dj123 0 #76 July 6, 2010 QuoteQuoteMy property ,my family ,and my life is here. ... so as long as you own property, have a family to care for, and roots you cannot be free. But, yes, I would be very supportive of your "Bid for Freedom", if you would sell your property, pick up your family, and move to Somalia. That's a place without a government where you, and your family, could live out your dream. So you are saying that I have no hope of Freedom in the good ol' US of A? Blue Skies, DJ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #77 July 6, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteMy property ,my family ,and my life is here. ... so as long as you own property, have a family to care for, and roots you cannot be free. But, yes, I would be very supportive of your "Bid for Freedom", if you would sell your property, pick up your family, and move to Somalia. That's a place without a government where you, and your family, could live out your dream. So you are saying that I have no hope of Freedom in the good ol' US of A? Blue Skies, DJ The way you seem to be defining it, that is correct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dj123 0 #78 July 6, 2010 Quote>Or I could stay right here and exercise my Rights. Sure you can. However, you do not have the right to not pay taxes. From the US Constitution: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Quote You are obviously quoting from a later ammendment which can not by law interfere with the original 10. Below is a copy of the Constitution as originally written. Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; You'll notice the government has plenty of tax options . Income tax didn't even come into the picture until after more than 99 years of this countries founding. How did we pay the bills before the income tax? Could it have been through legal taxes? >Do you as an American support my Right against government >confiscation of my property without just compensation? Do I support your efforts to not pay your taxes? No, I don't. In general I don't support crime. Oh .., I'm not a criminal and I do pay every dollar I'm required by law to pay and I file every form I'm required to file. I follow the guidelines of the Constitution, especially the Fifth Ammendment. So all that stated, will you as a fellow American support my bid for Freedom? Blue Skies, DJ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #79 July 6, 2010 >You are obviously quoting from a later ammendment which can not by >law interfere with the original 10. ?? Where'd you get that? The original Constitution said you had to return escaped slaves. The Thirteenth Amendment interfered with that pretty severely I'd say. >Income tax didn't even come into the picture until after more than 99 >years of this countries founding. Correct. An amendment was ratified to allow that. >Oh .., I'm not a criminal and I do pay every dollar I'm required by law to >pay and I file every form I'm required to file. Then no problem. >How did we pay the bills before the income tax? Could it have been >through legal taxes? Yep. And now there's a new legal tax - income tax. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #80 July 6, 2010 Quote Quote Quote .... Blue Skies, DJ I think you're just a troll. He thinks he is Socrates No poison cup for me bud. LOL! I'm just DJ, original thinker. Blue Skies, DJ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanG 1 #81 July 6, 2010 QuoteYou are obviously quoting from a later ammendment which can not by law interfere with the original 10. Where on Earth did you get that idea? If that were the case, you would be a slave, and women would not be allowed to vote. Newer Amendments to the Constitution have a higher priority (override) earlier Amendments, or original language. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #82 July 6, 2010 Quote>You are obviously quoting from a later ammendment which can not by >law interfere with the original 10. ?? Where'd you get that? The original Constitution said you had to return escaped slaves. The Thirteenth Amendment interfered with that pretty severely I'd say. >Income tax didn't even come into the picture until after more than 99 >years of this countries founding. Correct. An amendment was ratified to allow that. >Oh .., I'm not a criminal and I do pay every dollar I'm required by law to >pay and I file every form I'm required to file. Then no problem. >How did we pay the bills before the income tax? Could it have been >through legal taxes? Yep. And now there's a new legal tax - income tax. Violates the Fifth Ammendment restriction against converting private property to public use without just compensation.. Blue Skies DJ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,589 #83 July 6, 2010 I think we get it that you don't like income tax. I don't like it, but I like the results. Kind of like dental work. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #84 July 6, 2010 QuoteQuoteYou are obviously quoting from a later ammendment which can not by law interfere with the original 10. Where on Earth did you get that idea? Quote They are Rights Dan. They cannot be abridged by any legislature. That's where I get that idea. Once you realise that the rest of your post,i'm sure you'll agree, needs no response. Blue Skies, DJ If that were the case, you would be a slave, and women would not be allowed to vote. Newer Amendments to the Constitution have a higher priority (override) earlier Amendments, or original language. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #85 July 6, 2010 >Violates the Fifth Ammendment restriction against converting private >property to public use without just compensation. Yep. And freeing the slaves violates the requirement in the original constitution to return escaped slaves. But since later amendments take precedence over earlier ones, that's OK. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanG 1 #86 July 6, 2010 QuoteOnce you realise that the rest of your post,i'm sure you'll agree, needs no response. And once you realize that the Constitution doesn't work the way you think it does, this entire thread will require no response. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #87 July 6, 2010 QuoteI think we get it that you don't like income tax. I don't like it, but I like the results. Kind of like dental work. Wendy P. I'm glad you like it Wendy . Feel Free to pay all you want. I hope you will stand by me as a fellow American and help to protect my Fifth Ammendment Rights. Blue Skies, DJ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #88 July 6, 2010 Quote>Violates the Fifth Ammendment restriction against converting private >property to public use without just compensation. Yep. And freeing the slaves violates the requirement in the original constitution to return escaped slaves. But since later amendments take precedence over earlier ones, that's OK. No later ammendment can ever supercede our Rights , ever. Blue Skies, DJ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,589 #89 July 6, 2010 Quote No later ammendment can ever supercede our Rights , ever. What about the right to cry "fire" in a crowded theater? The problem is that you are saying that the opinion of the individual takes precedence over the ruling of the state on what constitutes value. And, since you're pretty set on that, it really doesn't matter what anyone else says. I think it's time for you to downsize. You're not jumping a high enough wingload Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #90 July 6, 2010 Quote Quote No later ammendment can ever supercede our Rights , ever. What about the right to cry "fire" in a crowded theater? What later Amendment prohibits that? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #91 July 6, 2010 Quote Quote No later ammendment can ever supercede our Rights , ever. What about the right to cry "fire" in a crowded theater? Quote Which one is that? I seem to have missed it. Quote The problem is that you are saying that the opinion of the individual takes precedence over the ruling of the state on what constitutes value. No. I am saying that a dollar confiscated is worth a dollar in "just compensation". That's the value. And don't start again about government services because if some one who pays less income tax than I do recieves the same services the compensation isn't "just". Blue Skoes, DJ And, since you're pretty set on that, it really doesn't matter what anyone else says. I think it's time for you to downsize. You're not jumping a high enough wingload Wendy P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #92 July 6, 2010 >No later ammendment can ever supercede our Rights , ever. People's Right to own slaves was superseded. It can happen; it has happened - and it's a good thing. (You're not arguing that the Thirteenth Amendment shouldn't apply due to earlier language in the Constitution, are you?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #93 July 6, 2010 Quote>No later ammendment can ever supercede our Rights , ever. People's Right to own slaves was superseded. Quote There was never any "Right" to own slaves in the Bill of Rights. If you are refering to the decision that people couldn't be *property* ,I believe that is in perfect accordance with the Bill of Rights. Do you disagree? Blue Skies, DJ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #94 July 6, 2010 >There was never any "Right" to own slaves in the Bill of Rights. Correct. That came even earlier, in the original US Constitution. If, as you say, the earlier text has priority, then the Thirteenth Amendment is invalid, coming as it did about 75 years after the original Constitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #95 July 6, 2010 Quote>There was never any "Right" to own slaves in the Bill of Rights. Correct. That came even earlier, in the original US Constitution. If, as you say, the earlier text has priority, then the Thirteenth Amendment is invalid, coming as it did about 75 years after the original Constitution. What rights are affirmed in the earlier text, exclusive of the BOR?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #96 July 6, 2010 >What rights are affirmed in the earlier text, exclusive of the BOR? The right to have an escaped slave returned to their owner, even if they escape to a different state. (In other words, the right to maintain ownership of property.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #97 July 6, 2010 Quote>What rights are affirmed in the earlier text, exclusive of the BOR? The right to have an escaped slave returned to their owner, even if they escape to a different state. (In other words, the right to maintain ownership of property.) Article IV, Section 2 states (in part): "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." I don't see the word "right" anywhere in there. Try again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #98 July 6, 2010 QuoteThat's the value. And don't start again about government services because if some one who pays less income tax than I do recieves the same services the compensation isn't "just". Let's take the example of the military, your person who pays $30k, and your person who pays $0. Can you really say these two people are benefiting equally? Who really has more to lose if the military fails to defend the country? (a situation where the victors line every last person up and shoots them notwithstanding) There are many government expenditures where the value of the benefit to the individual is directly proportional to how much you have to lose if it went away resulting in damage to society as a whole. There are also some that arguably are not. I would recommend arguing against those specific expenditures rather than federal income tax iteself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #99 July 6, 2010 QuoteAnd don't start again about government services because if some one who pays less income tax than I do recieves the same services the compensation isn't "just". Not neccessairly. People with little or no income taxes don't have much to protect or may not cross-utilize different areas of services as much as someone who earns a lot more. Some peoples estates extend multiple states and counties: may require more FAA utilization going back and forth between places;more uses of roads; more IRS's time being used; More funds the SEC guards; More cops patrol. ect. . ._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #100 July 6, 2010 I always wonder how many "Libertarians" and anarchists would be able to stay alive for more than a few days in their wet dream world with no governments Try me"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 4 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,120 #79 July 6, 2010 >You are obviously quoting from a later ammendment which can not by >law interfere with the original 10. ?? Where'd you get that? The original Constitution said you had to return escaped slaves. The Thirteenth Amendment interfered with that pretty severely I'd say. >Income tax didn't even come into the picture until after more than 99 >years of this countries founding. Correct. An amendment was ratified to allow that. >Oh .., I'm not a criminal and I do pay every dollar I'm required by law to >pay and I file every form I'm required to file. Then no problem. >How did we pay the bills before the income tax? Could it have been >through legal taxes? Yep. And now there's a new legal tax - income tax. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dj123 0 #80 July 6, 2010 Quote Quote Quote .... Blue Skies, DJ I think you're just a troll. He thinks he is Socrates No poison cup for me bud. LOL! I'm just DJ, original thinker. Blue Skies, DJ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #81 July 6, 2010 QuoteYou are obviously quoting from a later ammendment which can not by law interfere with the original 10. Where on Earth did you get that idea? If that were the case, you would be a slave, and women would not be allowed to vote. Newer Amendments to the Constitution have a higher priority (override) earlier Amendments, or original language. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dj123 0 #82 July 6, 2010 Quote>You are obviously quoting from a later ammendment which can not by >law interfere with the original 10. ?? Where'd you get that? The original Constitution said you had to return escaped slaves. The Thirteenth Amendment interfered with that pretty severely I'd say. >Income tax didn't even come into the picture until after more than 99 >years of this countries founding. Correct. An amendment was ratified to allow that. >Oh .., I'm not a criminal and I do pay every dollar I'm required by law to >pay and I file every form I'm required to file. Then no problem. >How did we pay the bills before the income tax? Could it have been >through legal taxes? Yep. And now there's a new legal tax - income tax. Violates the Fifth Ammendment restriction against converting private property to public use without just compensation.. Blue Skies DJ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #83 July 6, 2010 I think we get it that you don't like income tax. I don't like it, but I like the results. Kind of like dental work. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dj123 0 #84 July 6, 2010 QuoteQuoteYou are obviously quoting from a later ammendment which can not by law interfere with the original 10. Where on Earth did you get that idea? Quote They are Rights Dan. They cannot be abridged by any legislature. That's where I get that idea. Once you realise that the rest of your post,i'm sure you'll agree, needs no response. Blue Skies, DJ If that were the case, you would be a slave, and women would not be allowed to vote. Newer Amendments to the Constitution have a higher priority (override) earlier Amendments, or original language. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #85 July 6, 2010 >Violates the Fifth Ammendment restriction against converting private >property to public use without just compensation. Yep. And freeing the slaves violates the requirement in the original constitution to return escaped slaves. But since later amendments take precedence over earlier ones, that's OK. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DanG 1 #86 July 6, 2010 QuoteOnce you realise that the rest of your post,i'm sure you'll agree, needs no response. And once you realize that the Constitution doesn't work the way you think it does, this entire thread will require no response. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #87 July 6, 2010 QuoteI think we get it that you don't like income tax. I don't like it, but I like the results. Kind of like dental work. Wendy P. I'm glad you like it Wendy . Feel Free to pay all you want. I hope you will stand by me as a fellow American and help to protect my Fifth Ammendment Rights. Blue Skies, DJ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #88 July 6, 2010 Quote>Violates the Fifth Ammendment restriction against converting private >property to public use without just compensation. Yep. And freeing the slaves violates the requirement in the original constitution to return escaped slaves. But since later amendments take precedence over earlier ones, that's OK. No later ammendment can ever supercede our Rights , ever. Blue Skies, DJ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,589 #89 July 6, 2010 Quote No later ammendment can ever supercede our Rights , ever. What about the right to cry "fire" in a crowded theater? The problem is that you are saying that the opinion of the individual takes precedence over the ruling of the state on what constitutes value. And, since you're pretty set on that, it really doesn't matter what anyone else says. I think it's time for you to downsize. You're not jumping a high enough wingload Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #90 July 6, 2010 Quote Quote No later ammendment can ever supercede our Rights , ever. What about the right to cry "fire" in a crowded theater? What later Amendment prohibits that? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #91 July 6, 2010 Quote Quote No later ammendment can ever supercede our Rights , ever. What about the right to cry "fire" in a crowded theater? Quote Which one is that? I seem to have missed it. Quote The problem is that you are saying that the opinion of the individual takes precedence over the ruling of the state on what constitutes value. No. I am saying that a dollar confiscated is worth a dollar in "just compensation". That's the value. And don't start again about government services because if some one who pays less income tax than I do recieves the same services the compensation isn't "just". Blue Skoes, DJ And, since you're pretty set on that, it really doesn't matter what anyone else says. I think it's time for you to downsize. You're not jumping a high enough wingload Wendy P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #92 July 6, 2010 >No later ammendment can ever supercede our Rights , ever. People's Right to own slaves was superseded. It can happen; it has happened - and it's a good thing. (You're not arguing that the Thirteenth Amendment shouldn't apply due to earlier language in the Constitution, are you?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dj123 0 #93 July 6, 2010 Quote>No later ammendment can ever supercede our Rights , ever. People's Right to own slaves was superseded. Quote There was never any "Right" to own slaves in the Bill of Rights. If you are refering to the decision that people couldn't be *property* ,I believe that is in perfect accordance with the Bill of Rights. Do you disagree? Blue Skies, DJ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #94 July 6, 2010 >There was never any "Right" to own slaves in the Bill of Rights. Correct. That came even earlier, in the original US Constitution. If, as you say, the earlier text has priority, then the Thirteenth Amendment is invalid, coming as it did about 75 years after the original Constitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #95 July 6, 2010 Quote>There was never any "Right" to own slaves in the Bill of Rights. Correct. That came even earlier, in the original US Constitution. If, as you say, the earlier text has priority, then the Thirteenth Amendment is invalid, coming as it did about 75 years after the original Constitution. What rights are affirmed in the earlier text, exclusive of the BOR?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #96 July 6, 2010 >What rights are affirmed in the earlier text, exclusive of the BOR? The right to have an escaped slave returned to their owner, even if they escape to a different state. (In other words, the right to maintain ownership of property.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #97 July 6, 2010 Quote>What rights are affirmed in the earlier text, exclusive of the BOR? The right to have an escaped slave returned to their owner, even if they escape to a different state. (In other words, the right to maintain ownership of property.) Article IV, Section 2 states (in part): "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." I don't see the word "right" anywhere in there. Try again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #98 July 6, 2010 QuoteThat's the value. And don't start again about government services because if some one who pays less income tax than I do recieves the same services the compensation isn't "just". Let's take the example of the military, your person who pays $30k, and your person who pays $0. Can you really say these two people are benefiting equally? Who really has more to lose if the military fails to defend the country? (a situation where the victors line every last person up and shoots them notwithstanding) There are many government expenditures where the value of the benefit to the individual is directly proportional to how much you have to lose if it went away resulting in damage to society as a whole. There are also some that arguably are not. I would recommend arguing against those specific expenditures rather than federal income tax iteself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #99 July 6, 2010 QuoteAnd don't start again about government services because if some one who pays less income tax than I do recieves the same services the compensation isn't "just". Not neccessairly. People with little or no income taxes don't have much to protect or may not cross-utilize different areas of services as much as someone who earns a lot more. Some peoples estates extend multiple states and counties: may require more FAA utilization going back and forth between places;more uses of roads; more IRS's time being used; More funds the SEC guards; More cops patrol. ect. . ._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #100 July 6, 2010 I always wonder how many "Libertarians" and anarchists would be able to stay alive for more than a few days in their wet dream world with no governments Try me"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 4 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,120 #85 July 6, 2010 >Violates the Fifth Ammendment restriction against converting private >property to public use without just compensation. Yep. And freeing the slaves violates the requirement in the original constitution to return escaped slaves. But since later amendments take precedence over earlier ones, that's OK. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #86 July 6, 2010 QuoteOnce you realise that the rest of your post,i'm sure you'll agree, needs no response. And once you realize that the Constitution doesn't work the way you think it does, this entire thread will require no response. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dj123 0 #87 July 6, 2010 QuoteI think we get it that you don't like income tax. I don't like it, but I like the results. Kind of like dental work. Wendy P. I'm glad you like it Wendy . Feel Free to pay all you want. I hope you will stand by me as a fellow American and help to protect my Fifth Ammendment Rights. Blue Skies, DJ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dj123 0 #88 July 6, 2010 Quote>Violates the Fifth Ammendment restriction against converting private >property to public use without just compensation. Yep. And freeing the slaves violates the requirement in the original constitution to return escaped slaves. But since later amendments take precedence over earlier ones, that's OK. No later ammendment can ever supercede our Rights , ever. Blue Skies, DJ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #89 July 6, 2010 Quote No later ammendment can ever supercede our Rights , ever. What about the right to cry "fire" in a crowded theater? The problem is that you are saying that the opinion of the individual takes precedence over the ruling of the state on what constitutes value. And, since you're pretty set on that, it really doesn't matter what anyone else says. I think it's time for you to downsize. You're not jumping a high enough wingload Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #90 July 6, 2010 Quote Quote No later ammendment can ever supercede our Rights , ever. What about the right to cry "fire" in a crowded theater? What later Amendment prohibits that? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dj123 0 #91 July 6, 2010 Quote Quote No later ammendment can ever supercede our Rights , ever. What about the right to cry "fire" in a crowded theater? Quote Which one is that? I seem to have missed it. Quote The problem is that you are saying that the opinion of the individual takes precedence over the ruling of the state on what constitutes value. No. I am saying that a dollar confiscated is worth a dollar in "just compensation". That's the value. And don't start again about government services because if some one who pays less income tax than I do recieves the same services the compensation isn't "just". Blue Skoes, DJ And, since you're pretty set on that, it really doesn't matter what anyone else says. I think it's time for you to downsize. You're not jumping a high enough wingload Wendy P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #92 July 6, 2010 >No later ammendment can ever supercede our Rights , ever. People's Right to own slaves was superseded. It can happen; it has happened - and it's a good thing. (You're not arguing that the Thirteenth Amendment shouldn't apply due to earlier language in the Constitution, are you?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dj123 0 #93 July 6, 2010 Quote>No later ammendment can ever supercede our Rights , ever. People's Right to own slaves was superseded. Quote There was never any "Right" to own slaves in the Bill of Rights. If you are refering to the decision that people couldn't be *property* ,I believe that is in perfect accordance with the Bill of Rights. Do you disagree? Blue Skies, DJ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #94 July 6, 2010 >There was never any "Right" to own slaves in the Bill of Rights. Correct. That came even earlier, in the original US Constitution. If, as you say, the earlier text has priority, then the Thirteenth Amendment is invalid, coming as it did about 75 years after the original Constitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #95 July 6, 2010 Quote>There was never any "Right" to own slaves in the Bill of Rights. Correct. That came even earlier, in the original US Constitution. If, as you say, the earlier text has priority, then the Thirteenth Amendment is invalid, coming as it did about 75 years after the original Constitution. What rights are affirmed in the earlier text, exclusive of the BOR?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #96 July 6, 2010 >What rights are affirmed in the earlier text, exclusive of the BOR? The right to have an escaped slave returned to their owner, even if they escape to a different state. (In other words, the right to maintain ownership of property.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #97 July 6, 2010 Quote>What rights are affirmed in the earlier text, exclusive of the BOR? The right to have an escaped slave returned to their owner, even if they escape to a different state. (In other words, the right to maintain ownership of property.) Article IV, Section 2 states (in part): "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." I don't see the word "right" anywhere in there. Try again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #98 July 6, 2010 QuoteThat's the value. And don't start again about government services because if some one who pays less income tax than I do recieves the same services the compensation isn't "just". Let's take the example of the military, your person who pays $30k, and your person who pays $0. Can you really say these two people are benefiting equally? Who really has more to lose if the military fails to defend the country? (a situation where the victors line every last person up and shoots them notwithstanding) There are many government expenditures where the value of the benefit to the individual is directly proportional to how much you have to lose if it went away resulting in damage to society as a whole. There are also some that arguably are not. I would recommend arguing against those specific expenditures rather than federal income tax iteself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #99 July 6, 2010 QuoteAnd don't start again about government services because if some one who pays less income tax than I do recieves the same services the compensation isn't "just". Not neccessairly. People with little or no income taxes don't have much to protect or may not cross-utilize different areas of services as much as someone who earns a lot more. Some peoples estates extend multiple states and counties: may require more FAA utilization going back and forth between places;more uses of roads; more IRS's time being used; More funds the SEC guards; More cops patrol. ect. . ._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #100 July 6, 2010 I always wonder how many "Libertarians" and anarchists would be able to stay alive for more than a few days in their wet dream world with no governments Try me"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 4 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,120 #94 July 6, 2010 >There was never any "Right" to own slaves in the Bill of Rights. Correct. That came even earlier, in the original US Constitution. If, as you say, the earlier text has priority, then the Thirteenth Amendment is invalid, coming as it did about 75 years after the original Constitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #95 July 6, 2010 Quote>There was never any "Right" to own slaves in the Bill of Rights. Correct. That came even earlier, in the original US Constitution. If, as you say, the earlier text has priority, then the Thirteenth Amendment is invalid, coming as it did about 75 years after the original Constitution. What rights are affirmed in the earlier text, exclusive of the BOR?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #96 July 6, 2010 >What rights are affirmed in the earlier text, exclusive of the BOR? The right to have an escaped slave returned to their owner, even if they escape to a different state. (In other words, the right to maintain ownership of property.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #97 July 6, 2010 Quote>What rights are affirmed in the earlier text, exclusive of the BOR? The right to have an escaped slave returned to their owner, even if they escape to a different state. (In other words, the right to maintain ownership of property.) Article IV, Section 2 states (in part): "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." I don't see the word "right" anywhere in there. Try again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #98 July 6, 2010 QuoteThat's the value. And don't start again about government services because if some one who pays less income tax than I do recieves the same services the compensation isn't "just". Let's take the example of the military, your person who pays $30k, and your person who pays $0. Can you really say these two people are benefiting equally? Who really has more to lose if the military fails to defend the country? (a situation where the victors line every last person up and shoots them notwithstanding) There are many government expenditures where the value of the benefit to the individual is directly proportional to how much you have to lose if it went away resulting in damage to society as a whole. There are also some that arguably are not. I would recommend arguing against those specific expenditures rather than federal income tax iteself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #99 July 6, 2010 QuoteAnd don't start again about government services because if some one who pays less income tax than I do recieves the same services the compensation isn't "just". Not neccessairly. People with little or no income taxes don't have much to protect or may not cross-utilize different areas of services as much as someone who earns a lot more. Some peoples estates extend multiple states and counties: may require more FAA utilization going back and forth between places;more uses of roads; more IRS's time being used; More funds the SEC guards; More cops patrol. ect. . ._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #100 July 6, 2010 I always wonder how many "Libertarians" and anarchists would be able to stay alive for more than a few days in their wet dream world with no governments Try me"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
