Ron Paul to Eliminate Income Tax

[LPC]

Hot damn :!: Dueling dipshits.

Amazing, isn't it? The clash of the clueless.

[iamfreeru2]

Tell me, is the organic Constitution in effect or is Public Policy? If it is organic Constitution then why do "lawmakers" continually refer to Public Policy and the SCOTUS continually uphold Public Policy? Are we under the common law (organic Constitution) or civil law (Public Policy)?

Your questions are gibberish.

The Constitution is sometimes described as "organic law" because it forms the basis for all other federal law. The phrase "organic Constitution" is therefore redundant.

"Public policy" is a term used to describe the ideas or principles that underlie laws. So, for example, the progressive income tax (which is a statute) represents a public policy (an idea) that taxes should fall more heavily on those better able to pay.

Asking for a choice between the two is like asking whether we have a system of laws or a system of arithmetic.

And most of the states of the United States adopted the English common law tradition, which allows judges to create law to address changing circumstances, without legislation. The exception is Louisiana, which adopted the French civil law system, under which all laws must originate from the legislature.

Public policy can be represented by both common law and civil law, and both common law and civil law can exist under our federal Constitution.

Your answer is gibberish, so what else is new. Just what I thought, a non responsive response. I wasn't expecting anything of substance from an attorn-ey anyway. Talk about clueless. Geesh!!

[Nikki]

Hot damn Dueling dipshits.

Life doesn't get any better.

Hot damn another idiot that doesnt know the difference between judicial law forms.

I highly speculate you dont know the difference between enactments of Congress and ratifications by the People.

I double-highly speculate right back at you that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

[Nick]

Gold has never effectively backed up anything.

As a Dr. Rick Boettger has said "What backs up our currency is better than gold. It is the wealth, power, stability, and talent of the wealthiest, most stable, and surely the most powerful nation in the history of the earth."

Do folks not remember the simple economic equation that
MV=PQ? That is money times velocity equals price times quantity? In short, unless goods or services are produced, even gold itself wouldn't be worth anything.

The idea of a gold backed currency is a logical impossibility. Claiming the constitution says we must have a gold back currency makes it possible to the same extent that the same constitution could make a gold bar float on water.

Why is that so? It's very simple, really. Banks exist. They take deposits and loan money. Loaning money creates money and paying off loans destroys money. The existence of a gold standard would be irrelevent to this process.

[Joey Smith]

Just a quick question, if FRNs are so "worthless" then why do so many foreign governments accumulate them? Why does BMW, a German company, accept them for a new X-5? Why does Sony, a Japanese company accept them for a nice plasma TV?

What do they know that the penniless born-loser tax protestors don't?

[rachel]

Hot damn another idiot that doesnt know the difference between judicial law forms.

I highly speculate you dont know the difference between enactments of Congress and ratifications by the People.

I double-highly speculate right back at you that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Since this simple question obviously went above your scant knowledge of law. This question seperates those who think they know what they are talking about to those who actually do know what they are talking about.
You Nikki, failed miserably.

First off, it deals with law forms and the pecking order thereof.
The U.S. Constitution was written by the People in the law form of common law that establishes the sovern "People of the Several States" with Rights and Privileges for the pursuit of happiness. The common law "People of the Several States" can only move the U.S. Constitution by ratification.
Congress has never possessed authority in their civil law form legislation powers to change or alter the Citizens of the Several States common law form U.S. Constitution.
What does that mean little Nikki?
It means you drank and became stagering drunk off the socialist cool-ade. You've polluted yourself.

It means the common law "People of the Several States" are not the same, in law form jurisdiction, as those individuals of the lower jurisdiction as 14th amendment "U.S. citizens".
Congress can only pass civil law enactments to those individuals who fall within U.S. citizenship were the 14th establishes that jurisdiction and citizenship.
Does 26CFR1.1-1(c) of title 26 (IRC) ring a bell?
It should because the IRC is nothing but an act of Congress.
Congress's enactments are only civil law form operations to the statutory defined "U.S. citizen" of the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment was written because the freed Negro slave, by Congress, was not considered part of the body politic of the "People of the Several States". They were not considered citizens of the Several States by freedom of slavery by default .
So Congress stepped in where they have the authority to do so and legislates to them in the civil law form which is no different than what Rome did to its subjects.
Congress's civil law enactments do not trump the common law U.S. Constitution nor the People who wrote it. Those People of the common law form.
Congress can not ratify the U.S. Constitution by enactment. Only the "People of the Several States" who are in the jurisdiction of the common law form can.
The congressional Civil Rights Act of 1866 didnt add, change or subtract from the "Bill of Rights" did it?.
Getting the law form pecking order drift grasshopper?
Getting a ssn for any one of the "People of the Several States" establishes U.S. citizenship jurisdiction and therefore paying taxes is a must until such ssn status is changed.
Its a difference in jurisdictions of law forms!
But then you didnt know that did you.

Nikki please get a life!
Wait a minute. Under Socialism you cant without ssn permission, so go crawl under a rock.

[Question everything]

I highly speculate you dont know the difference between enactments of Congress and ratifications by the People.

I double-highly speculate right back at you that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Since this simple question obviously went above your scant knowledge of law. This question seperates those who think they know what they are talking about to those who actually do know what they are talking about.
You Nikki, failed miserably.

First off, it deals with law forms and the pecking order thereof.
The U.S. Constitution was written by the People in the law form of common law that establishes the sovern "People of the Several States" with Rights and Privileges for the pursuit of happiness. The common law "People of the Several States" can only move the U.S. Constitution by ratification.
Congress has never possessed authority in their civil law form legislation powers to change or alter the Citizens of the Several States common law form U.S. Constitution.
What does that mean little Nikki?
It means you drank and became stagering drunk off the socialist cool-ade. You've polluted yourself.

It means the common law "People of the Several States" are not the same, in law form jurisdiction, as those individuals of the lower jurisdiction as 14th amendment "U.S. citizens".
Congress can only pass civil law enactments to those individuals who fall within U.S. citizenship were the 14th establishes that jurisdiction and citizenship.
Does 26CFR1.1-1(c) of title 26 (IRC) ring a bell?
Congress's enactments are only civil law form operations to the statutory defined "U.S. citizen" of the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment was written because the freed Negro slave, by Congress, was not considered part of the body politic of the "People of the Several States". They were not considered citizens of the Several States.
So Congress stepped in where they have the authority to do so and legislates to them in the civil law form which is no different than what Rome did to its subjects.
Congress's civil law enactments do not trump the common law U.S. Constitution nor the People who wrote it. Those People of the common law form.
Congress can not ratify the U.S. Constitution by enactment. Only the "People of the Several States" of the common law form can.
The congressional Civil Rights Act of 1866 didnt add, change or subtract from the "Bill of Rights" did it?.
Getting the law form pecking order drift grasshopper?
Getting a ssn for any one of the "People of the Several States" establishes U.S. citizenship jurisdiction and therefore paying taxes is a must until such ssn status is changed.
Its a difference in jurisdictions of law forms!
But then you didnt know that did you.

Nikki please get a life!
Wait a minute. Under Socialism you cant without a ssn, so go crawl under a rock.

It's like watching two people playing tennis using racquets that have no strings... Keep it going kids.

[SteveSy]

What do they know that the penniless born-loser tax protestors don't?

If Tax protesters are penniless then why does the government even charge them with any tax crimes....you don't owe taxes, in fact you get money back, if you're penniless. Are you claiming that the government is fraudulently charging people for tax crimes when they don't owe taxes?

Don't worry Joey you'll never be accused of being intellectually honest, instead just a troll on your own forum.

[rachel]

I double-highly speculate right back at you that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Since this simple question obviously went above your scant knowledge of law. This question seperates those who think they know what they are talking about to those who actually do know what they are talking about.
You Nikki, failed miserably.

First off, it deals with law forms and the pecking order thereof.
The U.S. Constitution was written by the People in the law form of common law that establishes the sovern "People of the Several States" with Rights and Privileges for the pursuit of happiness. The common law "People of the Several States" can only move the U.S. Constitution by ratification.
Congress has never possessed authority in their civil law form legislation powers to change or alter the Citizens of the Several States common law form U.S. Constitution.
What does that mean little Nikki?
It means you drank and became stagering drunk off the socialist cool-ade. You've polluted yourself.

It means the common law "People of the Several States" are not the same, in law form jurisdiction, as those individuals of the lower jurisdiction as 14th amendment "U.S. citizens".
Congress can only pass civil law enactments to those individuals who fall within U.S. citizenship were the 14th establishes that jurisdiction and citizenship.
Does 26CFR1.1-1(c) of title 26 (IRC) ring a bell?
Congress's enactments are only civil law form operations to the statutory defined "U.S. citizen" of the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment was written because the freed Negro slave, by Congress, was not considered part of the body politic of the "People of the Several States". They were not considered citizens of the Several States.
So Congress stepped in where they have the authority to do so and legislates to them in the civil law form which is no different than what Rome did to its subjects.
Congress's civil law enactments do not trump the common law U.S. Constitution nor the People who wrote it. Those People of the common law form.
Congress can not ratify the U.S. Constitution by enactment. Only the "People of the Several States" of the common law form can.
The congressional Civil Rights Act of 1866 didnt add, change or subtract from the "Bill of Rights" did it?.
Getting the law form pecking order drift grasshopper?
Getting a ssn for any one of the "People of the Several States" establishes U.S. citizenship jurisdiction and therefore paying taxes is a must until such ssn status is changed.
Its a difference in jurisdictions of law forms!
But then you didnt know that did you.

Nikki please get a life!
Wait a minute. Under Socialism you cant without a ssn, so go crawl under a rock.

It's like watching two people playing tennis using racquets that have no strings... Keep it going kids.

So if Congress has all these so called powers of powers why cant they ratify the U.S. Constitution?
Do you care to take a stab at it or do I give you your sign now?

[Famspear]

It's here: The battle of the witless wonders! Iamfreeru2 versus rachel! The contest to replace DMVP! All the action, all the drama! Who will take the crown?

Neither is a DMVP - but they're in the same ball park!

[notorial dissent]

Ah yes, just what we needed, Rachel the clueless giving lessons on constitutional history and law. Almost as much amusement value as Steve expounding on economics.

In the first place, the Constitution was written by appointed delegates of the then Continental Congress, as a means of reforming the Articles of Confederation. There were no “people” we or otherwise involved. The actions were taken in the name of the Confederation Congress, and the Several and Sovereign States as they existed at the time. The “sovereign” people mentioned were the several States, not individuals. I have no idea where you get the “common law People of the Several States" nonsense, but the Constitution was ratified by and in the name of the Several States, as Sovereign states, there was no “We the People” involved in it. The Constitution was ratified into existence by those state governments agreeing to the terms of the document and submitting themselves to the new Constitutional authority that became the national and supreme entity of the action. The Constitution by its nature grants the Congress the authority to make such laws as it authorizes. The rest of your tirade is absolute nonsense.

There is no such item as a common law "People of the Several States" any more than there is such a thing as a “14th amendment "U.S. citizens”. All lawful citizens of the Several States at the time of ratification acquired U S national citizenship in tandem with their state citizenship. The only thing the 14th Amendment specifically addressed was the status of the former slaves, by reversing any court or state actions that would have otherwise denied them the rights of citizenship. Prior to that time even freedmen could not generally claim citizenship even thought they had been born in the US, this ended that and overturned any court actions to the contrary.

Congress has the authority to pass any law not forbidden it by the Constitution, and the laws apply to citizens and non citizens alike and always has.

Congratulations, you almost got something right. The IRC is the result of Congressional Act, but it applies to anyone earning income within the US, except under certain conditions, and to US citizens earnings outside of the US under certain conditions.

Just what do you think “civil law” is? Certainly nothing you actually have a grasp of.

Then you get it really wrong again. Congress presented a constitutional amendment to the several states as it is authorized to, and the several states ratified the amendment, and in so doing so agreed to be bound by it.

“Congress's civil law enactments do not trump the common law U.S. Constitution..” they result from constitutional authority, and must fall within constitutional boundaries.

“Congress can not ratify the U.S. Constitution by enactment.” This statement is pure nonsense in that the Constitution was ratified by the several states, thus creating the Congress and granting it very specific and broad powers.

Get a clue. If you were born within the boundaries of the US you are a US citizen, and it has been that way since the founding of the Republic. If you are a state citizen, then you are by default a US citizen, as you cannot be state citizen without being a US citizen.

I would suggest reading the document you are spouting so much nonsense about, but that would spoil your fantasy world.

[LPC]

the Constitution was ratified by and in the name of the Several States, as Sovereign states, there was no “We the People” involved in it. The Constitution was ratified into existence by those state governments agreeing to the terms of the document and submitting themselves to the new Constitutional authority that became the national and supreme entity of the action.

That's not exactly correct. The Constitution was not ratified by the state governments, but by conventions within each state of delegates who were specially elected by the people of each state for those conventions. That was the procedure agreed upon by the Convention of 1787.

In Convention Monday September 17th 1787.

Present
The States of

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mr. Hamilton from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

Resolved, That the proceeding Constitution be laid before the United States in Congress assembled, and that it is the Opinion of this Convention, that it should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification; and that each Convention assenting to, and ratifying the Same, should give Notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled.

Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Convention, that as soon as the Conventions of nine States shall have ratified this Constitution, the United States in Congress assembled should fix a Day on which Electors should be appointed by the States which shall have ratified the same, and a Day on which the Electors should assemble to vote for the President, and the Time and Place for commencing Proceedings under this Constitution. That after such Publication the Electors should be appointed, and the Senators and Representatives elected: That the Electors should meet on the Day fixed for the Election of the President, and should transmit their Votes certified, signed, sealed and directed, as the Constitution requires, to the Secretary of the United States in Congress assembled, that the Senators and Representatives should convene at the Time and Place assigned; that the Senators should appoint a President of the Senate, for the sole Purpose of receiving, opening and counting the Votes for President; and, that after he shall be chosen, the Congress, together with the President, should, without Delay, proceed to execute this Constitution.

By the Unanimous Order of the Convention

Go Washington Presidt

W. Jackson Secretary.

In theory, the Constitution could have been ratified by the state governments, but the people who wrote the Constitution wanted it to be ratified by the people (or by a process that was as close to the people as they thought they could get).

[Agent Observer]

Famspear said:

Value, however, is a separate issue. On the "value" question, I would reiterate something I wrote in another forum a long time ago:

Quote:
Anyone who really believes his or her Federal Reserve notes are "valueless" is invited to mail any and all such notes to me personally as a "valueless" gift to me -- and I will be happy to keep and spend those "valueless" notes on such valuable things as music CDs, movie tickets, lunches with friends, and anything else of value I can find to spend them on. It is incorrect [ . . . ] to say that Federal Reserve notes have no "redeemable value." Obviously, if you turn in two fifty dollar bills and receive, in return, a single one-hundred dollar bill, that $100 bill has value. You can still take that one-hundred dollar bill to a restaurant or store and obtain products or services that most people would think are worth - oh, about a hundred bucks. The mere fact that what you receive when you redeem a Federal Reserve note is another Federal Reserve note does not change the fact that all such notes have VALUE IN EXCHANGE FOR VALUABLE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.


Maybe it's just me, but I don't try to tie the value of my dollars to some sort of nebulous "backing." I don't care about "backing." Indeed, nothing that I own is valuable to me because of some sort of "backing." My TV set is valuable to me because of its intrinsic value - I can turn it on and use it to obtain information and entertainment. My TV set is not "backed" by gold or silver or anything else. My couch is valuable to me because I can sit on it. My couch is not "backed" by gold or silver. The real estate I own is not "backed" by anything. The merchandise inventory held by a merchant for sale to customers is not "backed" by anything. The inventory is valuable to the merchant because the merchant can exchange that inventory for MONEY, which money can THEN be used to acquire whatever else is desired by the merchant.

Money is valuable to me because it is (1) a store of value, (2) a measure of value, and (3) a medium of exchange. All I really need is for someone else to accept my money when I want to obtain food, or gasoline, or a haircut, or electricity, or whatever.

Money increases and decreases in value for a variety of reasons, regardless of whether money is "backed" by "something else" or not.

Just as an aside: The primary value of money is derived not from its intrinsic value (the value of the paper and ink) and not from its "backing" (if any) by gold or silver. Money is instead valuable primarily with respect to the benefit I can receive when I exchange money.

Further, even if my money were "backed" by gold or silver -- even if its official value were ostensibly or "officially" pegged to the value of some quantity of gold or silver, that would not change the fact that the real value of money would fluctuate.

First, the exchange values of gold and silver fluctuate.

Second, the quantity of available goods and services within any economy is continuously in flux. The ongoing change in the quantity (and therefore the value) of non-monetary assets (i.e., goods and services) is, by definition, a change in the value of money, unless the money supply can somehow be constantly and precisely adjusted (without regard to its "backing" by gold or silver) to reflect the exact change in the quantity (and therefore the value) of all non-monetary assets. Such precision is unlikely to be achieved.

Third, the subjective wants and desires of all persons who participate in the economy are in a constant state of flux - so that even if the quantity of money AND the quantity of non-monetary assets (goods and services) were to remain exactly constant, there would still be a continuous fluctuation in the real value of money.

The effect, if any, on the value of money that is related to its not being backed by gold, or by silver, or by hoola hoops is a separate issue.

Well, Famspear gets my vote for best post on the thread. I couldn't agree more, and that basic concept renders the entire "nothing backs our currency" argument as irrelevant. The tax protest nutjobs continuously rant and rave about how the entire financial system is about to crash "next week" or "next month", yet it never does. Even after being proven wrong time and time again their fantasy beliefs in the voodoo magic of the "right words" (See the battling nitwits Rachel and iamfree) and off the wall conspiracy theories persist. It's also funny to note that even the nutjobs can't agree on what voodoo magic words are right. Rachel and iamfree both post to this forum in a futile attempt to promote tax protest theories, yet ended up in a sparring match over fantasy beliefs. It almost feels like SuiJuris.

I also find it most amusing that they site the income tax as "theft" and "fraud," yet in the same breath will spout off about how "FRNs" have no value, are debts that can't pay debts, etc, etc, and so on and so forth. So, um, if they have no value, how is it that the government is stealing them through taxes? If they have no value, then how is it they claim FRNs are "compensation" for "labor?" All this silly circular logic is present in every one of their silly theories.

I think I'll write a book on tax protesters to compete with Demo. But don't worry Demo, mine will be very short. The entire book will consist of one word that sums up the entire "movement": Greed.

[Joey Smith]

It is funny how the "FRNs are worthless" crowd cannot answer two simple questions:

(1) Why do other governments accumulate them?

(2) Why do foreign companies accept them in exchange for valuable goods?

[Joey Smith]

The Constitution is NOT part of the "common law"; such a suggestion is totally baseless and wrong.

The Constitution represents a compact between the states and the people (a/k/a "Constitutional Law").

The Constitution empowers Congress to pass legislation (a/k/a "Statutory Law").

To the extent that a legal question is not answered by reference to statutory law, then the courts can decide the issue based on the public purpose of the statutes being interpreted (a/k/a "Common Law").

Common Law is the weakest form of law and can be overridden by either Constitutional Law or Statutory Law.

[rachel]

The Constitution is NOT part of the "common law"; such a suggestion is totally baseless and wrong.

The Constitution represents a compact between the states and the people (a/k/a "Constitutional Law").

The Constitution empowers Congress to pass legislation (a/k/a "Statutory Law").

To the extent that a legal question is not answered by reference to statutory law, then the courts can decide the issue based on the public purpose of the statutes being interpreted (a/k/a "Common Law").

Common Law is the weakest form of law and can be overridden by either Constitutional Law or Statutory Law.

If the Common Law is the weakest then why is the U.S. Constitution, the law of the land, written in this law form?
I know its hard for your type to comprehend, but Congress is not the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Constitution is not Congress.

[Nikki]

If the Common Law is the weakest then why is the U.S. Constitution, the law of the land, written in this law form?
What "law form" is that? Are you speaking of English, as in the language, or do you posess some arcane, double-secret, telepathic connection to the authors of the Constitution as to their intent?


I know its hard for your type to comprehend, but Congress is not the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Constitution is not Congress.
Has anyone other than you ever implied anything which contradicts that statement?

Are you trying to say something or just wasting perfectly good electrons again?

[LPC]

Common Law is the weakest form of law and can be overridden by either Constitutional Law or Statutory Law.

If the Common Law is the weakest then why is the U.S. Constitution, the law of the land, written in this law form?

More gibberish.

"Common law" is judge-made law. It comes from the decisions of judges as they decide the cases in front of them. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Common_law or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

The Constitution was not written by judges deciding disputes. It was written by representatives of the states and then ratified by conventions of delegates elected by the people.

Notice that I've explained my understanding of what "common law" means, which is something that, as far as I can tell, you have never done. If you disagree with my understanding of what "common law" means, then you should provide your own explanation, along with some authority (i.e., a dictionary, encyclopedia, or other accepted source) that supports your understanding.

[Joey Smith]

The Constitution is not part of the common law. No accredited legal or constitutional scholar would do anything more than chuckle at your false suggestion that the Constitution is part of the common law.

You are arguing with people who are far, far, far better educated on the topic that you will ever hope to be; your understanding is at the level of a "ABC After School Special" and maybe not even that. In other words, you are totally talking out of your ass.

[LPC]

If the Common Law is the weakest then why is the U.S. Constitution, the law of the land, written in this law form?

I also want to point out that there is no mention of "common law" anywhere in the original Constitution.

The *only* mention of common law in the Constitution appears in the 7th Amendment:

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.

Two comments about this amendment:

1. It only applies to lawsuits "at common law," which means tort actions (negligence, malpractice, etc.) and contract actions, and does not apply to statutory causes of action (such as tax litigation).

2. The fact that the rules of the common law had to be added by an amendment means that, under the Constitution as originally written, Congress and the federal courts were NOT bound by the rules of common law. So, in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793), the Supreme Court decided by a 4-1 margin that Article III of the Constitution effectively abolished the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity. (The principle of Chisholm v. Georgia was reversed by the 11th Amendment.)