HotStockMarket › Forums › Community › Politics › WHo RU wanting as President and why????
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WHo RU wanting as President and why???? - Page 4

post #61 of 67
6/18/07 at 12:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by weatherbill View Post
Stochfaster, you cannot do away with one part of the Constitution while claiming another....... you cannot build on the premis that Congress can directly tax in any form, or you violate art sections 2 and 9 of the Constitution, the direct tax clauses........
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills....

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...

Section 9 -
...No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken (clarified by the 16th amendment).
Reply
Reply

Featured Stories on HotStockMarket

Mark's Weekly Trading Log
thinkorswim Trading platform
Educational videos for new investors!
post #62 of 67
6/18/07 at 4:42am
Thread Starter 
Wrong, the 16th amendment gave congress no new power of taxation.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...s+no+new+power

Nothing added with an amendment can do away with what is already written in the Constitution. Your logic would make it possible for congress to legislate law agaisnt the freedom of press, religion, etc.....same thing for direct taxes
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 67
6/18/07 at 5:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by amohedas View Post
,snip>
IMO ur right, U R
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 67
6/18/07 at 7:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by weatherbill View Post
Wrong, the 16th amendment gave congress no new power of taxation.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...s+no+new+power

Nothing added with an amendment can do away with what is already written in the Constitution. Your logic would make it possible for congress to legislate law agaisnt the freedom of press, religion, etc.....same thing for direct taxes
I am really puzzled by what you are saying.

The part of the Constitution that protects freedom of religion and of the press is the 1st Amendment. It's constitutionally valid because the Constitution ALLOWS itself to be amended.

Could Congress pass an amendment that overturned the 1st Amendment? In theory, they could - constitutionally, in fact. The 21st Amendment overturned the 18th Amendment. Are you still claiming Prohibition is the law of the land? However, Congress is not going to overturn the 1st, so no, they can't pass laws in violation of it.

Besides, I don't see that Article 2, Section 9 prohibited Congress from collecting income tax anyway. What does that phrase "unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken" mean in your opinion?
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 67
6/18/07 at 9:59pm
Thread Starter 
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...58492370018023

this video explains it, though tedious and long, once you understand that the law does not disagree with itself, then you will get it.....other wise, the conventional wisdom of interpreting the tax law is contradicting itself as well as the Constitution.

you can amend the constitution, but no amendment can do away with what is already there in the origional Constitution.......no judge in the land would ever knowingly agree with you, though they are sometimes ignorant of what the direct tax laws say, they would never go with your logic, that an amendment can be added to do away with what is already there....
Amendments are added when the Constitution does not address an issue, however, if the Constitution already addresses an issue, then there is no need for an amendment, such as in the direct tax clauses of art 1 sections 2 and 9, forbidding direct taxation.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 67
6/18/07 at 10:21pm
Romney, and then R.P.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 67
6/18/07 at 10:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by weatherbill View Post
you can amend the constitution, but no amendment can do away with what is already there in the origional Constitution
Sez who?

From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: amend
Pronunciation: &-'mend
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French amender, modification of Latin emendare, from e, ex out + menda fault; akin to Latin mendax lying, mendicus beggar, and perhaps to Sanskrit mindA physical defect
transitive verb
1 : to put right; especially : to make emendations in (as a text)
2 a : to change or modify for the better : IMPROVE <amend the situation> b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition <amend a constitution>

Again, what does the prepositional phrase in Section 9 "unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken" mean to you?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Politics

Featured Stories on HotStockMarket

Mark's Weekly Trading Log
thinkorswim Trading platform
Educational videos for new investors!
HotStockMarket › Forums › Community › Politics › WHo RU wanting as President and why????