Article III Court or Bust!

[Quixote]

Well outside of aliens the irc only taxes "U.S. citizens", not all people.

Other than people born in the middle of the Rio Grande, who are these non-alien non-citizens?

[rachel]

The statute says you're wrong, the regulations say you're wrong, and the courts say you're wrong.

Well outside of aliens the irc only taxes "U.S. citizens", not all people.

Are you autistic? It's the only explanation I can think of that would explain your behavior.

But then again you probably didnt have a clue that Congress adopted a constitution in an act in 1871. You probably cant even figure out why.

Let me guess: You're talking about the municipal code enacted for the District of Columbia in 1871. 41st Congress, 3d Sess., Ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419-429 (2/21/1871).

Second guess: You've never actually read it, and are just relying on what you read that someone else said about the act.

Well, now you can read it yourself. Go to http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsllink.html and scroll down to volume 16, click on any link and then jump to page 419 and knock yourself out. You're welcome back any time you can point to the specific language, by page and paragraph, in which Congress enacted a new Constitution.

Hey moron!
Did I say it was a new constitution?
No I did not.
Tells us all great blowhard Evens why did Congress adopt a Constitution and codify it?

[LPC]

Those who want to see another example of the tendency of whackos to cut-and-paste indiscriminately whatever feeds their delusions should run a Google search on "the organic Constitution was defaced" using the quote marks.

[Prof]

Those who want to see another example of the tendency of whackos to cut-and-paste indiscriminately whatever feeds their delusions should run a Google search on "the organic Constitution was defaced" using the quote marks.

How the adoption of a municipal government and code for DC accomplished the end of the world as we know it is beyond me. The analysis ranks right up there with "includes" is a word of limitation.

Good luck, Dan, but I think the patient is [brain] dead.

[rachel]

Those who want to see another example of the tendency of whackos to cut-and-paste indiscriminately whatever feeds their delusions should run a Google search on "the organic Constitution was defaced" using the quote marks.

Well Dan.... you going to tell us?
Or just skirt the question with your humor!

[LPC]

Did I say it was a new constitution?
No I did not.

So Congress enacted an old Constitution? That doesn't make any sense. How could Congress enact a Constitution that already existed?

why did Congress adopt a Constitution and codify it?

You haven't yet presented any evidence that Congress adopted a Constitution in 1871, or codified it.

As I said before: Point to the language in the statute.

[rachel]

Those who want to see another example of the tendency of whackos to cut-and-paste indiscriminately whatever feeds their delusions should run a Google search on "the organic Constitution was defaced" using the quote marks.

How the adoption of a municiple government and code for DC accomplished the end of the world as we know it is beyond me. The analysis ranks right up there with "includes" is a word of limitation.

Good luck, Dan, but I think the patient is [brain] dead.

Seems Dan cannot explain what the jurisdiction is in the 14th amendment or why Congress adopted a constitution!
But he can tell you all day that everyone is a "U.S. citizen" even though the courts have acknowledged rights of a state citizen are different than the rights of the 14th amenmdment "U.S. citizens".
Hey danny why did congress come up with the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments for ratification?
What was their reason behind those amendments.

[Nikki]

BDR:

The jurisdiction mentioned in the 14th Amendment

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ...

refers to the jurisdiction established by the "supreme law of the land."

In brief summary for BDR, that jurisdiction runs (today), uninterrupted, from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the border with Canada to the border with Mexico plus Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, a number of other territories and possessions, ships and aircraft flying the American flag, and American embassies and consulates in foreign countries.

The jurisdiction applies to every single human being physically located within the described areas.

It specifically excludes people NOT subject to that jurisdiction, such as ambassadorial staff from foreign countries and crews of ships flying foreign flags.



I'm sure, however, that you will find some fault with this.

[Dr. Caligari]

Seems Dan cannot explain what the jurisdiction is in the 14th amendment or why Congress adopted a constitution!

Dan has asked you several times to show where Congress "adopted a Constitution." You haven't.

[notorial dissent]

Rachel suffers from the usual TP dual disabilities of being able to actually read and comprehend, or actually reading the source documents.

She bases her rant on mythology from some other source that cannot seem to comprehend that the Act of 1871 that she is ranting about was nothing more than an enabling statute for the creation of a municipal corporation, (that’s city for most of the rest of the universe, something states do all the time), for the District of Columbia called the City of Washington DC, a difficult concept to grasp when one thinks that Merrill actually makes sense even a portion of the time.

She and the dim and bewildered are convinced that somehow the act of creating a municipal corporation by statute somehow overthrows the constitution, when in fact it barely provides for the governance of that city.

The chief problem being that none of them ever actually bothered to read the act to find out what it was about. Partly from illiteracy, but mostly laziness. Much easier and more satisfying to get your mythology whole and unfettered by actual research from some internet guru who is even more illiterate than they are.

This is the same level of nonsense that continues to insist that there were two classes of citizenship from the founding of the republic, when it was contemplated that everyone who was considered a citizen of the the several states would automatically at adoption become also citizens of the republic which became the national government. At which point state citizenship equated US citizenship and as such was passed down from then on. There was never contemplation, or case law for that matter, of someone being a state citizen without being a US citizen, despite Rachel and her ilk's claims to the contrary.

[Nikki]

Rachel is doing more to set back the feminist cause than Bella Abzug going bra-less..........

You are now banned until such time as you repay all of us for having our keyboards cleaned.

[notorial dissent]

What about having our eyes scrubbed and our minds purged, I think that should be taken into consideration as well.

[Dr. Caligari]

You haven't yet presented any evidence that Congress adopted a Constitution in 1871, or codified it.

As I said before: Point to the language in the statute.

.....(crickets).....

[grixit]

You haven't yet presented any evidence that Congress adopted a Constitution in 1871, or codified it.

As I said before: Point to the language in the statute.

.....(crickets).....

Good move. Those cricket would probably be more informative, not to mention coherent.

[rachel]

My bad.
Its not 1871, but 1874 when the United States adopted the constitution and revised the statutes for the "U.S citizen".

[notorial dissent]

The only thing the US did in 1871 and 1874 was, by statute, change the form of government for the District of Columbia. They are statutes specific to creating a municpal government and nothing else, a municipal government totally under the control of the Congress as well.

There was no constitution issued, rewritten, or anything else. A city government was established by statute. Real complicated.

Try actually reading the actual document before you make any more brain dead responses.

[Quixote]

My bad.
Its not 1871, but 1874 when the United States adopted the constitution and revised the statutes for the "U.S citizen".

And when you're called on that, the date will change again. Wouldn't it be easier to do the research before making an ass of yourself rather than after?

[notorial dissent]

Rachel's biggest problems, other than having slept through civics, history, and probably most of her school years, is that she doesn't know the difference between a constitution and a statute, and probalby doesn't even know what that is.

She most certainly has never actually read the documents she is spouting off about, and has no idea what they say or contain, since she can only repeat the revealed truth from whatever guru she is listening to this week.

[cdj1122]

.

" ... My bad.
Its not 1871, but 1874 when the United States adopted the constitution and revised the statutes for the "U.S citizen". ..."

And you are going to provide the source of this stunning observation, Rachel, so that you can show up these unwashed critics of your research, when ?
.
I'd dig for it myself but I plan on spending the afternoon watching the Bucs on one channel and the Packers on another. That gives you ample time to dig through your notes and confound the world.

[natty]

This is the same level of nonsense that continues to insist that there were two classes of citizenship from the founding of the republic, when it was contemplated that everyone who was considered a citizen of the the several states would automatically at adoption become also citizens of the republic which became the national government. At which point state citizenship equated US citizenship and as such was passed down from then on. There was never contemplation, or case law for that matter, of someone being a state citizen without being a US citizen, despite Rachel and her ilk's claims to the contrary.

No, Dred Scott v. Sandford held that neither Congress nor any State could determine who was a citizen for Art. III purposes. U.S. citizenship was limited to only those who were members of the sovereign at the adoption of the Constitution, which meant Negroes were excluded and could never be included, and those Congress chose to later naturalize (except Negroes). For purposes of state immunities and privileges, any state could determine who would be a state citizen.

Of course, the 13th and 14th Amendments changed this ruling by defining U.S. citizenship by those who were born or naturalized in the United States which obviously includes the states.

What rachel and her ilk twist around is that they believe 14th Amendment citizenship is some kind of second class status and that state citizenship is limited to the sovereign. In other words, the 14th Amendment attempted to bring everyone down to the status of a slave, and sovereignty (state citizenship) must be beligerently claimed and defended in order to exercise sovereign rights as they see them.