Posted on 09/20/2014 11:52:06 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Which is what it really is: a way of collateralizing Reserve bank notes with the future labor output of the citizenry.
In other words they mortgaged us.
There's a word for using humans as collateral: chattel slavery.
And that's all this guy is: the chief enforcer of the Plantation rules.
It’s funny. He may actually believe the BS he spews.
Guess you can talk yourself into anything.
But it’s Occam’s Razor: the simplest explanation is that he’s a fraud, just another go-along to get along, doing the bidding of his masters.
A crooked lawyer in a black robe. Fock JR.
Republicans working with democrats are playing the American people like a fiddle...they work together to hold onto power plain and simple...they keep the middle in perpetual turmoil and could honestly care less which side represents the people. The on camera theatrical anger moments are purely show...this is what I was expressing...we are played by both sides working together behind the scenes
This is the same MF’r that gave us Obamacare. I really don’t care wtf he has to say.
John Roberts disgusts me. He sold the American people down the river.
See post 41.
He is a bald faced lair who should be thrown of the bench.
“John Roberts illegally adopted two children from Ireland.”
Yes its my belief he was blackmailed over the adoption.
Regardless that Roberts referenced Gibbons v. Ogden in the Democratcare opinion to help justify the constitutionality of Democratcare, Gibbons contains the following statements which clearly indicate that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly grant the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for public healthcare purposes.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
If Justice Roberts really wants a national healthcare program, then instead of helping other activist justices to establish it outside the framework of the Constitution like he did imo, wrongly amending the Constitution from the bench to grant the feds such powers, he should have done the following.
Roberts needed to inspire Congress to propose a healthcare amendment to the Constitution to the states for ratification. And if the states had chosen to ratify Roberts’ amendment, then the feds would have had the constitutional authority that they need to regulate, tax and spend for public healthcare purposes and Roberts would be a hero.
Also, regarding Robert’s remark about “intelligent layperson,” note that the Supreme Court had clarified that the Constitution was wirtten to be understood by voters.
“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
Once an amendment is passed, it's constitutional pretty much by definition.
If Justice John Roberts believes this, he’s a bigger fool than anyone has ever thought. The USSC loves to legislate from the bench.
Even if they destroy a constitution?
If he actually believes that, he should be locked up as a potential danger to himself and others.
I wonder if he feels the same about blackmail of SCOTUS..
Not where it contradicts another constitutional provision. One or the other must be invalidated. Since income tax is essentially devoting a portion of the fruits of your labor to the government, it is involuntary servitude, which contradicts the (earlier) Thirteenth Amendment prohibition.
So the Court has had to resort to Robertian “logic” to affirm that involuntary servitude is not involuntary servitude, and that a tax on income is therefore legally sustainable. In that sense, you’re right, but only if you accept the principle that “’constitutional’ is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.”
By that logic, all taxes could be considered involuntary servitude, since all money could be construed as as the fruits of labor.
Yep. Taxes, by definition, are theft. Who steals my money steals the fruits of my labor, and by extension, my time, skills, and life. Furthermore, they assert (under threat of violence) that they have an a priori claim to those resources that takes precedent over my own.
We can CONSENT to some level of taxation -- agree via social contract to give up some portion of our lives for the good of the Collective. But when government leave us no choice, when it coerces money from us at the point of a gun, then yes, it is involuntary servitude and tyranny at its worst.
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.