Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Unusual amendments that never made it into the U.S. Constitution
PHILLY.COM ^ | Friday, February 28, 2014, 1:21 PM | SCOTT BOMBOY

Posted on 02/28/2014 12:15:20 PM PST by Phillyred

If some folks had their way, a three-person tribunal, and not the President, would provide leadership of the “United States of Earth,” in a nation where divorce is illegal.

As we all know, Congress and the states can change the U.S. Constitution through the amendment process, but it doesn’t happen often. And as the cases above show, some proposals stand a better chance than others.

Since the Bill of Rights and the first 10 amendments passed in 1791, only 17 amendments have been added to the Constitution. And one of those, the 18th Amendment establishing Prohibition, was repealed. The last amendment passed was the 27th Amendment, which was ratified in 1992. It bars Congress from giving itself a pay raise during its current session.

To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it.

The bar is high for a proposed amendment to make it to the ratification process. In all, more than 11,000 amendments have been proposed in congressional history, according to the Senate’s historian. Just 37 proposed amendments were approved by Congress for submission to the states; 27 were approved including the Bill of Rights; one amendment in the original Bill of Rights was rejected; and six others congressionally-approved amendments weren’t ratified by the states.

(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last
Comment #1 Removed by Moderator

To: Jacquerie

Ping. Historical curiosity.


2 posted on 02/28/2014 12:19:40 PM PST by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred

[ In the current 113th Congress, there are proposed amendments to force the government to balance its budget or to allow for an amendment about campaign financing. ]

And they go NOWHERE because washington DC will NEVER limit themselves!!!

Article V

Article V

ARTICLE V

And May i remind my freeper friends who start FOP sweating when Article V is brought up, Article V is a process to PROPOSE amendments and Ratification by the States is handled the SAME way these dead Proposed Amensdments sitting in congress would be if the Congress voted to pass them.


3 posted on 02/28/2014 12:21:41 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred

***eliminate the office of President and replace it with a three-person Roman-style triumvirate. **

Didn’t Benjamin Franklin support something like this?


4 posted on 02/28/2014 12:21:45 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need 7+ more ammo. LOTS MORE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred

[ Another unusual proposed amendment came in 1933, when Representative Wesley Lloyd of Washington state wanted Congress to outlaw millionaires using a constitutional amendment. Lloyd wanted income in excess of $1 million applied to the national debt. ]

Boy that is dumb as hell... What happens if we hit weimar inflation and everyone became a millionaire overnight.....


5 posted on 02/28/2014 12:22:50 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Note that a good number of these amendments don’t LIMIT the federal Government, but instead LIMIT the people themselves...

How about about an amendment that states no amendment shall be put in place that doesn’t Explicity LIMIT government power?

If I had a time machine I would have brought that up to the founders as part of the main part of the constitution.


6 posted on 02/28/2014 12:25:34 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

It's February 28th

Do You Know Where Your Donation Is?


Click The Pic To Donate

Please Donate Now

7 posted on 02/28/2014 12:26:17 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred
Another unusual proposed amendment came in 1933, when Representative Wesley Lloyd of Washington state wanted Congress to outlaw millionaires using a constitutional amendment. Lloyd wanted income in excess of $1 million applied to the national debt.

commie!

8 posted on 02/28/2014 12:30:29 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

bump


9 posted on 02/28/2014 12:39:01 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred


10 posted on 02/28/2014 12:44:10 PM PST by Iron Munro (Albert Einstein: The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phillyred

I kind of like the presidential tribunal. Gets rid of a lot of the megalomaniac tendencies of the office.


11 posted on 02/28/2014 12:49:36 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Democrats think this, but cannot say it publicly...yet. This law would not apply to them, of course.


12 posted on 02/28/2014 12:55:54 PM PST by Freestate316 (Know what you believe and why you believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

What happens if we hit weimar inflation and everyone became a millionaire overnight.....

Don’t be silly, it would pay down the national debt
OVERNIGHT!


13 posted on 02/28/2014 12:57:13 PM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Publius
Here's the only new amendment we need:

No presumption of corporate jurisdiction shall be made against any natural person.

14 posted on 02/28/2014 1:01:04 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Publius
The most important issue mentioned was the Corwin Amendment which legalized slavery.

Lincoln endorsed it in his first inaugural.

Makes you wonder what the war was really about.

15 posted on 02/28/2014 1:02:11 PM PST by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
If I had a time machine I would have brought that up to the founders as part of the main part of the constitution.

A good idea; though that purpose is explicitly stated by the preamble to the Bill of Rights — funny how the preamble to the Constitution can justify welfare, but the preamble to the Bill of Rights cannot be relied upon to limit government.

Here are four Amendments I'd like to see passed:

Tax Reform Amendment Fiscal Responsibility Amendment
Section I
No tax, federal or state, shall ever be withheld from the wages of a worker of any citizen of either.

Section II
No property shall be seized for failure to pay taxes until after conviction in a jury trial; the right of the jury to nullify (and thereby forgive) this debt shall never be questioned or denied.

Section III
The second amendment is hereby recognized as restricting the power of taxation, both federal and state, therefore no tax (or fine) shall be laid upon munitions or the sale thereof.

Section IV
The seventh amendment is also hereby recognized, and nothing in this amendment shall restrict the right of a citizen to seek civil redress.

Section V
No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever exceed 10%.

Section VI
No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever apply varying rates to those in its jurisdiction.

Section VII
No retroactive or ex post facto tax (or fee) shall ever be valid.

Section VIII
The congress may not delegate the creation of any tax or fine in any way.

Section IX
No federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent shall ever be exempt from any tax, fine, or fee by virtue of their position.

Section X
Any federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent applying, attempting to apply, or otherwise causing the application of an ex post facto or retroactive law shall, upon conviction, be evicted from office and all retirement benefits forfeit.
Section I
The power of Congress to regulate the value of the dollar is hereby repealed.

Section II
The value of the Dollar shall be one fifteen-hundredth avoirdupois ounce of gold of which impurities do not exceed one part per thousand.

Section III
To guard against Congress using its authority over weights and measures to bypass Section I, the ounce in Section II is approximately 28.3495 grams (SI).

Section IV
The Secretary of the Treasury shall annually report the gold physically in its possession; this report shall be publicly available.

Section V
The power of the Congress to assume debt is hereby restricted: the congress shall assume no debt that shall cause the total obligations of the United States to exceed one hundred ten percent of the amount last reported by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Section VI Any government agent, officer, judge, justice, employee, representative, or congressman causing gold to be confiscated from a private citizen shall be tried for theft and upon conviction shall:
a. be removed from office (and fired, if an employee),
b. forfeit all pension and retirement benefits,
c. pay all legal costs, and
d. restore to the bereaved twice the amount in controversy.

Section VII
The federal government shall assume no obligation lacking funding, neither shall it lay such obligation on any of the several States, any subdivision thereof, or any place under the jurisdiction of the United States. All unfunded liabilities heretofore assumed by the United States are void.

Section VIII
The federal government shall make all payments to its employees or the several states in physical gold. Misappropriation, malfeasance and/or misfeasance of funds shall be considered confiscation.
Commerce Clause Amendment Senate Reform Amendment
Section I
The federal government shall directly subsidize no product or industry whatsoever, saving the promotion the progress of Science and useful Arts.

Section II
The federal government shall never prescribe nor proscribe what the Several States teach. Neither the federal government nor the several states shall ever deny the right of parents to teach and instruct their children as they see fit.

Section III
The congress may impose tariffs, excise taxes, and customs duties on anything imported or exported, provided that they are applied uniformly and in no manner restrict, subvert, or circumvent the second amendment.

Section IV
No law may impose prohibitions of any sort on the commerce between the several states due to the item itself.
Section I
The seventeenth amendment is hereby repealed.

Section II
The several states may provide by law the means by which their senators may be removed or replaced.

16 posted on 02/28/2014 1:09:57 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
No presumption of corporate jurisdiction shall be made against any natural person.

I am a lawyer, and have no idea what you are talking about.

17 posted on 02/28/2014 1:15:03 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Fascinating and proof it takes lots of consensus to amend the constitution . . . unless of course five black robes decide to amend it on their own.


18 posted on 02/28/2014 1:18:02 PM PST by Jacquerie (Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer; Ruy Dias de Bivar

The Framers actually discussed multiple executives. Governor Edmund Randolph of VA proposed it. Given our late difficulties with George III, there was latent fear of a single executive. But, early in the convention a single executive, (not president) was decided by a 7-3 vote.


19 posted on 02/28/2014 1:46:58 PM PST by Jacquerie (Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

Lincoln endorsed it in an attempt to bring back the seceded states in the period before the firing on Sumpter. He believed that even though he opposed slavery he as president did not have the power to abolish slavery. He hoped to keep the union and the slave states intact while limiting slavery to just those states where it already existed. He also believed that slavery in the remaining slave states would eventually fall or that a 13th amendment would be passed.

The southern secessionist democrats chose to continue on the path of secession and war which led Lincoln to reassess his views on his presidential powers. After secession and Sumpter the confederacy no longer considered themselves under the Constitution and were at war with the Union. As long as he won, he could use his presidential proclamation to emancipate the southern slaves in secessionist states in rebellion against the Constitution.

For the south, it was all about slavery, period. For the north in general and Lincoln it was about restoring the union first and slavery could be resolved in a non-hostile environment. As the war progressed, the abolitionist sentiment increased in importance.


20 posted on 02/28/2014 1:48:41 PM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

What have you got against the troy ounce?


21 posted on 02/28/2014 1:49:12 PM PST by HartleyMBaldwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; Talisker
I am a lawyer, and have no idea what you are talking about.

So am I, and I was still scratching my head over the original post when I saw your post.

Is this a suggestion that the legal concept of piercing the corporate veil be discarded, or that corporation officers, or the owner of a corporation sole, are subject only to the jurisdiction of their place of residence, and not in other jurisdictions where the corporation does business?

22 posted on 02/28/2014 1:55:24 PM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster; Talisker

I think it’s some sort of sovereign-citizen nonsense like the idea that only corporations have to pay income taxes and the IRS snookers people into signing as if they’re corporations.


23 posted on 02/28/2014 1:57:49 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; Talisker
I think it goes further than that.

See, for example, Taliser's comments on other threads about the corporate distincton:

Why "Religious Freedom" Laws are Doomed

U.S. Judge Strikes Down Texas Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

Perhaps Talisker can explain it.

24 posted on 02/28/2014 2:06:29 PM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; Talisker
I think it goes further than that.

See, for example, Taliser's comments on other threads about the corporate distincton:

Why "Religious Freedom" Laws are Doomed

U.S. Judge Strikes Down Texas Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

Perhaps Talisker can explain it.

25 posted on 02/28/2014 2:06:29 PM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RJS1950
You said: “For the south, it was all about slavery, period.”

If all the Confederacy desired was the perpetuation of slavery, all they had to do was to remain in the union.

With the Dred Scott case intact, the Corwin Amendment sent out for ratification, and Lincoln's endorsement...which meant that there was no governing authority to threaten slavery, then remaining in the Union meant less risk.

The facts contradict your conclusion.

26 posted on 02/28/2014 2:10:45 PM PST by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RJS1950
You said: “After secession and Sumpter (sic) the confederacy no longer considered themselves under the Constitution and were at war with the Union.”

To correct your thinking, it was secession that created the new government, and of course the seceded states were no longer under Union authority.

That was not the South being “at war”; it was simply secession.

The war started in Lincoln's office when he initiated the blockade and thus brought war to the South.

27 posted on 02/28/2014 2:16:38 PM PST by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: HartleyMBaldwin
What have you got against the troy ounce?

Too much Hittite influence. ;)

Because we're Americans and use the avoirdupois ounce; also, the 1/1,500 oz works out to roughly a dollar [IIRC] and would thereby minimize system-shock of abandoning fiat monies.

28 posted on 02/28/2014 2:27:06 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

There is no thinking to correct. I didn’t say that secession didn’t create the confederacy; I said that along with that and firing on Sumpter they considered themselves no longer under the Constitution and it was the union intent to bring them back into the union. War was the end result of secession and Sumpter.

To correct your misconception; the firing on Sumpter occured on 12 April 1861. The blockade proclamation was issued 19 April 1861, 7 days after and as a result of the firing on Sumpter which was the initiation of hostilities by the south. The south brought war to the north 7 days before any blockade was ordered, not the other way around.

Democrats forced secession and hostilities; disregarding the Constitution just as they disregard the Constitution today. Are you arguing for that democrat party disregard of the Constitution?


29 posted on 02/28/2014 2:29:21 PM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

We’ve been using the troy ounce for precious metal weights in America for a long time.

And 1/1500 of a troy ounce of gold is closer to a dollar than is 1/1500 of an avoirdupois ounce, at current prices.


30 posted on 02/28/2014 2:38:10 PM PST by HartleyMBaldwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

The south seceded to keep slavery in spite of Corwin and other offers to retain slavery but limit it to the states that already had it. The south could have stayed with the union by accepting Corwin or one of the other similar offers that were supported by Lincoln. They arrogantly decided that even though Lincoln supported Corwin and would not declare slavery illegal by presidential decree. The south acted like the Palestinians who have been repeadedly offered all of their demands yet that still isn’t enough.

They had simply to stay with the union with multiple assurances that they could keep their “peculiar” democrat institution. They chose secession and starting a war because the great satan Lincoln had been elected and they wanted slavery only on their terms, in all states.

I don’t see any facts that contradict the conclusion that for the south it was all about slavery.


31 posted on 02/28/2014 2:38:32 PM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: HartleyMBaldwin
We’ve been using the troy ounce for precious metal weights in America for a long time.

Maybe so, but I'd rather have a standard weight and measure system regardless of the material being weighed.

And 1/1500 of a troy ounce of gold is closer to a dollar than is 1/1500 of an avoirdupois ounce, at current prices.

Probably true, it's been a fair while since I ran the numbers.

32 posted on 02/28/2014 2:47:34 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster; Lurking Libertarian; Talisker
My guess is that he is saying no government can presume jurisdiction over your body or property simply because you are alive inside a territory over which they claim jurisdiction. They can however claim juridiction over those who choose to submit themselves to their jurisdiction. I think this is part of the sovereign citizen ideology.

As with all of my posts, I am speaking entirely ex-recto.

33 posted on 02/28/2014 2:52:18 PM PST by nitzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Might as well go metric, then.


34 posted on 02/28/2014 3:20:01 PM PST by HartleyMBaldwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: HartleyMBaldwin
Might as well go metric, then.

Why?
Imperial is great:

 1 Gal = 4 Qt = 128 oz = 2**7 oz
 ½ Gal = 2 Qt =  64 oz = 2**6 oz
 ¼ Gal = 1 Qt =  32 oz = 2**5 oz
         ½ Qt =  16 oz = 2**4 oz = 2 c = 1 Pt
         ¼ Qt =   8 oz = 2**3 oz = 1 c = ½ Pt
                  4 oz = 2**2 oz = ½ c = ¼ Pt
                  2 oz = 2**1 oz = ¼ c
                  1 oz = 2**0 oz

( 1½ oz = 2**0.5849625 = 1 shot -- but this isn't an imperial measure. )
I'm a programmer, so powers of 2 are very common for me.
35 posted on 02/28/2014 3:45:16 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

How did we get sidetracked into liquid measures? I thought the topic was how best to weigh gold, and I still maintain that if you want to use ounces, use troy ounces as is traditional. If you want to use the same system of weights for everything, then metric weights are as good a choice as any.


36 posted on 02/28/2014 3:57:47 PM PST by HartleyMBaldwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: HartleyMBaldwin
How did we get sidetracked into liquid measures?

Probably because the solid measures are related: 16 oz = 2**4 = 1lb and 1/16 oz = 2**-4 oz = 1 dram.

37 posted on 02/28/2014 4:14:22 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Holy crap... I was boggling at your chart before reading your comment... what the Hell is a 2**7?

Saw the word “programmer” and it all made sense... wow, it’s been a while since I used double asterisks instead of that goofy circumflex accent symbol.


38 posted on 02/28/2014 5:17:51 PM PST by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster; Lurking Libertarian; nitzy
Lurking Libertarian: I am a lawyer, and have no idea what you are talking about. I think it’s some sort of sovereign-citizen nonsense like the idea that only corporations have to pay income taxes and the IRS snookers people into signing as if they’re corporations.

Scoutmaster: So am I, and I was still scratching my head over the original post when I saw your post. I think it goes further than that. See, for example, Taliser's comments on other threads about the corporate distincton: Why "Religious Freedom" Laws are Doomed/U.S. Judge Strikes Down Texas Ban on Same-Sex Marriage. Perhaps Talisker can explain it.

You both went through law school and presumably passed the bar, yet neither of you knows that unincorporated natural persons have rights, while corporations have privileges and no rights? And you call yourself “Lurking Libertarian,” and “Scoutmaster”? LOL!

Well I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that the difference between rights and privileges are rather significant. Such as the significance between a free people and slaves, for example.

Maybe you should sue your law schools and get your money back. Understanding what a corporation is, as well as its unique legal identity, is a fairly important thing for a law school to teach. You see what happens when you go to correspondence school instead of the real thing?

Oh also, what exactly is a soveriegn citizen? A citizen, to my understanding, is a corporate member of the United States. Whereas sovereign means independent. So how can a corporate body be sovereign? Since you are a lawyer, maybe you can explain that. I'd sure appreciate it, because I have no idea what you are talking about.

And as for that tax thing - is that what Justice Roberts meant by the “two powers?” Is that why the enforcement authority of the IRS carefully specifies applicability only to corporations and corporate officers and those responsible for reporting corporate financials to the government - and nobody else? You know, like it says in §§ 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f) of Title 26?

But why should I explain anything, when we can all learn about this subject from the Chief Justice of the United States?

One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America

You know, I believe you both when you claim to be lawyers.

Oh yes I do indeed. You show every indication of it. LOL!

nitzy: My guess is that he is saying no government can presume jurisdiction over your body or property simply because you are alive inside a territory over which they claim jurisdiction. They can however claim juridiction over those who choose to submit themselves to their jurisdiction. I think this is part of the sovereign citizen ideology. As with all of my posts, I am speaking entirely ex-recto.

That's close to what I'm saying, nitzy, except that I don't think the phrase "sovereign citizen" is correct for the reasons I pointed out above. What I am actually stating, however, is that you can be presumed as operating in a corporate capacity without your consent or notification, and that's what has to stop. Corporations have no rights, because the government creates them and wholly controls their existence. Whereas we happen to have a COnstitution that regards human beings as created by God and given rights by God. Call that an "ideological" difference of definitions if you will, but it also happens to be legal fact - rights versus privileges. Oh yeah - it's also the concept that this entire country is built upon - just sayin'.

39 posted on 02/28/2014 5:25:24 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 14themunny; 21stCenturion; 300magnum; A Strict Constructionist; abigail2; AdvisorB; Aggie Mama; ...

I don’t activate this Federalist/Anti-Federalist ping list very often, but while the article is interesting, the discussions on the thread are fascinating. Good food for thought.


40 posted on 02/28/2014 5:28:13 PM PST by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
You both went through law school and presumably passed the bar, yet neither of you knows that unincorporated natural persons have rights, while corporations have privileges and no rights? And you call yourself “Lurking Libertarian,” and “Scoutmaster”? LOL!

Of course corporations have rights. See, e.g., Citizens United. And natural persons have rights, but not the right to be free of taxation or other governmental regulation.

41 posted on 02/28/2014 5:39:28 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Talisker; Lurking Libertarian; nitzy
A citizen, to my understanding, is a corporate member of the United States.

Lurking Libertarian? nitzy? It's time to just nod your head, smile as if he's being rational, and back away. Far away.

42 posted on 02/28/2014 5:41:40 PM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Of course corporations have rights. See, e.g., Citizens United. And natural persons have rights, but not the right to be free of taxation or other governmental regulation.

Citizens United states that corporations have access to the same privileges as a natural person acting in their corporate capacities. To refer to those privileges as "rights" is a commonplace term, and not a legal term. It cannot refer to the "rights" given by God to human beings because God does not make corporations - the government makes corporations. And the fact that the government makes corporations matters rather a lot to the government.

As you WELL know, counselor.

And your linking of natural persons to taxation avoids the IRS codes I cited which link natural persons who are acting in corporate capacities.

As you ALSO well know, counselor.

43 posted on 02/28/2014 5:50:04 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Rodamala
Holy crap... I was boggling at your chart before reading your comment... what the Hell is a 2**7?
Saw the word “programmer” and it all made sense... wow, it’s been a while since I used double asterisks instead of that goofy circumflex accent symbol.

Your comment made me grin — thank you.

44 posted on 02/28/2014 5:55:50 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
Talisker: A citizen, to my understanding, is a corporate member of the United States.

Scoutmaster: Lurking Libertarian? nitzy? It's time to just nod your head, smile as if he's being rational, and back away. Far away.

The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. With the Act of 1871, the name of the original Constitution was defrauded when its title was capitalized, and the word "for" was changed to "of" in the title.

There is an enormous amount of information available on this subject. In a very practival sense, however, it is discerned by the difference between rights and privileges. Rights are acknowledged by the original Constitution, privileges are granted to corporate entities acting as duly authorized extensions of the corporate UNITED STATES formed by the Act of 1871.

Sorry, shills. You can't get away from the difference between rights and privileges.

45 posted on 02/28/2014 5:58:50 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Yes, I know that, “a pint’s a pound the world around” and all that, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with whether to keep measuring gold weights in troy ounces. I guess I’m not as fascinated with powers of two.

Anyway, they’re your proposed amendments. Personally, I’d like to see all of them enacted, even with the specification of avoirdupois weight for gold, but I’d like to win the Powerball lottery, too, and there’s just about as much likelihood of that.


46 posted on 02/28/2014 6:03:33 PM PST by HartleyMBaldwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
And yet the powers that be have done exactly that.

If you address the legal definition of "person" walking into a court, person means trust, insurance company, district government, corporation, and a few others that have nothing to do with a living breathing "person" with a soul.

North Carolina legislature identifies it's people as sovereign citizens.

Nonsense, perhaps... but I am a living breathing soul, with blood running through my veins, and not subject to the whims of criminals elected or otherwise.

Or the misinterpretation of these legal types who steal, lie or manipulate the people who fight for their rights.

Sheerer v Cullins... An IRS agent who never paid taxes, fired, sued his boss, and won... proving he was not responsible for taxes, Why?

1. no injured party

2. You can't tax Federal Reserve Notes

3. Federal Reserve Notes are not money.

4. unless there is an actual injured party (and the state or federal government is can not be an injured party)

and other issues, specifically the attorney general needs to be asked 1 question, Are you bringing charges against the birth name? which is a state owned trade name.....

47 posted on 02/28/2014 6:57:55 PM PST by SERE_DOC ( “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” TJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

Verily. The pap smeared across the pages of public school history books is intended to justify overarching federal authority. That was the fundamental issue over which the CW was fought. Constitutionalists lost that war. The next one will not go so well for federalists.


48 posted on 03/01/2014 5:06:40 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Publius; All
I don’t activate this Federalist/Anti-Federalist ping list very often, but while the article is interesting, the discussions on the thread are fascinating. Good food for thought.

Yes they are, Publius. Thanks very much. Thanks to every poster.

49 posted on 03/01/2014 5:12:41 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Louis Foxwell

I struggle with the term “federalist.” Technically it applies to our form of government, as in a federation of states. In common parlance it means much more. Lincoln was an unabashed proponent of absolute central authority. Thus I call him a federalist as opposed to a statist, although all these terms have come to mean their opposite.


50 posted on 03/01/2014 5:55:45 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson