sippin' Vitriol Line - look for the thermally insulated bottle, in a store near you.

Also, remember the words of my father, "Moderation is a good thing....so long as you don't over do it."

Mutter, grumble, gripe, complain....the man's keepin' me down (kicks an empty soda can) ......this wouldn't happen if Ron Paul were alive........

Are the asbestos (or non-carcinogenic equivalent) gloves included with the purchase, or are they extra?

If Ron Paul were alive, it wouldn't be a good idea to continue with law school ... unless you have a burning desire to be lined up against a wall and shot

[Famspear]

UGA lawdog wrote:

Not always true. Here in Georgia only federal judges have life tenure. Our state Supreme Court Justices, Court of Appeals judges, and so on have to stand for re-election every so often.

Same here in Texas. Texas Supreme Court judges are elected for specific terms. Only Federal judges have life tenure in Texas.

[Nikki]

The first two cases cited can't be among those Stevie-poo had in mind. He mentioned the New Deal era. That was FDR's platform, and he was first elected in 1932.

Is there a new requirement that Steve adhere to historical accuracy?