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 And one of those, the 18th Amendment establishing Prohibition, was repealed.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 ...
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.
Lurking Libertarian? nitzy? It's time to just nod your head, smile as if he's being rational, and back away. Far away.
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.
Your comment made me grin — thank you.
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.
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.
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.....
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.
Yes they are, Publius. Thanks very much. Thanks to every poster.
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.
According to lucid legal analysts and historians, the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 ("An Act To Provide A Government For The District of Columbia") applies merely to the ten square miles of the District of Columbia. The Act created a municipal corporation that is private corporation owned by the federal government, and created officers for the District.
Here's the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871.
It begins:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled, that all that part of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a corporation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act.
Please tell me where this extends beyond the District of Columbia. The capitalization and 'of' and 'for' issues are the difference between the United States of America and the name of the municipal corporation.
Yes, there is a lot of information on the Act of 1871, just as there is a lot of information on the Sovereign Citizen movement. Both share the same validity.
I still think the definition of gold should be expressed in moles.
Congress can always redefine a unit of measurement, but cannot change the number of atoms in a mole.
Of course, being the weasels they are, they could redefine Avogadro's constant I suppose.
5.56mm
Good advice.
Your use of misdirection, logical vapid conclusions, failure to acknowledge established fact, and adoption of the moral high ground argument against the entire population of the South is preposterous.
Again, you said: “After secession and Sumpter (sic)(twice now) the confederacy no longer considered themselves under the Constitution and were at war with the Union.”
They established their own Constitution. That and secession did not create a state of war.
The South never brought war to the North in April, 1861, nor declared war.
War begins with the direction of an executive to either attack or initiate a war action. Lincoln did both in that same month. That fact led to the Federal Court declaring Lincoln's actions as the official start of the war, not Ft. Sumter. (Check spelling)
In April, with the Dred Scott decision intact, the Corwin Amendment headed out for ratification, and Lincoln endorsing it in his inaugural while also saying he did not have the authority to interfere, it effectively was a situation where all three branches of the Federal government were in support of slavery, and would not resist its existence. Slavery was perfectly protected.
Then, why remain as seceded?
Why would Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina go ahead and secede after these facts were common knowledge?
It is surprising to me how ill informed the public is about the greatest loss of liberty and genocide president we have ever had.
Republican National Platform Adopted at Chicago 1860 (excerpts)
Resolved, That we, the delegated representatives of the Republican electors of the United States, in Convention assembled, in discharge of the duty we owe to our constituents and our country, unite in the following declarations:
3. That to the Union of the States this nation owes its unprecedented increase in population, its surprising development of material resources, its rapid augmentation of wealth, its happiness at home and its honor abroad.
12. That, while providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interest of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the working men liberal wages, to agriculture remunerative prices, to mechanics and manufactures an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.
15. That appropriations by Congress for River and Harbor improvements of a National character, required for the accommodation and security of an existing commerce, are authorized by the Constitution, and justified by the obligations of Government to protect the lives and property of its citizens.
16. That a Railroad to the Pacific Ocean is imperatively demanded by the interest of the whole country; that the Federal Government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction; and that, as preliminary thereto, a daily Overland Mail should be promptly established.
The internal improvements were to be paid with by public funds. Many of these developments were subsidies for industry. The Republican Party wanted to continue support of protectionist laws to favor the country’s industry, which was primarily located in the Northeast.
Since US Customs tariff revenue supplied more than 90% of the government’s annual revenue, these government-sponsored improvements were underwritten with tariff dollars, which were being paid by those who were buying imported goods.
With Southern supplied goods paying for 70% of the imports that were taxed, Southern productivity was fundamental to Northern infrastructure improvements.
At that time, the average tariff was 18.84%. The previous year Justin Morrill, R-VT, had emerged as the Republican Party’s leading authority on tariffs. After the current Congress convened on December 5, 1859, word spread that Morrill was proposing raising tariffs to the 40% level. Many Southerners realized this would harm the Southern economy and bankrupt many farmers and planters.
The 1860 tariff plank enjoyed a central and prominent place in the party's platform. Delegates at the convention cheered at length for its openly protectionist message when the plank was adopted. Throughout the campaign Republicans carried banners making it known that a vote for them was a vote for protection.
Lincoln himself had already openly admitted his core protectionist beliefs and in February 1861 even pledged to make the tariff his top legislative priority.
The equal protection afforded all the states under the US Constitution was being ignored in favor of the protectionism and largess being given to the Northern states. That preferential treatment and the failure of Constitutional protections caused the secession, but war came for different reasons.
Not true.
Section 1. The Federal taxing authority includes only tariffs, excises, duties, and any other taxes directly permitted by prior Constitutional amendment, and no other interpretation of the taxing power may be permitted.
Section 2. No law purporting to be justified under any other interpretation of the taxing power shall be considered valid and any attempt to impose such law shall be considered null and void and shall be subject to such legal sanctions as shall be deemed appropriate. No such law shall be funded by any government or unit of government in the United States.
Section 3. Any such law currently being enforced is null and void and may not be enforced.
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.