Are there any nice tax protesters?

[Imalawman]

Well, once Sybil is nailed to the wall and he's embarrassed he usually high tails it out of here for a while. I would be surprised if Stevie continues to post. But one can only hope he'll actually back up something he said. I've waited a year and a half for that to happen - I'm still waiting.

[The Observer]

It's the same pattern of Monday Morning Football with Stevesy. He throws out a ton of accusations about the system, then when the yellow flags start falling, Steve then tells you to go look it up. If you do look it up in his playbook, you find that his "evidence" has little or nothing to do with the first down he was trying to make. Then he goes into shotgun formation screaming "red herring", "straw man", and "corrupt courts" as his audible. Then he engages in ad hominem attacks on you, oblivious to the charges of unsportsmanlike conduct. After everyone has finished piling on, Steve takes his ball and goes home.

[silversopp]

What's wrong with child labor? Sure the picture of children working long hours in unsafe factories is pretty upsetting, but those days are gone. I think children could learn a lot of valuable lessons from working, as I did when I had a paper route. I learned to save up for a used car and my college education.

Children, and young adults, are now coddled until their early 20s. They leave college with very poor work ethnic and no comprehension of how to manage their own finances.

I have a problem with a 4 year old working in a factory, but I think having a 10 year old math whiz working with accountants would be very beneficial.

[Cpt Banjo]

They wanted federal government to stay within a very small box on all matters, regardless if the country was going to hell in a handbasket because the individual states were incapable of marshalling the necessary resources to help mitigate the effects of the Great Depression.

People claim that today's courts are out of touch with reality, they really need to review the USSC's conduct from the end of WWI to the start of WWII to really get a taste of what a Supreme court out of step with the times is really like.

Perhaps the Court majority simply felt that the Constitution didn't authorize Congress to do some of the things it was doing in terms of economic regulation and that it wasn't willing to stretch the commerce clause almost out of recognition to give Congress a blank check.

Let's be honest -- the New Deal Court's commerce clause jurisprudence has practically removed any limitation on Congressional economic regulation, unless there's a specific Bill of Rights issue involved. Under the current state of the law there would be nothing to prohibit Congress from enacting, say, a federal marital property regime (which it already has to some extent in ERISA) to replace all 50 state versions.

The old idea that the States are laboratories for political experiment applies only insofar as Congress hasn't decided to preempt the field by exercising a vastly overreaching and bloated commerce power. California may wish to allow medicinal use of marijuana, but it can't because Congress has decided otherwise. Even home-grown pot is verboten, because of the brilliant (where's the emoticon for sarcasm? Maybe this one: ) decision in Wickard v. Filburn. A nonworking spouse in a community property state who predeceases the working spouse may wish to bequeath her community property interest in her husband's employee benefit plan to her children, but she can't because Congress has effectively taken away her right to do so.

This is not to say that these recent decisions were aberrations; based upon the applicable precedent they were right in line with the prevailing commerce clause jurisprudence and should not have come as a surprise to anyone. (Indeed, the Boggs decision involving ERISA and the deceased spouse's community property rights could be justified under the taxing power alone). But must it be this way?

[SteveSy]

Well, once Sybil is nailed to the wall and he's embarrassed he usually high tails it out of here for a while. I would be surprised if Stevie continues to post. But one can only hope he'll actually back up something he said. I've waited a year and a half for that to happen - I'm still waiting.

No worries I'm not "embarrassed" in the least....I stand by everything I said. There was no nailing to the wall, if anything it was the person who did not know about the shift in the SC around 75 years ago that was nailed. I don't need to back up what I said, I said enough for anyone who has basic knowledge of that era. I can see from the posts afterwards some are knowledgeable, even if they might not agree.

While most of you, if not all, may not agree with my perception of government it's nice to see that some of you at least see that better choices might have been made some years ago, even if those choices in the short term appear on the surface to harsh.

[Imalawman]

Well, once Sybil is nailed to the wall and he's embarrassed he usually high tails it out of here for a while. I would be surprised if Stevie continues to post. But one can only hope he'll actually back up something he said. I've waited a year and a half for that to happen - I'm still waiting.

No worries I'm not "embarrassed" in the least....I stand by everything I said. There was no nailing to the wall, if anything it was the person who did not know about the shift in the SC around 75 years ago that was nailed.

While most of you, if not all, may not agree with my perception of government it's nice to see that some of you at least see the probable failures in the choices that were made some years ago.

Well then Steve, for once, just once, answer the fricking questions asked of you. Support YOUR assertions. I'm so sick of you postulating BS and NEVER EVER supporting your statements. So lets have those acts that were struck down along wish the revised acts that accomplish the same purpose. Come on, just once follow through on something for the love of God.

[SteveSy]

Well, once Sybil is nailed to the wall and he's embarrassed he usually high tails it out of here for a while. I would be surprised if Stevie continues to post. But one can only hope he'll actually back up something he said. I've waited a year and a half for that to happen - I'm still waiting.

No worries I'm not "embarrassed" in the least....I stand by everything I said. There was no nailing to the wall, if anything it was the person who did not know about the shift in the SC around 75 years ago that was nailed.

While most of you, if not all, may not agree with my perception of government it's nice to see that some of you at least see the probable failures in the choices that were made some years ago.

Well then Steve, for once, just once, answer the fricking questions asked of you. Support YOUR assertions. I'm so sick of you postulating BS and NEVER EVER supporting your statements. So lets have those acts that were struck down along wish the revised acts that accomplish the same purpose. Come on, just once follow through on something for the love of God.

What do I have to "back up"? If you don't understand or have knowledge of what happened with the SC in that period there is no need because you lack the history in your personal knowledge base to discuss it intelligently. In other words, I'm not going to teach you the basics about electricity so you can tell me I'm wrong about a Tesla coil...

I always support my statements btw, you may not like the support but I support them. This however is so elementary I'm simply not going to waste my time. A simple Google search will turn up tons of hits on the starters I provided earlier.

Maybe Captnkickback or Cpt Banjo can give your a pointer or two....they might not agree with me but at least it appears they knew what I was talking about.

[Quixote]

I always support my statements btw

That's an astounding statement under the best of circumstances, but positively surreal in a post in which you refuse to back up your statements.

[SteveSy]

I always support my statements btw

That's an astounding statement under the best of circumstances, but positively surreal in a post in which you refuse to back up your statements.

Sorry you too lack even basic history concerning the SC. Strange how many of you try so hard to give the impression you are very knowledgeable about history and court decisions but are not even aware of major events events that happened in the history of the SC.


Try..."Supreme Court" and "New Deal" in a Google search....

But there is no sense in you discussing this topic. So what, are you going to do the speed read and start arguing about something you learned about 15 minutes ago.....hmm on second though I guess that would be typical.

[Imalawman]

I always support my statements btw

That's an astounding statement under the best of circumstances, but positively surreal in a post in which you refuse to back up your statements.

Sorry you too lack even basic history concerning the SC. Strange how many of you try so hard to give the impression you are very knowledgeable about history and court decisions but are not even aware of major events events that happened in the history of the SC.


Try..."Supreme Court" and "New Deal" in a Google search.... pretty sad to say the least.

That's not my job - you made the comment. Now I'm asking you to back it up. Give me specifics. Its just so easy Sybil - give me examples of what you're talking about. How about this - just give me one of the statutes you say exists and the follow-up bill that accomplished the same thing. We'll take them one at a time.

Otherwise, one could say whatever they wanted and it would become meaningless. For instance, did you know that in the 60's the SC ruled on numerous occasions that lawyers are the smartest people alive and the best looking? You want to accept that statement or ask me to back it up with specific cases?

(btw - i have unfettered access to westlaw, so wouldn't use google anyway. But again, its not my job)

[SteveSy]

That's an astounding statement under the best of circumstances, but positively surreal in a post in which you refuse to back up your statements.

Sorry you too lack even basic history concerning the SC. Strange how many of you try so hard to give the impression you are very knowledgeable about history and court decisions but are not even aware of major events events that happened in the history of the SC.


Try..."Supreme Court" and "New Deal" in a Google search.... pretty sad to say the least.

That's not my job - you made the comment. Now I'm asking you to back it up. Give me specifics. Its just so easy Sybil - give me examples of what you're talking about. How about this - just give me one of the statutes you say exists and the follow-up bill that accomplished the same thing. We'll take them one at a time.

I gave you two examples of acts that were struck down. Each are in place today in substance but in different form. In that period the SC struck down commerce clause issues all of which are in place today with even greater latitude provided to congress to exploit.

I refuse to do simple research for you, information you should already have if you are going to participate in such a discussion...lay your claims I don't support my statements all you like....it's akin to asking me to back up the assertion we landed on the moon not even realizing we have rockets.

[Cpt Banjo]

Now, by 1936/37 roosevelt had been reelected and a heavily Democratic House and Senate had the opportunity to start filling vacancies of the Taft/Hughes court as those justices retired. The new judges, assumed an activist role (when compared to the prior courts) and allowed the Federal government to expand its powers, reach and authority.

Why did the Roosevelt era court allow this? Great Depression, bread lines, 20%+ unemployment, the rise of the CPUSA and Eugene Debs Socialist Party (FDR stole some of their thunder), the populism of Huey Long, Father Coughlin and so forth were clear indications that state and local governments could not, or would not take the steps necessary to combat these issues, stimulate the economy and reverse the depressive malaise which had overtaken the country.

It's arguable that the alteration in the Court's outlook began when one man -- Justice Roberts -- changed his mind in the West Coast Hotel v. Parrish case, prompting the observation that "A switch in time saved nine."

[SteveSy]

Given that societies change, no one should be surprised that laws (and Constitutional provisions) and their interpretations change. You didn't really expect them to remain static for ever did you?

No, not really but then I wouldn't expect them to change in less than a decade so dramatically either.

Can you provide ANY examples where the court has continued to limit government in any form whatsoever or is it an ever expanding power grab provided to congress and the president? The courts over time do not limit government oppression, they in fact attempt to legitimize it. Why, because its obvious, if you get to hand pick who you want on the court based on whatever criteria you desire and your mission is one of power, instead of liberty for your constituents, as it is with most people who find themselves in that position, then the outcome is reliably predictable. This is not to say courts are not necessary, however they are not to be trusted as a one stop shop for the true meaning of what is or is not the intended purpose of a law written for a represented public. Laws are to be understood by all, not by men of their own choosing. Laws are published for a reason, if you can change the meaning of a law by mere decree then there is no true law at all except that which is dictated by an oligarchy when it suits their desires. Subtle changes in interpreting law are to be expected, massive sweeping changes resulting in near opposite conclusions are an admission of usurpation.

The rest of your post is just over zealous blathering from a person with an unnatural hatred towards those he disagrees with....I've seen your posts concerning other people you disagree with also....mostly pure psychotic rage towards anyone not accepting your personal opinion as if its a fact. Again, I detect megalomania at the core of most it as I do with most of you.

[Cpt Banjo]

Given that societies change, no one should be surprised that laws (and Constitutional provisions) and their interpretations change. You didn't really expect them to remain static for ever did you?

No, not really but then I wouldn't expect them to change in less than a decade so dramatically either.

The West Virginia v. Barnette case, which voided the forced recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, was decided only 3 years after the Court had upheld similar legislation in the Gobitis case.

[SteveSy]

I'm taking an enforced time out until I provide the information to back up my allegations

[SteveSy]

I'm taking an enforced time out until I provide the information to back up my allegations

[SteveSy]

I'm taking an enforced time out until I provide the information to back up my allegations

It will continue, just like a broken record, until ...