Rehash of TP theories (split from "False Returns")

[silversopp]

I think Steve's problem is that he's trying to convert something that is inherently subjective into something objective. Law is simply subjective, it's not a hard science where you can count on certain principles always being true (Lindsay Lohan gets busted for cocaine possession and serves 84 minutes in jail). The same actions can result in different outcomes (which is why we have appeals and the Supreme Court). We've got a lot of safeguards and checks in place whe compared to other systems. In the end though, you're left with something that is up to the interpretation of people.

Take, for example, Law A which the legislators intended to mean A. Decades later, this law becomes the subject of the Supreme Court. 5 of the justices say the law means B, 4 say that the law means A. Are the 5 concurring justices "right"? Are the 4 dissenting justices "right"? In reality, there is no "right" or "wrong", there simply just "is". Law A means B.

Very similiar to sports, where the rules are interpreted by a referree or umpire. If a ball is thrown a few inches below the batter's knees, and the umpire calls a strike - is the pitch a ball or a strike? It's a strike. You can yell and kick dust, but there's nothing you can do to change the reality of the strike.

[grixit]

Very similiar to sports, where the rules are interpreted by a referree or umpire. If a ball is thrown a few inches below the batter's knees, and the umpire calls a strike - is the pitch a ball or a strike? It's a strike. You can yell and kick dust, but there's nothing you can do to change the reality of the strike.

Yes, but if you do it right, you'll attract more fans by your antics, which will help sell your merchandise and help kep your salary up, even if your RBI is below average. But savvy ballplayers know how far to push it.

[SteveSy]

Overlooks that nearly all the founders were still alive at the time that Marbury v. Madison was decided, that few complained and no action to rectify that decision was taken -- thus ratifying the notion that the Constitution is subject to interpretation by the courts.

A few complained....I'm not sure where you got your history from but you need a new source. Yes the constitution is subject to interpretation by the courts, that's not intended to be a blank check to claim it means whatever the hell you want it to mean or think it should mean regardless of what it says.

Btw, Marshall should have excused himself from the case as it was his fault the commissions didn't get delivered. Adams was certainly trying to manipulate the judiciary for his own ends by appointing so many judges sympathetic to his cause. It was the beginning of the end of the intended purpose of the federal judiciary. The court did however maintain a pretty conservative approach to law and government with a few exceptions like the Charles River Bridge case, which was a travesty to reasonable application of the law IMO.

Deal with it.

Some people don't believe it is constitutional, deal with it.

[Nikki]

Yes the constitution is subject to interpretation by the courts, that's not intended to be a blank check to claim it means whatever the hell you want it to mean or think it should mean regardless of what it says.

Please, for us ignorant folks, show us where we can find the specific limitations or guidelines on the scope of the Supreme Court's interpretive powers.

[Famspear]

Nikki wrote:

Please, for us ignorant folks, show us where we can find the specific limitations or guidelines on the scope of the Supreme Court's interpretive powers.

The power of the Supreme Court and other Federal courts to interpret the law is severely limited by the famous "SteveSy" clause in the Constitution. I'm sure we've all read it (though I just can't locate it at the moment). There is a similar "SteveSy" clause in the Declaration of Independence and in the Federalist Papers. There would also be such a clause in the text of the Charles River Bridge case, but it was excised by ebil gubbermint revenoors. The SteveSy clause basically says that SteveSy's interpretation of the law is the correct one, and that any court decision with which SteveSy disagrees is an example of incorrect "herd" mentality.

[silversopp]

Yes the constitution is subject to interpretation by the courts, that's not intended to be a blank check to claim it means whatever the hell you want it to mean or think it should mean regardless of what it says

But there exists no higher authority on what the Constitution means than the courts. If the courts rule in a way that most of the people disagree with, then the members of the court can slowly change by electing different people to the Presidency.

The process of changing judges is quite difficult...but there's also a need to have judges not be swayed by politics (as they would be more likely to be if they were elected every x years).

[Duke2Earl]

You silly people.... don't you see that it's not just the words of the Constitution, it's the hidden intent that Sybil the Magnificent channels. You just don't get it... you rely on the words (or your convenient misinterpretation of them) when they suit your purpose, but you rely on psychic skills when they don't.

At the bottom line, he simply does not get the concept that the courts (or indeed anyone whatsoever) can be the final arbitor of anything. Its never over until he says it's over. It is simply amazing how the entire universe revolves around him.

[Famspear]

Duke2Earl wrote:

At the bottom line, he [SteveSy] simply does not get the concept that the courts (or indeed anyone whatsoever) can be the final arbitor of anything. Its never over until he says it's over. It is simply amazing how the entire universe revolves around him.

Except that, if I infer or recall correctly from what Steve has previously said somewhere in Quatloos, Steve does not believe in his own theories strongly enough to actually follow through by refusing to file Federal income tax returns, or by filing false returns with tax protester arguments. I do hope for the sake of Steve and his family that my understanding is correct: that he does pay his Federal income taxes.

In this regard, Steve is much wiser than the poor souls whose lives are ruined or destroyed by these scams.

[webhick]

The power of the Supreme Court and other Federal courts to interpret the law is severely limited by the famous "SteveSy" clause in the Constitution. I'm sure we've all read it (though I just can't locate it at the moment). There is a similar "SteveSy" clause in the Declaration of Independence and in the Federalist Papers.

All the SteveSy clauses were superseded by the ancient Illuminati "All Your Laws Are Belong To Us" clause which basically says all interpretations have to pass the Tootsie Roll test before they can be enacted into law.

For those of you who have not had an opportunity to witness or participate in the test yourself, it's really quite simple. First, you must contact the Agoraphobic Floridian Cockroaches of Tahiti to request a reading, which can only be booked on the third Tuesday after a holiday where the post office is closed, but the banks are open. On the day of the test, 4000 cockroaches will swarm into your office, carrying an expensive venetian Frisbee and a sludgehammer. Once in position, you must place a Tootsie Roll in the center of the Frisbee as an offering to the gods for permission to perform the interpretation. If the gods approve, an electrified toaster will fly at break-neck speed into your side causing extreme pain and hopefully, kidney damage. If not, the cockroaches will hit you with the sludgehammer and you will not awaken.

So, once you have permission, the cockroaches will proceed to teach you the specific mating call translation of your interpretation. When they feel you are ready, they will raise the sludgehammer high above your head while you rub your legs together to perform the mating call they taught you. After you are finished, you have to hop up and down on one leg and hock three loogies into an intern's coffee cup. Then the cockroaches will slam the sludgehammer down on the Tootsie Roll.

If the roll is flattened, your interpretation has been accepted. If not, you will mysteriously awaken in a third world country, stark naked, with "I love Menudo" tattooed on your ass. This rarely ends well.

[webhick]

And the "I Love Menudo" tattoo does that include a tattoed renedering of a) the boy-band Menudo, or (b) the cure for "el crudo' the tripe based soup known as Menudo, or (c) both?

It's definitely in reference to the boy band. As for the rendering, it really depends on what kind of mood the cockroaches are in. I've seen them go so far as to not only tattoo three album covers, but also tattoo a before and after montage of Ricky Martin. Let's face it: if an affiliate of the Illuminati drops you in a third world country, they don't want you to make it back and will go to great lengths to ensure that your eventual demise is as entertaining as possible.

[silversopp]

Or, the Constitution itself can be changed in order to effectively overturn a Supreme Court decision. Not only was the 16th Amendment passed to override the Pollock decision, but the 11th Amendment was ratified in order to reverse the result in Chisholm v. Georgia.

In the case of "OMG all judges r corruptz," which many conspiracy minded folks believe, the judges could simply rule that the new amendment means something completely different.

Of course, such a mindset quickly leads to the "Oh noes! The elections results are haXXored" conspiracy. So they dont believe that voting means anything. Thus they fall out of the political system - and their viewpoint becomes even less represented in the government. That leads to more frustration with the system, and out comes Ed Brown.

Take a look at all the Ron Paul folks who think that his votes are being stolen, despite the fact that he usually does better than expected.

I hope that the Ron Paul campaign will teach these people that they should get involved in the system instead of going the crazy route. These folks raised over $20 for the campaign, which next time around could be used to elect a handful of Congressmen to represent them. They won't be a majority, but if they have more representation, they'll probably be less likely to go bonkers.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

but if they have more representation, they'll probably be less likely to go bonkers.

No their candidates will "sell out" by not being able to get anything passed.

Isn't that right Michelle "Jesus told me (outloud) to run for Congress" Bachman?

[Agent Observer]

SteveSy wrote:
Yes the constitution is subject to interpretation by the courts, that's not intended to be a blank check to claim it means whatever the hell you want it to mean or think it should mean regardless of what it says

But there exists no higher authority on what the Constitution means than the courts. If the courts rule in a way that most of the people disagree with, then the members of the court can slowly change by electing different people to the Presidency.

The process of changing judges is quite difficult...but there's also a need to have judges not be swayed by politics (as they would be more likely to be if they were elected every x years).

Or the alternative option is that Congress simply passes another law that effectively accomplishes the same thing, but leaves out whatever portion of the previous law that was judged as unconstitutional. Of course, Stevesy doesn't want judges to have "a blank check to claim [the law] means whatever the hell [they] want it to mean." He only wants such a blank check for himself so he can declare every law he doesn't like, null and void. And Stevesy, if there were truly a majority of people who believed like you as you assert earlier in this thread, why isn't anything changing? Oh that's right, because the vast majority of America recognizes that though taxes are no fun to pay, they are a requirement to function as a society. No taxes = no government = anarchy, which appears to be what you want. The whole "corporations and businesses would fix everything" fairy tale you believe in is just another unrealistic fantasy.

Webhick said:

All the SteveSy clauses were superseded by the ancient Illuminati "All Your Laws Are Belong To Us" clause

ZOMG! I knew you were a 'geek'... Only a true geek would know that phrase and be able to use it in a sentence. I can safely say I never expected to see it used in the context of a debate on taxes.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:
Yes the constitution is subject to interpretation by the courts, that's not intended to be a blank check to claim it means whatever the hell you want it to mean or think it should mean regardless of what it says

But there exists no higher authority on what the Constitution means than the courts. If the courts rule in a way that most of the people disagree with, then the members of the court can slowly change by electing different people to the Presidency.

The process of changing judges is quite difficult...but there's also a need to have judges not be swayed by politics (as they would be more likely to be if they were elected every x years).

Or the alternative option is that Congress simply passes another law that effectively accomplishes the same thing, but leaves out whatever portion of the previous law that was judged as unconstitutional.

But under your absurd acceptance of the meaning of interpretation they could just say it means whatever they wanted to mean including the part congress removed. See, your version leads to a moronic version of the intent of right to interpret.

Of course, Stevesy doesn't want judges to have "a blank check to claim [the law] means whatever the hell [they] want it to mean." He only wants such a blank check for himself so he can declare every law he doesn't like, null and void.

As much as all of you keep saying this its just not true. I have issue with judges finding meaning in phrases and sentences that just isn't there. For instance the commerce clause, using the court's interpretation the 11'th might as well not even exist and the word interstate includes intrastate because under the courts absurd reasoning anything and everything affects interstate commerce. There are many, many more examples of instances where the court simply concocted powers and rights out of nothing like "substantive due process", and the courts ridiculous conclusion that Alaskan Oil being taxed differently doesn't violate the uniformity clause if the government is trying to accomplish a certain goal, which is in total contradiction to the very purpose the uniformity clause was put in place. Maybe the necessary and proper clause giving the government a blank check to ignore every other limiting clause as long as they find it "necessary and proper". Only a moron would assume the founders would have included a phrase that was meant to be totally subjective to override every other clause in the constitution by the federal government.

[grixit]

[
Webhick said:

All the SteveSy clauses were superseded by the ancient Illuminati "All Your Laws Are Belong To Us" clause

ZOMG! I knew you were a 'geek'... Only a true geek would know that phrase and be able to use it in a sentence. I can safely say I never expected to see it used in the context of a debate on taxes.

Actually, the best take on that phrase ever was at a demonstration shortly after 9-11. Remember, "Al Qaida" means "The Base". And in that demonstration someone had a sign that said "Al Qaida are belong to U.S.".

[SteveSy]

btw, Agent Observer I don't have the power to claim a law is null and void and never claimed I had such a power. I'm merely giving my opinion just like you are. Your opinion carries no more weight than mine does. You're just like those people that cry for unity and to get over our disagreements. Of course what you're really saying is accept my way so we can all agree.

[silversopp]

Steve, what is your fix? How do you bind judges from ruling that law A means B?

At some point, there will be a "final say." Once you reach that point, whoever has the final say also can engage in mischief and screw with the laws.

We touched on a somewhat vague Constitutional issue here. No one can be elected President twice, but does that mean that he cannot serve three terms (being elected VP or Speaker of the House for the 3rd term)? The letter of the law doesn't mesh with the spirit of the law. What would you put in place to make sure that the Supreme Court gets it "right"?

[Dr. Caligari]

I have issue with judges finding meaning in phrases and sentences that just isn't there.

You're the one who argued with me-- at great length-- that when the Constitution says "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived," it meant that Congress has no power to tax the earnings of ordinary workers in the private sector.

[Nikki]

I have issue with judges finding meaning in phrases and sentences that just isn't there.

Okay, fine.

Now, who gets to make the determination as to what "just isn't there?"

[Judge Roy Bean]

I have issue with judges finding meaning in phrases and sentences that just isn't there.

Okay, fine.

Now, who gets to make the determination as to what "just isn't there?"

Other Judges.

Sorry, Steve. Reality imposes yet again.