# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  "The Constitution was intended to expand power of the government"

## Brian Defferding

Okay, Ron Paul Forum posters!  Don't let me down here!

I am in a constant political debate on a comic book message board that consists of 80% liberals, 10% Republican, and literally TWO libertarians.  I just posted this to someone:




> The Constitution was intended to limit what the federal level can/can't do.


to which a liberal law degree grad replied with the following:




> The Constitution was intended to *expand* the power of the federal government. While doing so, it set certain limits on what the federal government could do and other limits on what the state governments could do.
> 
> If you honestly think that the United States Constitution represented a step back for the powers of the Federal Government, you've seriously misunderstood the purpose of the document and why the Constitutional Convention was called in the first place.


Let's hear your thoughts on this, I need some more ammo to fire back at this guy.  Personally, I think he is being ignorant of the many amendments of the Constitution to cherry pick his point of view.  Hell, he even proved that in his own words.

----------


## FrankRep

*Overview of America*

Overview of America - Public Service - DVD


Great for viewing in all venues, this video gives you a big-picture vision of why we enjoy so much personal freedom and prosperity in America. It explains in a simple fashion the different systems of government throughout the world and the different economic principles underlying each type of government-illuminating the great virtues of our unique nation. Public Service Edition. (29 min., 2007)

----------


## Pauls' Revere

can they site explicit examples of what they are referring to? Where does it say "to expand" or is this a lawyers persoanal *interpretation*. Which makes it a persoanl matter not a policy one.

----------


## DamianTV

10th Amendment

----------


## BuddyRey

Unfortunately, your liberal adversary happens to be correct.  The Constitution was a betrayal of the spirit of '76 by Hamilton and the Federalists, crafted in secrecy while Jefferson was in Paris.  There's a book on this subject which, in the interest of full disclosure I must admit to not having read yet.  But apparently it does a pretty good job shedding some light on the Constitution's backstory.

http://www.amazon.com/Hologram-Liber...4620353&sr=8-1

----------


## Zippyjuan

The Constitution was basically to define how powers were to be allotted/ divided. Not sure how one could get "expand" the powers of government when prior to the Constitution there was no definitions of what the powers were and who had them.  Rather than centralizing power, it tried to dispearse it and include checks and balances to keep any one group or individual from having complete control.  This is a limit more than an expansion of political powers.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> *Originally Posted by Liberal Law Graduate*
> The Constitution was intended to expand the power of the federal government. While doing so, it set certain limits on what the federal government could do and other limits on what the state governments could do.
> 
> If you honestly think that the United States Constitution represented a step back for the powers of the Federal Government, you've seriously misunderstood the purpose of the document and why the Constitutional Convention was called in the first place.


The poster is correct.

There is only one point to clarify:




> and other limits on what the state governments could do.


and a delegated additional powers from or limits upon States not previously agreed to by the States under the Articles of Confederation or Treaty of Paris.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> The Constitution was basically to define how powers were to be allotted/ divided. Not sure how one could get "expand" the powers of government when prior to the Constitution there was no definitions of what the powers were and who had them.  Rather than centralizing power, it tried to dispearse it and include checks and balances to keep any one group or individual from having complete control.  This is a limit more than an expansion of political powers.


What?  $@#%$@%$@ boot Zippy please.

I have nothing against Zippy personally just people that are so damn ignorant that after 6k posts would claim:




> Not sure how one could get "expand" the powers of government when prior to the Constitution there was no definitions of what the powers were and who had them.


Seriously Zippy... WTF?  Are you just an anti-truther, establishment shill or what?

Treaty of Paris



> In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.
> 
> It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse , between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony; and having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of peace and reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782, by the commissioners empowered on each part, which articles were agreed to be inserted in and constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which treaty was not to be concluded until terms of peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France and his Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such treaty accordingly; and the treaty between Great Britain and France having since been concluded, his Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, in order to carry into full effect the Provisional Articles above mentioned, according to the tenor thereof, have constituted and appointed, that is to say his Britannic Majesty on his part, David Hartley, Esqr., member of the Parliament of Great Britain, and the said United States on their part, John Adams, Esqr., late a commissioner of the United States of America at the court of Versailles, late delegate in Congress from the state of Massachusetts, and chief justice of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary of the said United States to their high mightinesses the States General of the United Netherlands; Benjamin Franklin, Esqr., late delegate in Congress from the state of Pennsylvania, president of the convention of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the court of Versailles; John Jay, Esqr., late president of Congress and chief justice of the state of New York, and minister plenipotentiary from the said United States at the court of Madrid; to be plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the present definitive treaty; who after having reciprocally communicated their respective full powers have agreed upon and confirmed the following articles.
> 
> Article 1:
> 
> His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, *to be free sovereign and independent states*, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
> 
> Article 2:
> ...

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

Articles of Confederation



> Preamble
> 
> To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.
> 
> Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:
> 
> Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
> 
> Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
> ...

----------


## nate895

Instead of trying to refute him factually (as in trying to deny that the Constitution was meant to expand the powers of the Federal government), I'd point out his argument is a _non sequitur_. Just because the Constitution was meant to expand the powers of the Federal government over the Articles of Confederation does not mean that it was intended to grant the sweeping powers he needs. The Constitution is a document of enumerated powers despite the fact it was originally intended to expand the Federal government's powers. It was not intended to grant the Federal government practical omnipotence over every aspect of human affairs.

----------


## lynnf

> What?  $@#%$@%$@ boot Zippy please.
> 
> I have nothing against Zippy personally just people that are so damn ignorant that after 6k posts would claim:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously Zippy... WTF?  Are you just an anti-truther, establishment shill or what?
> 
> Treaty of Paris



_Seriously Zippy... WTF?  Are you just an anti-truther, establishment shill or what?
_

Zip is a disinformation agent, a troll sent here to cause any disruption that they can.  you can tell by Zip's posts, over and over again.

lynn

----------


## Mini-Me

> Instead of trying to refute him factually (as in trying to deny that the Constitution was meant to expand the powers of the Federal government), I'd point out his argument is a _non sequitur_. Just because the Constitution was meant to expand the powers of the Federal government over the Articles of Confederation does not mean that it was intended to grant the sweeping powers he needs. The Constitution is a document of enumerated powers despite the fact it was originally intended to expand the Federal government's powers. It was not intended to grant the Federal government practical omnipotence over every aspect of human affairs.


Nate hit it on the head here:  The guy's argument simply wasn't a logical defense of an expansive Constitutional interpretation.  (Of course, there IS no logical defense of an expansive Constitutional interpretation.)

----------


## dude58677

The Bill of Rights was enacted because as stated in the Anti-Federalist Papers, the anti-federalists feared that a Constitution could not be ratified unless there was a Bill of Rights. There was outrage over the secrecy of the document. So the Bill of Rights was enacted.

The Bill of Rights preamble reads:

"In order to prevent the abuse or miscontruction of powers, further restrictions must be added."

This person you are debating is way off the charts.

----------


## KurtBoyer25L

Saying that it was not a step back for Federal powers is technically true but misleading. There was no such prior document & no comparable precedent. We were changing from a set of Colonies which had no such thing as "federal" power to the United States, and creating a federal government. 

If you build your first house & do everything you can to make it small and compact, it's still larger than no house at all. But you didn't "build a bigger one."

----------


## erowe1

First of all, notice that the liberal didn't contradict you.

There is nothing about the fact that the Constitution was intended to limit government power (which Liberal Law Graduate seems to admit in his response) that is incompatible with the fact that it was intended to expand government power.

----------


## KurtBoyer25L

Come to think of it, hasn't our society created one hell of a backward state of affairs & academic thought? How can comic book fans be 80% statist/collectivist modern liberals???

Superman? No, SuperMass...a vague group of labeled, hyphenated, indignant Americans marching around & slowly accumulating everyone else's wealth, to be distributed as determined at meetings in the Fortress of Beaurocracy.

Batman...Bad Man. He's an entrepreneur, remember?

About the only comic that would make sense from the current liberal position is that Ultimate Warrior farce from the early 90's. It makes no linear sense, expounds no principles, helps no one & yet you still have to pay to have it. & if you don't like it, he'll beat you up.

----------


## malkusm

I'd also mention that the Constitution was a compromise between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists, but almost ALL of them (with the exception of Hamilton) believed that the Constitution was a document of restraint, not one of broad implied powers.

----------


## Cowlesy

Read Tom Woods' book Nullification, which does a great job outlining how the Interstate Commerce clause, Necessary & Proper clause (I think that's it?) and General Welfare clause have been perverted beyond reason to expand the government.

----------


## tjeffersonsghost

> Unfortunately, your liberal adversary happens to be correct.  The Constitution was a betrayal of the spirit of '76 by Hamilton and the Federalists, crafted in secrecy while Jefferson was in Paris.  There's a book on this subject which, in the interest of full disclosure I must admit to not having read yet.  But apparently it does a pretty good job shedding some light on the Constitution's backstory.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Hologram-Liber...4620353&sr=8-1


This is correct...

----------


## erowe1

> Saying that it was not a step back for Federal powers is technically true but misleading. There was no such prior document & no comparable precedent.


Yes there was. The precedent to compare it with was the Articles of Confederation. Since the Constitution established a more powerful more centralized federal government than those did, what Liberal Law Graduate said was accurate.

----------


## Travlyr

While technically correct, the major government expansion came after the money changers took control.

----------


## dude58677

> Yes there was. The precedent to compare it with was the Articles of Confederation. Since the Constitution established a more powerful more centralized federal government than those did, what Liberal Law Graduate said was accurate.


The fact that there was a Bill of Rights as the reasons I stated before end this discussion.

----------


## erowe1

> The fact that there was a Bill of Rights as the reasons I stated before end this discussion.


I don't see how that comment ends this discussion. The point at issue is whether or not the Constitution expanded government power beyond what it was before.

Nothing in your comment about the Bill of Rights, which I quote below, is a reason to believe that it did not.




> The Bill of Rights was enacted because as stated in the Anti-Federalist Papers, the anti-federalists feared that a Constitution could not be ratified unless there was a Bill of Rights. There was outrage over the secrecy of the document. So the Bill of Rights was enacted.
> 
> The Bill of Rights preamble reads:
> 
> "In order to prevent the abuse or miscontruction of powers, further restrictions must be added."
> 
> This person you are debating is way off the charts.


Was the Constitution designed to limit federal government power in some way? Yes,  but that's not the point in dispute. Both parties in the OP agree that it was designed to limit the federal government in some way (and for that matter, so does everyone else, including Bush and Obama).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Okay, Ron Paul Forum posters! Don't let me down here!
> 
> I am in a constant political debate on a comic book message board that consists of 80% liberals, 10% Republican, and literally TWO libertarians. I just posted this to someone:
> 
> 
> 
> to which a liberal law degree grad replied with the following:
> 
> 
> ...


 
He's right.  See "the Constitution Of No Authority" by Spooner for more on this.

----------


## acptulsa

> Nate hit it on the head here:  The guy's argument simply wasn't a logical defense of an expansive Constitutional interpretation.  (Of course, there IS no logical defense of an expansive Constitutional interpretation.)


Well of course there is.

Look, how could the founders possibly protect us from electronic eavesdropping?  Such devices are obviously and fundamentally useful for violating a citizen's privacy, and the founders could foresee their development to the extent that devices which aid in spying are always under development and just about always have been.  But they couldn't foresee the form they would take clearly enough to _specifically_ exclude them from legality.

So, yes, there is a reason to believe that the interpretation of the Constitution can and must endure expansion over time.  The question then becomes, is the Constitution about expansion of federal powers, limitation of federal powers, or defining legal guidelines so that (if we're on the job) we never get an expansion of federal power that does more harm than good?

----------


## Brett

Expand it compared to the articles of confederation? Yes.

Expand it in the terms that we understand "expand" today?  Hell no.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Government, like cancer, has but one prime objective, growth.

It is it's natural course.

Which is why, from time to time, it must be cut out, before the host dies.

----------


## erowe1

> Government, like cancer, has but one prime objective, growth.
> 
> It is it's natural course.
> 
> Which is why, from time to time, it must be cut out, before the host dies.


Well said. Is that your own? I may want to borrow that line some time.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Well said. Is that your own? I may want to borrow that line some time.


Thanks, yes all mine, although plenty of people have said the essentially the same thing in different words.

Say it three times and you can keep it.

----------


## Theocrat

> Instead of trying to refute him factually (as in trying to deny that the Constitution was meant to expand the powers of the Federal government), I'd point out his argument is a _non sequitur_. Just because the Constitution was meant to expand the powers of the Federal government over the Articles of Confederation does not mean that it was intended to grant the sweeping powers he needs. The Constitution is a document of enumerated powers despite the fact it was originally intended to expand the Federal government's powers. It was not intended to grant the Federal government practical omnipotence over every aspect of human affairs.


That is a great point, and I'd like to add this to what you've said above. The fact that our Founders separated the powers of the federal government into three branches (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) shows two important things:
It illustrates our Founders' beliefs about the inherent character of man, as it relates to civil authority. Our Founders understood that if you give a human being too much power, it will eventually corrupt him, to the ruin of an entire society. That is why the powers were separated to keep this from happening, all based on checks and balances. There was no intent to expand the powers of the federal government *beyond what it was enumerated to do by the States*. That is crucially important.The fact that we even have a document called the U.S. Constitution presupposes that the federal government was meant to be limited. Why else write a document in the first place to tell the feds what it can and cannot do? Our republic was based on the rule of law, which means what is right (in accordance with our Creator and Giver of our rights) reigns supreme, not the whims of men (as was the case in the later English monarchy from which our Founders left). When government is based on the whims of men, there is no limit to its growth, which is how we're in the mess we are today.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Okay, Ron Paul Forum posters!  Don't let me down here!
> 
> I am in a constant political debate on a comic book message board that consists of 80% liberals, 10% Republican, and literally TWO libertarians.  I just posted this to someone:
> 
> 
> 
> to which a liberal law degree grad replied with the following:
> 
> 
> ...


The Constitution provided for a very small central government that accounted for less than 2% of all GNP spending in the United States prior to 1913 (the year the states abandoned the principles of the Founders).

So basically, the Founders wanted a central government that accounted for about 1.5% of the GNP, instead of 1%.  At less than 1%, the nation was in danger of invasion by military powers, and in danger of continuous civil war and disputes over ownership of western lands, navigation of rivers, etc.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

If this guy is as stupid as he is to believe what he's spouting, chances are you can't convert him.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Unfortunately, your liberal adversary happens to be correct.  The Constitution was a betrayal of the spirit of '76 by Hamilton and the Federalists, crafted in secrecy while Jefferson was in Paris.  There's a book on this subject which, in the interest of full disclosure I must admit to not having read yet.  But apparently it does a pretty good job shedding some light on the Constitution's backstory.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Hologram-Liber...4620353&sr=8-1


That's bull$#@!.  Jefferson supported the Constitution from Day One.  His best friend James Madison was the main man who wrote it.

If you don't like the Constitution, then please head over to the dailykos.

----------


## Vessol

If my rights are God-given, why do I need a document to protect and define them? Because of that document, they are now to many people, government-given and thus are able to be taken away.

----------


## Vessol

I've yet to finish reading it myself. But I highly suggest everyone here who hasn't, read "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner.

http://jim.com/treason.htm

The thesis

"The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. and the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves."

----------


## Captain Shays

> Read Tom Woods' book Nullification, which does a great job outlining how the Interstate Commerce clause, Necessary & Proper clause (I think that's it?) and General Welfare clause have been perverted beyond reason to expand the government.



This is also mentioned in Wood's and Gutzman's "Who Killed The Constitution" and The Judge's "Constitution IN Exile".

The Necessary and Proper clause and the General Welfare clause have historically been the choice weapons of collectivists in their war on the Constitution with the Interstate Commerce clause being our modern day monster since the turn of the 20th century.

Yep! We're screwed all right!

----------


## Captain Shays

> If my rights are God-given, why do I need a document to protect and define them? Because of that document, they are now to many people, government-given and thus are able to be taken away.


This came about with the progressive movement starting under Teddy's time. The Fabian socialists changed the whole lexicon of phraseology. Thats when our schools and the media started telling us we were a democracy ( a system that our founders detested) instead of a Republic.
The difference seems vague these days and even otherwise intelligent individuals can't give a clear explanation as to the differences. It's easy for us though. In a Republic we get our rights from God, or natural rights that pre-existed the Constitution and the government gets their limited powers from us and by our consent. In a democracy we get our rights from the government just like all other collectivist systems.
So, if the elites could convince us, generation after generation that we get our rights from the government, then, when the time is right or it's politically expedient they can take them away from us without a revolt or without losing power. We and our children become willing slaves to a centralized monolith in Washington and we're easily controlled, propagandized and lied to. We will go along with just about anything that diminishes our liberty or grows government (redundant). We'll fight wars that have no legitimate value relative to our national security or defense of our Constitution under just about any circumstances that we could become scared about.

----------


## Vessol

> This came about with the progressive movement starting under Teddy's time. The Fabian socialists changed the whole lexicon of phraseology. Thats when our schools and the media started telling us we were a democracy ( a system that our founders detested) instead of a Republic.
> The difference seems vague these days and even otherwise intelligent individuals can't give a clear explanation as to the differences. It's easy for us though. In a Republic we get our rights from God, or natural rights that pre-existed the Constitution and the government gets their limited powers from us and by our consent. In a democracy we get our rights from the government just like all other collectivist systems.
> So, if the elites could convince us, generation after generation that we get our rights from the government, then, when the time is right or it's politically expedient they can take them away from us without a revolt or without losing power. We and our children become willing slaves to a centralized monolith in Washington and we're easily controlled, propagandized and lied to. We will go along with just about anything that diminishes our liberty or grows government (redundant). We'll fight wars that have no legitimate value relative to our national security or defense of our Constitution under just about any circumstances that we could become scared about.


Yes. I must agree 100%.

----------


## Brian Defferding

I want to thank everyone for their answers, it has been very informative.  Many things said in here I can go back to for other related debates, too.

----------


## ChaosControl

> The Constitution was intended to expand the power of the federal government. While doing so, it set certain limits on what the federal government could do and other limits on what the state governments could do.
> 
> If you honestly think that the United States Constitution represented a step back for the powers of the Federal Government, you've seriously misunderstood the purpose of the document and why the Constitutional Convention was called in the first place.


This is correct. The constitution expanded the federal government. This is why I don't consider myself a constitutionalist. It centralized the nation the most it would be centralized until Lincoln and the Republicans decided to kill the 10th amendment.

The anti-federalists who opposed the constitution were the good guys. But unfortunately in real life, the good guys lose the vast majority of the time.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Government, like cancer, has but one prime objective, growth.
> 
> It is it's natural course.
> 
> Which is why, from time to time, it must be cut out, before the host dies.


Well said!

And of course, getting rid of 100% of the cancer is the best way to make sure it doesn't come back. You don't leave 5% of your cancer around to "protect my natural right to..."

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> While technically correct, the major government expansion came after the money changers took control.


This is correct.  The federal government was smaller in 1912, than it was when the Articles of Confederation were ratified.  In 1912, the federal share of the GNP was only 1.75%, per the Mises Institute.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I've yet to finish reading it myself. But I highly suggest everyone here who hasn't, read "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner.
> 
> http://jim.com/treason.htm
> 
> The thesis
> 
> "The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. and the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves."


This is idiotic drivel.  Spooner is arguing that people Obama and Bush or the Supreme Court do not have to follow the Constitution.  According to Spooner, they can do whatever they want to.  It is completely asinine to regurgitate crap like this in a liberty forum that advocates a smaller government.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> This is idiotic drivel.


YouTube - Successful Troll Song

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> YouTube - Successful Troll Song


You're the troll who is trashing the Constitution and lending moral support to Obama and Bush.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> You're the troll who is trashing the Constitution and lending moral support to Obama and Bush.


lol.

----------


## Vessol

> This is idiotic drivel.  Spooner is arguing that people Obama and Bush or the Supreme Court do not have to follow the Constitution.  According to Spooner, they can do whatever they want to.  It is completely asinine to regurgitate crap like this in a liberty forum that advocates a smaller government.


I learned awhile ago not to feed the trolls, especially you. Good day sir.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I learned awhile ago not to feed the trolls, especially you. Good day sir.


Spooner specifically argues that only those who signed the Constitution are bound by it.  *That means the US congress, the president, and the Supreme Court are not bound by the Constitution according to Spooner!*  This is exactly the same mentality of neoco0ns and liberals.

YOU are the one who needs an LOL.

----------


## BuddyRey

> I've yet to finish reading it myself. But I highly suggest everyone here who hasn't, read "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner.
> 
> http://jim.com/treason.htm
> 
> The thesis
> 
> "The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. and the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves."


+1!  I can't recommend the writings of Lysander Spooner highly enough.  For generations, his brand of rational, deontological anti-statism has been relegated to the scrap heap of history, but I'm beginning to see a resurgence of interest in the ideas espoused in _No Treason_.  This, above all, is what gives me hope in the future of liberty.

----------


## amy31416

> Spooner specifically argues that only those who signed the Constitution are bound by it.  *That means the US congress, the president, and the Supreme Court are not bound by the Constitution according to Spooner!*  This is exactly the same mentality of neoco0ns and liberals.
> 
> YOU are the one who needs an LOL.


Spooner aside, isn't an oath essentially a verbal contract? (Haven't read the whole thread, perhaps you've made this argument.)

ETA: Regardless of the intent of the Constitution, isn't it a fact that it hasn't stopped the gov't from expanding in size and power, and thus is flawed? I suppose I could make the argument that it's the people who are flawed, but shouldn't it somehow take the nature of people into account?

----------


## Pericles

> Spooner aside, isn't an oath essentially a verbal contract? (Haven't read the whole thread, perhaps you've made this argument.)
> 
> ETA: Regardless of the intent of the Constitution, isn't it a fact that it hasn't stopped the gov't from expanding in size and power, and thus is flawed? I suppose I could make the argument that it's the people who are flawed, but shouldn't it somehow take the nature of people into account?


Isn't this line of reasoning a criticism that the US Constitution is not self enforcing?

Can anyone name a rule anywhere through the course of history that is self enforcing?

Why would the US Constitution be held to a different standard?

Like I have said before, this is like blaming the hammer in my toolbox because I have a leaky roof.

----------


## amy31416

> Isn't this line of reasoning a criticism that the US Constitution is not self enforcing?
> 
> Can anyone name a rule anywhere through the course of history that is self enforcing?
> 
> Why would the US Constitution be held to a different standard?
> 
> Like I have said before, this is like blaming the hammer in my toolbox because I have a leaky roof.


Yeah, it is an argument that it isn't self-enforcing/has no penalties built-in for those who violate it. Why is that so horrible? 

Who cares if I can name a rule that is or isn't, and why wouldn't I hold the Constitution to a different standard of all the $#@! governance of humankind's bloody, messy history?

----------


## Pericles

> Yeah, it is an argument that it isn't self-enforcing/has no penalties built-in for those who violate it. Why is that so horrible? 
> 
> Who cares if I can name a rule that is or isn't, and why wouldn't I hold the Constitution to a different standard of all the $#@! governance of humankind's bloody, messy history?


Expecting any rule to be self-enforcing is unrealistic. At best, there can be incentives to keep the rules, but the "force" that enforces is always external to the thing itself.

Ultimately, the enforcement mechanism is the citizenry itself using the BoR. We can communicate, organize, arm ourselves, and take care of business - if we have the will to do so. Those who do not do so, get the government they deserve.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Isn't this line of reasoning a criticism that the US Constitution is not self enforcing?
> 
> Can anyone name a rule anywhere through the course of history that is self enforcing?
> 
> Why would the US Constitution be held to a different standard?
> 
> Like I have said before, this is like blaming the hammer in my toolbox because I have a leaky roof.


We The People are supposed to enforce it.

We are the scalpel to cut out that cancer, reset the clock to zero and start fresh.

Unfortunately, "we the people" have gotten too stupid, lazy and complacent to undertake the task anymore.

So here we sit.

----------


## lucius

Oh well...I take heart that most of them are watching *Jersey Housewives* or other such tripe...so nobody is paying attention to d*ck...

Isn't tv wonderful? If you watch it; you do not need to be watched--it's self-governing. A full spectrum of 'programing' tailor made for every-type of fractured-flavored monkey...I quit trying to teach math to monkeys...just take care of friends and kin...

----------


## amy31416

> We The People are supposed to enforce it.
> 
> We are the scalpel to cut out that cancer, reset the clock to zero and start fresh.
> 
> Unfortunately, "we the people" have gotten too stupid, lazy and complacent to undertake the task anymore.
> 
> So here we sit.


Yes indeed. 

What did Jefferson recommend? A revolution every 20 years or so? Here we are a couple hundred years later...

I still wouldn't mind some sort of statement on what should be done with those who violate the Constitution though, if only for amusement.

----------


## amy31416

> Oh well...I take heart that most of them are watching *Jersey Housewives* or other such tripe...so nobody is paying attention to d*ck...
> 
> Isn't tv wonderful? If you watch it; you do not need to be watched--it's self-governing. A full spectrum of 'programing' tailor made for every-type of fractured-flavored monkeys...


So what's the excuse for those old-timey $#@!s who allowed the gov't to run roughshod over them, set up the Fed, confiscate gold, prohibit alcohol, etc.....was there some sort of rudimentary porn/trash entertainment that I'm unaware of?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Yes indeed. 
> 
> What did Jefferson recommend? A revolution every 20 years or so? Here we are a couple hundred years later...
> 
> *I still wouldn't mind some sort of statement on what should be done with those who violate the Constitution though, if only for amusement*.


Agreed, criminal sanctions for those who violate.

----------


## lucius

> So what's the excuse for those old-timey $#@!s who allowed the gov't to run roughshod over them, set up the Fed, confiscate gold, prohibit alcohol, etc.....was there some sort of rudimentary porn/trash entertainment that I'm unaware of?


They were asleep too...but we are different...more informational sources--a very different time. Pinkertons are not going to cut it this time, I speculate...

----------


## LadyBastiat

> Instead of trying to refute him factually (as in trying to deny that the Constitution was meant to expand the powers of the Federal government), I'd point out his argument is a _non sequitur_. Just because the Constitution was meant to expand the powers of the Federal government over the Articles of Confederation does not mean that it was intended to grant the sweeping powers he needs. The Constitution is a document of enumerated powers despite the fact it was originally intended to expand the Federal government's powers. It was not intended to grant the Federal government practical omnipotence over every aspect of human affairs.


This is a good approach imho.

----------


## Arion45

The constitution is written to increase the power of government. It could have been written to only allow it's delegated powers only and thats it. But it included a house and senate with no limit on how many times it could meet a year. No limit on senators and congressmen terms. Then the founders decided to allow the federal government to judge and rule how much power to give itself through a supreme court. If anything the court should have been made up of state judges. That would have been a true check. 

Standing armies should have only been allowed in times of declared war. It should have barred it from collecting income tax ever. 

In all honesty the constitution has failed miserably to keep government small. The only thing left to do is abolish the federal government.

----------


## Travlyr

Expanded:  The Constitution established a republic with three separate branches of governance.
Limits:  The "_Bill of Rights_" states that the government cannot infringe on certain inherent rights.

The U.S. Constitution was not intended to allow unlimited power to government.  The people have responsibility in government, but they have ignored their responsibility for generations and continue to ignore their responsibility.  Until the people take their responsibility seriously, then government will continue to trample on the rights of the people.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Spooner aside, isn't an oath essentially a verbal contract? (Haven't read the whole thread, perhaps you've made this argument.)
> 
> ETA: Regardless of the intent of the Constitution, isn't it a fact that it hasn't stopped the gov't from expanding in size and power, and thus is flawed? I suppose I could make the argument that it's the people who are flawed, but shouldn't it somehow take the nature of people into account?


The federal government had no net expansion prior to 1913 when *the states changed the Constitution away from the Founders intentions*.

In 1912, the federal share of the GNP was only 1.75%.  This was actually smaller than when the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781, and was about the same as when George Washington was president in the 1790s.

These are the facts that you opponents of the US Constitution need to deal with.  Deal with it.  Either that, or go over to the dailykos where they don't like the Constitution either.

----------


## amy31416

> These are the facts that you opponents of the US Constitution need to deal with.  Deal with it.  Either that, or go over to the dailykos where they don't like the Constitution either.


My question/comments to you were civil. Too bad you aren't capable of the same, nor are you capable of responding without the typical status quo Republican response of "you're a liberal." 

Pretty $#@!ing lame. Piss off.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> The constitution is written to increase the power of government. It could have been written to only allow it's delegated powers only and thats it. But it included a house and senate with no limit on how many times it could meet a year. No limit on senators and congressmen terms. Then the founders decided to allow the federal government to judge and rule how much power to give itself through a supreme court. If anything the court should have been made up of state judges. That would have been a true check. 
> 
> Standing armies should have only been allowed in times of declared war. It should have barred it from collecting income tax ever. 
> 
> In all honesty the constitution has failed miserably to keep government small. The only thing left to do is abolish the federal government.


The original Constitution did prohibit income taxes.  The Constitution did a great job keeping the central government small, yet provided for free trade and order so wealth could be accumulated without a need to build giant castles with knights protecting the landowners.

It was the state governments that blew it.  First the southern states kept slavery and then Jim Crow laws, which provided the impetus for centralizers.  From the 1840s until the 1960s, the chief argument used by centralizers has been racial bias.

Second, the States abandoned the principles of James Madison when they amended the Constitution twice in 1913.  People here continually blame the federal government for these amendments, but it is the states that did them.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> My question/comments to you were civil. Too bad you aren't capable of the same, nor are you capable of responding without the typical status quo Republican response of "you're a liberal." 
> 
> Pretty $#@!ing lame. Piss off.


This a pro-Constitution website.  Trolls like you have been coming over here for years causing trouble.  I defend the US Constitution, as does Ron Paul, and the Founding Fathers.

----------


## libertybrewcity

Article 1, Section 8. The founding fathers were skeptical of a large federal or any federal government at all. That is why they tried the Articles of Confederation. It failed so they decided to put in a more centralized and powerful federal government, but still one that is very limited.

----------


## libertybrewcity

> The federal government had no net expansion prior to 1913 when *the states changed the Constitution away from the Founders intentions*.
> 
> In 1912, the federal share of the GNP was only 1.75%.  This was actually smaller than when the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781, and was about the same as when George Washington was president in the 1790s.


It had a small share because they didn't have war debts. One reason why the federal government was created was to collect taxes and pay off the debts.

----------


## sailingaway

Thomas Jefferson:  "in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution"

http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/kyres/kydraft.html

----------


## erowe1

> That is why they tried the Articles of Confederation. It failed.


Failed to do what for whom?

And along those lines, when a government succeeds, that's generally a bad thing. Right?

To give an analogy, we could similarly say that our federal government tried governing without an income tax and it failed (which it did from the perspective of the leviathan), so they gave themselves an income tax.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> The original Constitution did prohibit income taxes.


Get real.  

How many times do I have to post Alexander Hamilton's brief argued personally before the Supreme Court, on the Carriage Tax, elaborating on the undefined meaning of the words direct and indirect?

How many times does it have to be pointed out under the Articles of Confederation the legitimate objects of Congress for constitutionally delegated subject matter was States and under the Constitution the legitimate objects of Congress for constitutionally delegated subject matter is states or people?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Get real.  
> 
> How many times do I have to post Alexander Hamilton's brief argued personally before the Supreme Court, on the Carriage Tax, elaborating on the undefined meaning of the words direct and indirect?
> 
> How many times does it have to be pointed out under the Articles of Confederation the legitimate objects of Congress for constitutionally delegated subject matter was States and under the Constitution the legitimate objects of Congress for constitutionally delegated subject matter is states or people?


Dude, even the Supreme Court agreed that income taxes were illegal.  They even said it AFTER 1913.  The text of the original Constitution is very clear and simple to understand.

----------


## Travlyr

> Spooner aside, isn't an oath essentially a verbal contract? (Haven't read the whole thread, perhaps you've made this argument.)
> 
> ETA: Regardless of the intent of the Constitution, isn't it a fact that it hasn't stopped the gov't from expanding in size and power, and thus is flawed? I suppose I could make the argument that it's the people who are flawed, but shouldn't it somehow take the nature of people into account?


The Constitution hasn't failed, the people fail in their duty to the Constitution.  

You are correct that the Oath is a contract.  And a contract requires consideration in order to be valid.  Elected officials are required to purchase a penal bond (consideration) in order to validate their contract "The Oath of Office.  The fact that no elected official has purchased the penal bond since the 1960's means that all public offices are currently vacant.  It also means that the elected officials who are pretending to hold office are likely felons through embezzlement.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=249886

----------


## Anti Federalist

> The Constitution hasn't failed, the people fail in their duty to the Constitution.  
> 
> You are correct that the Oath is a contract.  And a contract requires consideration in order to be valid.  Elected officials are required to purchase a penal bond (consideration) in order to validate their contract "The Oath of Office.  The fact that no elected official has purchased the penal bond since the 1960's means that all public offices are currently vacant.  It also means that the elected officials who are pretending to hold office are likely felons through embezzlement.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=249886


Excellent excellent point.

Well done.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Dude, even the Supreme Court agreed that income taxes were illegal.  They even said it AFTER 1913.  The text of the original Constitution is very clear and simple to understand.


Dude and it has been pointed out many times despite many Supreme Court rulings upholding income taxes before and after 1913 there was one Supreme Court ruling in 1895 that declared income derived from land a direct tax which must be apportioned.  This ruling also happened to be the drive behind the 16th Amendment to close the loophole considering the source of income.

Do you have some citation to rebut an overwhelming amount of citations that have been presented on taxation to convey the taxation powers of the federal government are constrained beyond anything contained in the Constitution such as direct or indirect?

----------


## Travlyr

> Excellent excellent point.
> 
> Well done.


Thanks AF.  Currently, a lawsuit has been filed in the courts of New Mexico indicating that the two candidates for governor in New Mexico, Susana Martinez (R) and Diane Denish (D), are alleged felons for embezzlement because they were pretending to serve because they did not purchase the required bond.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Dude and it has been pointed out many times despite many Supreme Court rulings upholding income taxes before and after 1913 there was one Supreme Court ruling in 1895 that declared income derived from land a direct tax which must be apportioned.  This ruling also happened to be the drive behind the 16th Amendment to close the loophole considering the source of income.
> 
> Do you have some citation to rebut an overwhelming amount of citations that have been presented on taxation to convey the taxation powers of the federal government are constrained beyond anything contained in the Constitution such as direct or indirect?


All you are doing is twisting the plain words of the Constitution, just like Alexander Hamilton did.  The Constitution is not a "living" document.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Excellent excellent point.
> 
> Well done.


Unfortunately it is a varsity level excellent point well beyond the understanding of most citizens.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> All you are doing is twisting the plain words of the Constitution, just like Alexander Hamilton did.  The Constitution is not a "living" document.


LO-f'n-L

Was this your comment a moment ago?




> These are the facts that you opponents of the US Constitution need to deal with.  Deal with it.  Either that, or go over to the dailykos where they don't like the Constitution either.


Face the facts dude.  Deal with it or go over to the dailykos.

I am twisting plain words?  No I am not twisting $#@!.  Hamilton included the well understood history of taxation in his brief by referring to Locke.  The Supreme Court has always upheld Hamiltion's arguments on direct versus indirect.  Unfortunately this $#@! is too true for someone to simply make up.  This would also be the reason you have no citations or anything other than hot air holding up your posts with any claims on the subject of taxation.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Okay, Ron Paul Forum posters!  Don't let me down here!
> 
> I am in a constant political debate on a comic book message board that consists of 80% liberals, 10% Republican, and literally TWO libertarians.  I just posted this to someone:
> 
> 
> 
> to which a liberal law degree grad replied with the following:
> 
> 
> ...


So, that is sixteen hot-pink liberals, two baby-blue Republicans and two bland Libertarians?  This is true if the two libertarians make up the other 10% left over from the combined 90% the liberals and Republicans make up.
There are three answers to this question.  One side, the other side, and no side whatsoever.  As we don't, as the head of our dinner tables, have to legislate, administer or judge at them, I prefer the latter.

----------


## amy31416

> This a pro-Constitution website.  Trolls like you have been coming over here for years causing trouble.  I defend the US Constitution, as does Ron Paul, and the Founding Fathers.


I've been here longer than you, and I've contributed to many a campaign. How do you contribute except for yapping? Please do tell how I'm a troll, and how I'm "causing trouble?" Please quote me or shut the $#@! up.

And for the record, the Constitution is not perfection on paper, there are plenty of flaws in it that could and should be amended (some of the flaws being in the amendments themselves)...for you to blindly defend it and do so in such an obnoxious manner is blatantly dumb. Unless, of course, you can't handle debate on your sacred cow....

----------


## Danke

> Dude, even the Supreme Court agreed that income taxes were illegal.  They even said it AFTER 1913.  The text of the original Constitution is very clear and simple to understand.


Nope. Just the opposite.

----------


## dude58677

I agree with Galileo Galilei. Looks like a bunch of RINO's inflitrated Ron Paul Forums. I feel like I'm back at the Quatloos site debating the income tax.

Quatloos is  a site run by an $#@! tax attorney named Jay Adkisson. He debates 24/7 on his message board forums defending the IRS.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Thanks AF.  Currently, a lawsuit has been filed in the courts of New Mexico indicating that the two candidates for governor in New Mexico, Susana Martinez (R) and Diane Denish (D), are alleged felons for embezzlement because they were pretending to serve because they did not purchase the required bond.


Keep us posted on that, I'd be really curious to see what happens.




> Unfortunately it is a varsity level excellent point well beyond the understanding of most citizens.


90 percent of what's discussed here is well beyond the understanding of most citizens.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I've been here longer than you, and I've contributed to many a campaign. How do you contribute except for yapping? Please do tell how I'm a troll, and how I'm "causing trouble?" Please quote me or shut the $#@! up.
> 
> And for the record, the Constitution is not perfection on paper, there are plenty of flaws in it that could and should be amended (some of the flaws being in the amendments themselves)...for you to blindly defend it and do so in such an obnoxious manner is blatantly dumb. Unless, of course, you can't handle debate on your sacred cow....


That's another lame anti-Constitutional argument used by liberals; the Constitution isn't perfect, so let's just ignore it or pretend it is too complicated to understand.
*
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."*

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> That's another lame anti-Constitutional argument used by liberals; the Constitution isn't perfect, so let's just ignore it or pretend it is too complicated to understand.


I have no respect for your ignorant diatribes on the subject of taxation.  Put up (a citation or evidence) or shut up.

This is the way it is and what SCOTUS has always held.  You can bitch about it, whine about it, or whatever else you want to do but it is not going to change the fact this is how $#@! has been upheld by SCOTUS under the Constitution.




> February 24, 1795.
> 
> What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution. We shall seek in vain for any antecedent settled legal meaning to the respective terms—there is none.
> 
> We shall be as much at a loss to find any disposition of either which can satisfactorily determine the point.
> 
> Shall we call an indirect tax, a tax which is ultimately paid by a person, different from the one who pays it in the first instance?
> 
> Truly speaking, there is no such tax—those on imported articles best claim the character. But in many instances the merchant cannot transfer the tax to the buyer; in numerous cases it falls on himself, partly or wholly. Besides, if the same article which is imported by a merchant for sale, is imported by a merchant for his own use, or by a lawyer, a physician, or mechanic, for his own use, there can be no question about the transfer of the tax. It remains upon him who pays it.
> ...


Since SCOTUS has never recognized your claim the Constitution prevents income tax you are 100% full of $#@! on the subject of taxation.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

that means any aspect of life or humanity in and of itself such as penis or breast size is taxable and *"must of necessity"* be an indirect tax which can be progressive based on size so long as it is uniformly applied among the several states

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I have no respect for your ignorant diatribes on the subject of taxation.  Put up (a citation or evidence) or shut up.
> 
> This is the way it is and what SCOTUS has always been held.  You can bitch about it, whine about it, or whatever else you want to do but it is not going to change the fact this is how $#@! has been upheld by SCOTUS under the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Since SCOTUS has never recognized your claim the Constitution prevents income tax you are 100% full of $#@! on the subject of taxation.


The 16th amendment was passed because the Supreme Court agreed that the plain language of the Constitution barred income taxes.  *An income tax is obviously a direct tax.*  What you posted is no such finding by the Supreme Court, it is just a bunch of rambling crap.  And Hamilton was not on the Supreme Court.  And he wanted a tax on carriages, which is a far cry from an income tax.

Please give it a rest, today is Constitution day, you are wearing thin on a lot of people here.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> The 16th amendment was passed because the Supreme Court agreed that the plain language of the Constitution barred income taxes.  *An income tax is obviously a direct tax.*  What you posted is no such finding by the Supreme Court, it is just a bunch of rambling crap.  And Hamilton was not on the Supreme Court.  And he wanted a tax on carriages, which is a far cry from an income tax.
> 
> Please give it a rest, today is Constitution day, you are wearing thin on a lot of people here.



Your ignorance is wearing thin on me if you want to keep it personal.  Hamilton's brief is plain as day.  How can you be so oblivious to the plain english contained in the above brief and the entire ruling history of SCOTUS on taxation?

The Pollock ruling has been cited several times and it decided exactly what I mentioned earlier.  The source of income.  Not income tax.

This is what the Pollock ruling decided and it's right up at the top of the ruling.




> *The bill charged that the provisions in respect of said alleged income tax incorporated in the act of Congress were unconstitutional, null, and void, in that the tax was a direct tax in respect of the real estate held and owned by the company in its own right and in its fiduciary capacity as aforesaid by being imposed upon the rents, issues, and profits of said real estate, and was likewise a direct tax in respect of its personal property and the personal property held by it for others for whom it acted in its fiduciary capacity as aforesaid, which direct taxes were not in and by said act apportioned among the several States as required by section 2 of article I of the Constitution*, and that, if the income tax so incorporated in the act of Congress aforesaid were held not to be a direct tax, nevertheless its provisions were unconstitutional, null and void in that they were not uniform throughout the United States as required in and by section of article I of the Constitution of the United States, upon many grounds and in many particulars specifically set forth.
> 
> *The bill further charged that the income tax provisions of the act were likewise unconstitutional in that they imposed a tax on incomes not taxable under the Constitution and likewise income derived from the stocks and bonds of the States of the United States and counties and municipalities therein, [p433] which stocks and bonds are among the means and instrumentalities employed for carrying on their respective governments, and are not proper subjects of the taxing power of Congres*s, and which States and their counties and municipalities are independent of the general government of the United States, and the respective stocks and bonds of which are, together with the power of the States to borrow in any form, exempt from Federal taxation.


Full text of the ruling.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...7_0429_ZS.html

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> What you posted is no such finding by the Supreme Court, it is just a bunch of rambling crap.  And Hamilton was not on the Supreme Court.


And let me just address this by itself.  Any stupid son of a bitch that can sit behind their keyboard and claim a factual, historical event such has Alexander Hamilton arguing the historical brief posted above before the Supreme Court which happened and practically shut down Washington on that day in history did not happen should be booted for the idiot they are.

----------


## dude58677

> Your ignorance is wearing thin on me if you want to keep it personal.  Hamilton's brief is plain as day.  How can you be so oblivious to the plain english contained in the above brief and the entire ruling history of SCOTUS on taxation?
> 
> The Pollock ruling has been cited several times and it decided exactly what I mentioned earlier.  The source of income.  Not income tax.
> 
> This is what the Pollock ruling decided and it's right up at the top of the ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> Full text of the ruling.
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...7_0429_ZS.html


Ron Paul stated in the "Liberty Manifesto" that Hamilton was way out line with the rest of the founding fathers when it came to the Constitution. You have no argument.

----------


## erowe1

//

----------


## paulitics

I think the constitution is a beautiful document, created by realists who by and large were brilliant in undersatnding human nature. 

They never said that the constitution would alone save us from encroaching tyranny.  They warned us about apathy, that we would have to continue to fight for freedom.  

Only ideaslists believe in some magic system, or lack there of that is going to keep everything in check.  Those were not the founding fathers.   They were cynics of the highest degree, that would not be surprised at what has happened more than 200 years later.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> And let me just address this by itself.  Any stupid son of a bitch that can sit behind their keyboard and claim a factual, historical event such has Alexander Hamilton arguing the historical brief posted above before the Supreme Court which happened and practically shut down Washington on that day in history did not happen should be booted for the idiot they are.


All you are doing is regurgitating the same lame arguments that enemies of the Constitution have brought forward for years, twisting and contorting the text to suit your needs.  I oppose the income tax.  You seem to come up with "justifications" for it.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Ron Paul stated in the "Liberty Manifesto" that Hamilton was way out line with the rest of the founding fathers when it came to the Constitution. You have no argument.


That's correct, and he was specifically referring to Hamilton after the Constitution was ratified.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I have no respect for your ignorant diatribes on the subject of taxation.  Put up (a citation or evidence) or shut up.
> 
> This is the way it is and what SCOTUS has always held.  You can bitch about it, whine about it, or whatever else you want to do but it is not going to change the fact this is how $#@! has been upheld by SCOTUS under the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Since SCOTUS has never recognized your claim the Constitution prevents income tax you are 100% full of $#@! on the subject of taxation.


Have you seen _Freedom to Fascism_ by Aaron Russo?  Even after the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court held that the income tax amendment granted no new taxing powers.  That's because the clause on direct taxes was never repealed.  

You are talking about taxes on non-people, i.e. corporations.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Ron Paul stated in the "Liberty Manifesto" that Hamilton was way out line with the rest of the founding fathers when it came to the Constitution. You have no argument.


If 200+ years of SCOTUS rulings did not back up that 1795 interpretation of direct versus indirect you might have a point.  Considering SCOTUS has backed up that interpretation of direct versus indirect you have no point.

If you are going to argue against Hamilton and his Federalist friends who brought about a Constitutional Convention to expand the powers of central government granted under the Articles of Confederation, then why not extend your logic right on out to the very document and claim the Constitution is not legitimate because the Federalist coo was out of line with the founding fathers?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> If 200+ years of SCOTUS rulings did not back up that 1795 interpretation of direct versus indirect you might have a point.  Considering SCOTUS has backed up that interpretation of direct versus indirect you have no point.
> 
> If you are going to argue against Hamilton and his Federalist friends who brought about a Constitutional Convention to expand the powers of central government granted under the Articles of Confederation, then why not extend your logic right on out to the very document and claim the Constitution is not legitimate because the Federalist coo was out of line with the founding fathers?


The AoC didn't even have a Supreme Court.  So if congress had passed an income tax law, there's no way it would be struck down.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

All of the Founding Fathers approved of the Constitution once the Bill-of-Rights was ratified and they had seen it in operation for a few years.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Have you seen _Freedom to Fascism_ by Aaron Russo?  Even after the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court held that the income tax amendment granted no new taxing powers.  That's because the clause on direct taxes was never repealed.  
> 
> You are talking about taxes on non-people, i.e. corporations.


No $#@! the 16th Amendment granted no new taxing powers because the power to tax has always been delegated.  Duh!

The only thing the 16th Amendment did was close the source loophole which only affected the apportionment rule not the powers delegated.  If income was derived from land it was no longer to be considered a direct tax subject to apportionment.

However I do not recognize the 16th Amendment because it was not lawfully ratified and as such is null and void.

No I am talking about taxes on people.  Go back and re-read the positions the Supreme Court has adopted for the past 200+ years based on a brief I already posted.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> All you are doing is regurgitating the same lame arguments that enemies of the Constitution have brought forward for years, twisting and contorting the text to suit your needs.  I oppose the income tax.  You seem to come up with "justifications" for it.


No, I cited a factual, historical event that actually happened in 1795 (YOU TRIED TO DENY) that has affected this country in profound ways for 200+ years because  people like you fail to comprehend it and fail to understand exactly why we are all being stolen from by the federal government.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> No $#@! the 16th Amendment granted no new taxing powers because the power to tax has always been delegated.  Duh!
> 
> The only thing the 16th Amendment did was close the source loophole which only affected the apportionment rule not the powers delegated.  If income was derived from land it was no longer to be considered a direct tax subject to apportionment.
> 
> However I do not recognize the 16th Amendment because it was not lawfully ratified and as such is null and void.
> 
> No I am talking about taxes on people.  Go back and re-read the positions the Supreme Court has adopted for the past 200+ years based on a brief I already posted.


The power of an individual federal income tax on wages was not allowed by the original Constitution, nor was it allowed in the rulings right after 1913, per the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> The AoC didn't even have a Supreme Court.  So if congress had passed an income tax law, there's no way it would be struck down.


It sure would have hard to fool people when under the AoC everyone know plain as day there was no taxation power delegated to Congress.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> The power of an individual federal income tax on wages was not allowed by the original Constitution, nor was it allowed in the rulings right after 1913, per the Supreme Court and the Constitution.


OMG... you can't be serious.  Are you really serious?

*
PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX STARTED IN 1861*

----------


## dude58677

> If 200+ years of SCOTUS rulings did not back up that 1795 interpretation of direct versus indirect you might have a point.  Considering SCOTUS has backed up that interpretation of direct versus indirect you have no point.
> 
> If you are going to argue against Hamilton and his Federalist friends who brought about a Constitutional Convention to expand the powers of central government granted under the Articles of Confederation, then why not extend your logic right on out to the very document and claim the Constitution is not legitimate because the Federalist coo was out of line with the founding fathers?


Wow!!!!!! You are now against Ron Paul? Just as Galileo Galilei and I have figured. You are a TROLL!

----------


## ClayTrainor

> OMG... you can't be serious.  Are you really serious?
> 
> *
> PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX STARTED IN 1861*


Minor Correction.  According to Wikipedia, the progressive Income Tax started in 1862.  A Flat Income tax began in 1861.




> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861
> 
> The income tax provision (Sections 49, 50 and 51) was repealed by the Revenue Act of 1862. (See Sec.89, which replaced the flat rate with a progressive scale of 3% on annual incomes beyond $600 ($12,742 in 2009 dollars) and 5% on incomes above $10,000 ($212,369 in 2009 dollars) or those living outside the U.S., and perhaps more significantly it was explicitly temporary, specifying termination of income tax in "the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six").

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> It sure would have hard to fool people when under the AoC everyone know plain as day there was no taxation power delegated to Congress.


Congress doesn't always obey paper barriers, especially during emergencies.  Learn your history.  There were blatant violations of the AoC shortly after the ink dried.  Our Founding Fathers understood what was going on back then.  You don't.  I know you think you are smarter than George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin, but you are not.  Please give it a rest it is Constitution day.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Wow!!!!!! You are now against Ron Paul? Just as Galileo Galilei and I have figured. You are a TROLL!


We got some real winning posts today of people who can't separate the B from the S.

On one hand you are going to say what Hamilton and friends did advocating a new Constitution centralizing power to have things like standing armies, taxation, etc. were great but Hamilton really sucked after that.  Either Hamilton & friends sucked or Hamilton & friends were great.

How come I am the only one making historical citations and you and Galilei are just running your mouths to support the Federalists?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> OMG... you can't be serious.  Are you really serious?
> 
> *
> PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX STARTED IN 1861*


That tax was unconstitutional.  It was rammed through during a civil war, and eliminated as soon as the nation came to its senses.  Our Founding Fathers warned us of the dangers of civil war.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Minor Correction.  According to Wikipedia, the progressive Income Tax started in 1862.  A Flat Income tax began in 1861.


Read the actual text of the 1861 Act.  Not all incomes were taxed the same.  Also, foreign incomes were taxed differently.  It is chapter 49 of an Act in 1861 that implemented a ton of taxation, including several import taxes, direct taxes, and income tax.

Let me know if you need to to cite it.

----------


## osan

> Okay, Ron Paul Forum posters!  Don't let me down here!


I would have to say that your opponent may be correct.  The Constitution is a tremendously flawed document when looked at in the context of sound governance pursuant to the ideals of personal liberty.  To suggest that the brilliant minds of the likes of Madison and Hamilton were not aware of the problems inherent in the very structure of many of the sentences therein is to stretch credulity beyond the breaking point.  By no means could I call myself a Constitutional scholar, but I am aware that there was quite a lot of drama attached to the architecture of the new government and while I admire the likes of Jefferson, there are several other characters whose trustworthiness finds non-trivial question in my eyes.  I believe it behooves us to view these men as human beings and not as demigods as many are so apt to do.  Who is to say that there may not have been a traitor or two among even the greatest of those men - those who would craft clever loopholes in the interests of an agenda no in consonance with that of liberty, fairplay, and equal opportunity for all?  Had he not been caught, would not Benedict Arnold likely be viewed through similarly rose-colored lenses today?  We really must be smarter than this.

That aside, there are the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist documents, as well as voluminous other written works that exposed the framers intentions.

More to the point, who cares?  Seriously, what does it matter?  Why must we look to the framers for validation?  I have seen some middling to better brilliance right here in this forum.  What immutable law of nature denies us our voice and reason?  I see none.  It is readily demonstrable that freedom is the proper and natural state of human existence and that any initiation of force against the rightful actions of the individual cannot be justified under any circumstance whatsoever.  It is readily demonstrable that even in America we are slaves to a mob of immoral usurpers that have no rightful claim to the authorities they presume to wield over the rest of us.  The very concept of "government" is one of the most dangerous notions mankind has ever managed to vomit forth from the bowels of its most profoundly wretched members.  Governance, OTOH, when set forth and administered in its properly minimal extent and in honest fashion, is a very different proposition.

The longer this charade proceeds, the more clearly I see that those wishing to be free must assert that state of existence for themselves with the unequivocal willingness to apply the held instrumentality of force in the degree and manner required to secure and maintain that state.  The ONLY thing the usurpers understand is force.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Wow!!!!!! You are now against Ron Paul? Just as Galileo Galilei and I have figured. You are a TROLL!


Live_Free_Or_Die not trolling.  He posts pretty harshly, confrontationally, and maybe overconfidently on issues of legal terminology, but he's posted here in good faith for a long time.  Importantly, he's not exactly defending the income tax, so to speak.  He's defending its legality on technical grounds, but he still recognizes it as extortion/theft.

Galileo, on the other hand is a bit dogmatic, and he tends to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of being a troll.  He's called me a troll, he's called Amy a troll in this very thread, he's calling Live_Free_Or_Die a troll, and I honestly couldn't count how many honest regulars he has called a troll, simply for disagreeing with him.  I'd take his opinion on who is and isn't a troll with a grain of salt. 

I don't know who's actually correct on the question of the income tax's Constitutionality.  I mean, it's pretty obvious that an income tax signed into law in 1861 and 1862 by Abraham Lincoln of all people is not itself strong evidence of Constitutionality, since a.) unconstitutional laws are passed all the time, and b.) this was the same guy who destroyed federalism...and I guess this is partially how he funded it.   Similarly, Supreme Court decisions by themselves should be taken with a grain of salt, since the SC regularly rules in a manner totally contradictory to the text of the Constitution.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> That tax was unconstitutional.  It was rammed through during a civil war, and eliminated as soon as the nation came to its senses.  Our Founding Fathers warned us of the dangers of civil war.


SCOTUS did not have a problem upholding it until the justices had an epiphany in 1895.

----------


## YumYum

The proof is in the pudding. Look at how big our government is today. The current size of our government demonstrates how the Constitution allowed for the expansion of Federal government. If the framers wanted to keep the Federal government from expanding, they would have written the Constitution in a way that would have prevented it from becoming the monstrosity that it is today. In much the same way that the Federal Reserve System was written up, the framers decieved the Public by creating a document that appeared to have checks and balances. But in truth, the Constitution is ambiguous, and the framers made it that way for a reason. Hamilton was a very smart man. I smell a Rothschild.

----------


## dude58677

> Live_Free_Or_Die not trolling.  He posts pretty harshly, confrontationally, and maybe overconfidently on issues of legal terminology, but he's posted here in good faith for a long time.  Importantly, he's not exactly defending the income tax, so to speak.  He's defending its legality on technical grounds, but he still recognizes it as extortion/theft.
> 
> Galileo, on the other hand is a bit dogmatic, and he tends to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of being a troll.  He's called me a troll, he's called Amy a troll in this very thread, he's calling Live_Free_Or_Die a troll, and I honestly couldn't count how many honest regulars he has called a troll, simply for disagreeing with him.  I'd take his opinion on who is and isn't a troll with a grain of salt. 
> 
> I don't know who's actually correct on the question of the income tax's Constitutionality.  I mean, it's pretty obvious that an income tax signed into law in 1861 and 1862 by Abraham Lincoln of all people is not itself strong evidence of Constitutionality, since a.) unconstitutional laws are passed all the time, and b.) this was the same guy who destroyed federalism.   Similarly, Supreme Court decisions by themselves should be taken with a grain of salt, since the SC regularly rules in manner totally contradictory to the text of the Constitution.


Maybe  you aren't a troll but to disagree with Ron Paul on a KEY ISSUE shows his true colors.

----------


## erowe1

> Maybe  you aren't a troll but to disagree with Ron Paul on a KEY ISSUE shows his true colors.


What is the key issue where you think he's going against Ron Paul?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> The proof is in the pudding. Look at how big our government is today. The current size of our government demonstrates how the Constitution allowed for the expansion of Federal government. If the framers wanted to keep the Federal government from expanding, they would have written the Constitution in a way that would have prevented it from becoming the monstrosity that it is today. In much the same way that the Federal Reserve System was written up, the framers decieved the Public by creating a document that appeared to have checks and balances. But in truth, the Constitution is ambiguous, and the framers made it that way for a reason. Hamilton was a very smart man. I smell a Rothschild.


The central government was smaller in 1912 than it was in 1781.  In 1912, the central government accounted for only 1.75% of the GNP per the Mises Institute.  That would be like a federal budget today of less than $300 billion.  In 1913, the States fundamentally changed the structure of the Constitution.  It is totally idiotic to blame the Founding Fathers for something the state governments did 125 years later.  Yet people here go on and on and on in their quest to rip apart our Founding Fathers.  Isn't all the attacks against our Founders on the History Channel enough?  For God's sake people, it is Constitution Day!  Can you give it all a rest?

----------


## dude58677

> The proof is in the pudding. Look at how big our government is today. The current size of our government demonstrates how the Constitution allowed for the expansion of Federal government. If the framers wanted to keep the Federal government from expanding, they would have written the Constitution in a way that would have prevented it from becoming the monstrosity that it is today. In much the same way that the Federal Reserve System was written up, the framers decieved the Public by creating a document that appeared to have checks and balances. But in truth, the Constitution is ambiguous, and the framers made it that way for a reason. Hamilton was a very smart man. I smell a Rothschild.


No, old meanings are taken out of context. Welfare and militia had a very different meaning then what progressives say it means now. The amendment process though is clear and doesn't allow for it to be scrapped or easily amended. So the progressives only choice is to take it out of context.

----------


## BuddyRey

> If you don't like the Constitution, then please head over to the dailykos.


So everyone who has a problem with the Constitution is a socialist?  Well excuse me all to Hell.  Somebody send a memo out to Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Doug Casey, Boston T. Party and others informing them that they have been stripped of their "Party status" until further notice, and that they must report to Minitrue at 0600 hours for formal re-education.

----------


## dude58677

> The central government was smaller in 1912 than it was in 1781.  In 1912, the central government accounted for only 1.75% of the GNP per the Mises Institute.  That would be like a federal budget today of less than $300 billion.  In 1913, the States fundamentally changed the structure of the Constitution.  It is totally idiotic to blame the Founding Fathers for something the state governments did 125 years later.  Yet people here go on and on and on in their quest to rip apart our Founding Fathers.  Isn't all the attacks against our Founders on the History Channel enough?  For God's sake people, it is Constitution Day!  Can you give it all a rest?


No, a hater of the Constitution cannot give it a rest and the reason is because they want to ruin a good holiday for the people who cherish it.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> No, a hater of the Constitution cannot give it a rest and the reason is because they want to ruin a good holiday for the people who cherish it.


To paraphrase Voltaire, if trolls like this did not exist, they would have to be invented.

----------


## dude58677

> So everyone who has a problem with the Constitution is a socialist?  Well excuse me all to Hell.  Somebody send a memo out to Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Doug Casey, Boston T. Party and others informing them that they have been stripped of their "Party status" until further notice, and that they must report to Minitrue at 0600 hours for formal re-education.


I don't think Lew Rockwell would be defending the IRS's case for taxes as what is being done here.

----------


## dude58677

> What is the key issue where you think he's going against Ron Paul?


"Live Free or Die" is defending the IRS's view of the income tax.

----------


## erowe1

> So everyone who has a problem with the Constitution is a socialist?  Well excuse me all to Hell.  Somebody send a memo out to Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Doug Casey, Boston T. Party and others informing them that they have been stripped of their "Party status" until further notice, and that they must report to Minitrue at 0600 hours for formal re-education.


Don't forget about Ron Paul. I don't think he's nearly as huge of a fan of the Constitution as he seems to be in the dreams of some people here.

----------


## awake

*"The Constitution was intended to expand the power of the federal government. While doing so, it set certain limits on what the federal government could do and other limits on what the state governments could do.

If you honestly think that the United States Constitution represented a step back for the powers of the Federal Government, you've seriously misunderstood the purpose of the document and why the Constitutional Convention was called in the first place."*

The thing is, he is right. The document is the seed of monopoly from which you are now trying to beat back its branches. 

You will not win an argument on the intentions of the Constitution... the intention was, like so many others, benevolent, but the result is before your very eyes.

And for those who may make the mistake, this does not make me anti-constitutional, I think it wise to return to it, but if you get there don't rest on that goal. Abolish monopoly altogether.


If you could return to the Constitution by this time tomorrow, you would only have the disease in remission... A good thing mind you, but it, "the monopoly" lives to grow again.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

Government should never be allowed to serve two masters.




> to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States


And that was included in the AoC before it ever found it's way into the Constitution.

----------


## erowe1

> "Live Free or Die" is defending the IRS's view of the income tax.


I gather you consider the fact that everything he was saying was in opposition to the income tax an insignificant detail.

----------


## dude58677

> Don't forget about Ron Paul. I don't think he's nearly as huge of a fan of the Constitution as he seems to be in the dreams of some people here.


Ron Paul called Hamilton as way out of line with the rest of the founding fathers and everyone here is citing Hamilton as the main source for how the meaning of the Constitution. Nice try!

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> "Live Free or Die" is defending the IRS's view of the income tax.


I am not defending anything.  It is an insult you would make such a claim when my personal actions are consistent with my moral principles for longer than some members of this forum have been alive.  

I am citing historical facts, not personal opinion.

----------


## erowe1

> Ron Paul called Hamilton as way out of line with the rest of the founding fathers and everyone here is citing Hamilton as the main source for how the meaning of the Constitution. Nice try!


1) Really? _Everyone_ here is doing that?

2) What does that have to do with what I said that you're replying to anyway?

----------


## dude58677

> I gather you consider the fact that everything he was saying was in opposition to the income tax an insignificant detail.


He kept citing Hamilton as a source for what the Constitution means. When I said that Ron Paul stated Hamilton was out of line with the rest of the founding fathers. "Live Free or Die" said that Ron Paul didn't know what he was talking about because the courts have ruled against his views.

----------


## dude58677

Galileo Galilei, these tricks that Statists use to debate are so typical. They repeat the same lame argument over again, try to get the last word in, pretend to be stupid and they are trying to learn from you, name calling, threats, etc. 

 I have been in this liberty movement too long not to see through their games.

----------


## dude58677

> 1) Really? _Everyone_ here is doing that?
> 
> 2) What does that have to do with what I said that you're replying to anyway?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Ron Paul called Hamilton as way out of line with the rest of the founding fathers and everyone here is citing Hamilton as the main source for how the meaning of the Constitution. Nice try!


I am not someone who is not going to be lectured by Ron Paul on the courts.  Ron Paul is aware of the injustice of the courts, aware of people that have been persecuted by government in the courts, and advocates people do not take any risk to do what is right.  According to Ron Paul people can be 100% right and lose 100% of the time in court.

So I am not going to criticize the Ron Paul's & Peter Schiff's over their choices to yield humanity in order to live to fight another day.  On the other hand I doubt people who have taken personal risk (for instance, Peter Schiff's father) have any interest in being lectured by a son who compromises on moral principals to conform.

----------


## dude58677

> I am not someone who is not going to be lectured by Ron Paul on the courts.  Ron Paul is aware of the injustice of the courts, aware of people that have been persecuted by government in the courts, and advocates people do not take any risk to do what is right.  According to Ron Paul people can be 100% right and lose 100% of the time in court.
> 
> So I am not going to criticize the Ron Paul's & Peter Schiff's over their choices to yield humanity in order to live to fight another day.  On the other hand I doubt people who have taken personal risk (for instance, Peter Schiff's father) have any interest in being lectured by a son who compromises on moral principals to conform.


All right. That's a fair statement. This is going to be a moot point soon when we get these Tea Party candidates into office and they refuse to appropiate funds for the IRS.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> He kept citing Hamilton as a source for what the Constitution means. When I said that Ron Paul stated Hamilton was out of line with the rest of the founding fathers. "Live Free or Die" said that Ron Paul didn't know what he was talking about because the courts have ruled against his views.


I cited The Carriage Tax in 1795 case as THE PRECEDENT for the Constitutional meanings of the terms direct & indirect.  It just happened the brief argued before and upheld by the Supreme Court in that case was argued personally by Hamilton.  It just happens in 200+ years that precedent has never been overturned.  I can't help it if you are incapable of discerning historical fact.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Galileo Galilei, these tricks that Statists use to debate are so typical. They repeat the same lame argument over again, try to get the last word in, pretend to be stupid and they are trying to learn from you, name calling, threats, etc. 
> 
>  I have been in this liberty movement too long not to see through their games.


Just for the record, you should note that everyone who disagrees with you here actually believes in even smaller government than you do.   For instance, Live_Free_Or_Die is so far from being a statist that he's an an-cap.

----------


## dude58677

> Just for the record, you should note that everyone who disagrees with you here actually believes in even smaller government than you do.   For instance, Live_Free_Or_Die is so far from being a statist that he's an an-cap.


From what I was told by "Live Free or Die". I understand.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Galileo Galilei, these tricks that Statists use to debate are so typical. They repeat the same lame argument over again, try to get the last word in, pretend to be stupid and they are trying to learn from you, name calling, threats, etc. 
> 
>  I have been in this liberty movement too long not to see through their games.


I think they read a couple articles on Lew Rockwell, and now think they know it all.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I think they read a couple articles on Lew Rockwell, and now think they know it all.


I will be sure to visit LewRockwell.com and drop Lew a line now that I know who to thank for the reason why I can cite Supreme Court rulings on taxation off the top of my head dating back to 1795 

Try again...

----------


## Mini-Me

> I will be sure to visit LewRockwell.com and drop Lew a line now that I know who to thank for the reason why I can cite Supreme Court rulings on taxation off the top of my head dating back to 1795 
> 
> Try again...


Why exactly can you cite Supreme Court rulings on taxation off the top of your head dating back to 1795, anyway?  Are you a lawyer, or do you just like to read law in your free time (blech)?

----------


## dude58677

> I think they read a couple articles on Lew Rockwell, and now think they know it all.


There appears to be a misunderstanding between you and "Live Free or Die". You are right that statists use these same debate tactics as I mentioned and pretend to be on your side.

However, "Live Free or Die" is not one of them as he stated that people lose against the government in court not because they are irrational but because the government fixes the outcome of the case.

This will be a moot point when we get Rand Paul and the other liberty candidates in office and they refuse to appropiate funds for the IRS.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Why exactly can you cite Supreme Court rulings on taxation off the top of your head dating back to 1795, anyway?  Are you a lawyer, or do you just like to read law in your free time (blech)?


If government dicks with you, you are not Bill Gates, and you are not in the habit of taking it anally economically, it is in your best interest reading law in your free time to fully understand the system the guns live in.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> *"the constitution was intended to expand the power of the federal government. While doing so, it set certain limits on what the federal government could do and other limits on what the state governments could do.
> 
> If you honestly think that the united states constitution represented a step back for the powers of the federal government, you've seriously misunderstood the purpose of the document and why the constitutional convention was called in the first place."*
> 
> the thing is, he is right. The document is the seed of monopoly from which you are now trying to beat back its branches. 
> 
> You will not win an argument on the intentions of the constitution... The intention was, like so many others, benevolent, but the result is before your very eyes.
> 
> And for those who may make the mistake, this does not make me anti-constitutional, i think it wise to return to it, but if you get there don't rest on that goal. Abolish monopoly altogether.
> ...


qft

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I cited The Carriage Tax in 1795 case as THE PRECEDENT for the Constitutional meanings of the terms direct & indirect.  It just happened the brief argued before and upheld by the Supreme Court in that case was argued personally by Hamilton.  It just happens in 200+ years that precedent has never been overturned.  I can't help it if you are incapable of discerning historical fact.


The Supreme Court did not set precedent in 1795.  At that time, precedents were set by congress and the president.  That is why the anachronistic term "opinions" is used to describe what the courts say today.  They are just giving their opinion.  Presidents at that time set precedents with _vetoes_, and congress did it with _votes_.

In 1795, the president did not veto and/or sign bills for policy reasons, they did it for constitutional reasons.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> If government dicks with you, you are not Bill Gates, and you are not in the habit of taking it anally economically, it is in your best interest reading law in your free time to fully understand the system the guns live in.


That's what my lawyers for!

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> There appears to be a misunderstanding between you and "Live Free or Die". You are right that statists use these same debate tactics as I mentioned and pretend to be on your side.
> 
> However, "Live Free or Die" is not one of them as he stated that people lose against the government in court not because they are irrational but because the government fixes the outcome of the case.
> 
> This will be a moot point when we get Rand Paul and the other liberty candidates in office and they refuse to appropiate funds for the IRS.


I'm really looking forward to Rand's election.  Besides pushing for a Fed audit and repeal of Obamacare, I also can't wait to see him grill federal judge nominees.  And even better, he will assert the Senate's power to give advice and consent to all foreign policy, and to demand all treaties by ratified, rather than bogus "executive agreements".

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> The Supreme Court did not set precedent in 1795.  At that time, precedents were set by congress and the president.  That is why the anachronistic term "opinions" is used to describe what the courts say today.  They are just giving their opinion.  Presidents at that time set precedents with _vetoes_, and congress did it with _votes_.
> 
> In 1795, the president did not veto and/or sign bills for policy reasons, they did it for constitutional reasons.


Ok fine, but it is not 1795 and if you want to understand the history of income taxation in the United States that is where a person needs to begin in order to fully understand the definitions of direct and indirect the guns have upheld for the past two centuries.

The judicial racket today is entirely precedent based.  You can't introduce an opinion prior to an existing precedent without it becoming subject to a frivolous claim.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Ok fine, but it is not 1795 and if you want to understand the history of income taxation in the United States that is where a person needs to begin in order to fully understand the definitions of direct and indirect the guns have upheld for the past two centuries.
> 
> The judicial racket today is entirely precedent based.  You can't introduce an opinion prior to an existing precedent without it becoming subject to a frivolous claim.


You've based your whole case for income tax on the 1795 carriage act.  Not many people cared what the Supreme Court said in 1795.  In those days, a ruling had to be repeated over and over until it became common law like in England.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> You've based your whole case for income tax on the 1795 carriage act.  Not many people cared what the Supreme Court said in 1795.  In those days, a ruling had to be repeated over and over until it became common law like in England.


I based the SCOTUS held interpretation of direct & indirect on the 1795 Carriage Act.  And I am right no matter how you slice it.  There has never been different definitions adopted by SCOTUS.  By all means cite one.

By saying I have based my whole case for income tax on it pretty much defies a very extensive posting history.  We haven't even got into federal jurisdiction but I have no further interest discussing it with you because you are really pissing me off with your bull$#@! of trying to make a claim without any evidence or citations.

Here is the difference if I cite the constitution (as I have in the past) I am going to back it up with something.  Something that has existed in the real world like an early American Law Dictionary (Bouvier's for instance) or Blackstone's commentaries on English Common Law or Constitutional Convention notes to make it perfectly clear what the intended phrase in question meant or what the debate in meaning was about.

I am not going to pull some of your bull$#@! simply posting an excerpt of the Constitution for people to take at face value assuming people have a clue what 1700s common law doctrines were.  Nor am I going to pull some of your bull$#@! and sit here and assert claims or make rebuttals in a debate without bringing some real world evidence to the table.

Threads I participate in on law discussions contain extensive citations and if we are talking about how things presently are they contain extensive SCOTUS citations.

And on a final note I am going to side with the Anti Federalists every day of the week.  To accuse me of supporting Hamilton is complete bull$#@!.  You support the Federalists.  You advocate Federalist positions all the time.  Hamilton is one of yours, not one of mine.  If I have to even mention Hamilton for historical accuracy as I have had to in this thread with regards to the Carriage Tax ruling you can rest assured the very thought of Hamilton and the rest of the Federalist club politicking the events of Shay's Rebellion, the Frontier, and Foreign Policy to usurp and centralize power really pisses me off.  I do not like the son of a bitch and if the rest of the Federalist coo was alive today I would tell them to kiss my ass as well despite any good intentions.

----------


## Danke

> The 16th amendment was passed because the Supreme Court agreed that the plain language of the Constitution barred income taxes.  *An income tax is obviously a direct tax.*  What you posted is no such finding by the Supreme Court, it is just a bunch of rambling crap.  And Hamilton was not on the Supreme Court.  And he wanted a tax on carriages, which is a far cry from an income tax.
> 
> Please give it a rest, today is Constitution day, you are wearing thin on a lot of people here.


We had an income tax before the 16th A.  The 16th A, as LFOD stated, did not create a new tax.

The income tax is and always has been an _indirect tax_.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> We had an income tax before the 16th A.  The 16th A, as LFOD stated, did not create a new tax.
> 
> The income tax is and always has been an _indirect tax_.


Really?  An indirect tax?  A direct tax on my income is indirect?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I based the SCOTUS held interpretation of direct & indirect on the 1795 Carriage Act.  And I am right no matter how you slice it.  There has never been different definitions adopted by SCOTUS.  By all means cite one.
> 
> By saying I have based my whole case for income tax on it pretty much defies a very extensive posting history.  We haven't even got into federal jurisdiction but I have no further interest discussing it with you because you are really pissing me off with your bull$#@! of trying to make a claim without any evidence or citations.
> 
> Here is the difference if I cite the constitution (as I have in the past) I am going to back it up with something.  Something that has existed in the real world like an early American Law Dictionary (Bouvier's for instance) or Blackstone's commentaries on English Common Law or Constitutional Convention notes to make it perfectly clear what the intended phrase in question meant or what the debate in meaning was about.
> 
> I am not going to pull some of your bull$#@! simply posting an excerpt of the Constitution for people to take at face value assuming people have a clue what 1700s common law doctrines were.  Nor am I going to pull some of your bull$#@! and sit here and assert claims or make rebuttals in a debate without bringing some real world evidence to the table.
> 
> Threads I participate in on law discussions contain extensive citations and if we are talking about how things presently are they contain extensive SCOTUS citations.
> ...


A carriage tax is not an income tax.  People in the 1800s didn't think they were living under terrible oppression because of the 1795 carriage tax.  There were no personal income taxes in the US until 1913, with the exception of a couple years under the tyrannical Abe Lincoln.  Lincoln was elected in a very fluke occurrence.  If you are arguing that there were lawyers in the 1800s who wanted an income tax, then I agree with you.  There are always people out there who want more taxes.  But thanks to the US Constitution, the federal government collected very little in tax money prior to 1913.  In 1912, per the Mises Institute, the federal share of the GNP was only 1.75%.  That makes the central government under the Constitution one of the smallest in history for a functional government.  So why you would oppose the Constitution with its < 2% GNP government in favor of a smaller government of say, 0.75 %, that was not functional, I don't see your logic.  Under the AoC, the central government could not even afford to send an ambassador to France and England without major problems.

I think that any government under 2% is very small.  Even below 10% is small by historical standards.  I would say you need at least 1% of GNP to the central government to maintain basic functions.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> There were no personal income taxes in the US until 1913, with the exception of a couple years under the tyrannical Abe Lincoln.


Whatever dude...




> Why?  He could just look up the congressional records.
> 
> Revenue Act of 1862
> 
> Revenue Act of 1864
> 
> Revenue Act of 1865
> 
> Revenue Act of 1867
> ...





> great post btw... (except for the Revenue Act of 1861 which had a direct apportioned tax of 20 mil on land, internal duties, and the first income tax in section 49)

----------


## Travlyr

> Keep us posted on that, I'd be really curious to see what happens.


I will post more information sometime this weekend.  

For now see:  *Kenneth Gomez for Governor of New Mexico*

----------


## NMCB3

> Okay, Ron Paul Forum posters!  Don't let me down here!
> 
> I am in a constant political debate on a comic book message board that consists of 80% liberals, 10% Republican, and literally TWO libertarians.  I just posted this to someone:
> 
> 
> 
> to which a liberal law degree grad replied with the following:
> 
> 
> ...


He`s 100% correct. The CONstitution was put in place by advocates of a powerful central government. It was designed to expand federal power until the feds control everything...it continues to expand as we speak.

The "limited government" that protects individual rights and goes no farther is akin to a unicorn, it has never existed. it is patriot mythology. The CONstitution has never protected minority rights therefore there is nothing to "restore" or go back to...its a sham.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Whatever dude...


You are calling taxes that aren't income taxes income taxes.

*History of the Income Tax in the United States  Infoplease.com* http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A00059...#ixzz0zprA0f5w




> In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution.


And even when these taxes were technically in effect, hardly anyone paid them.  And those that paid them paid very little.  And that's assuming the taxes weren't suspended while the courts were looking at it.  You have a real knack at making a mole hill into a mountain.  At no time were these taxes on solid legal ground. Less than 2% of the GNP went to the federal government for most of the time prior to 1913.

So what size of central government do you think is ideal?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> He`s 100% correct. The CONstitution was put in place by advocates of a powerful central government. It was designed to expand federal power until the feds control everything...it continues to expand as we speak.
> 
> The "limited government" that protects individual rights and goes no farther is akin to a unicorn, it has never existed. it is patriot mythology. The CONstitution has never protected minority rights therefore there is nothing to "restore" or go back to...its a sham.


That's baloney.  The federal budget was only 1.75% of the GNP in 1912.  The federal government only grew oppressive because the STATES voted away their power in 1913.

----------


## NMCB3

> That's baloney.  The federal budget was only 1.75% of the GNP in 1912.  The federal government only grew oppressive because the STATES voted away their power in 1913.


When has the constitution protected liberty? Minority rights? Who advocated the CONstitution? who was against it? who got the BOR stuck in there? Why was it not there from the beginning? why is the document so vague? etc..etc.. Slavery was not oppressive? Suppression of the Whiskey rebellion was not oppressive? The alien and sedition acts were not oppressive? President Lincolns presidency was not oppressive?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> You are calling taxes that aren't income taxes income taxes.


Again you jest.  I quoted a post by Danke listing every Revenue Act except 1861.  I find your link inadequate.  I would prefer to read it from the horses mouth, the actual Acts of Congress.

Lets see what The Revenue Act of 1861 Section 49 says:


I look forward to your next un-enlightened comment about a tax on the annual income of every resident in the United States.




> And even when these taxes were technically in effect, hardly anyone paid them.


I will defer your comment based on absolutely nothing to a 1957 SCOTUS ruling:




> As long ago as 1926, it was the Government's position that the predecessor of § 145(b) effectively repealed § 3616(a)'s applicability to income tax evasion. See brief for the United States pp. 16-19, in United States v. Noveck, 273 U. S. 202. To be sure, during the last five years, the Government prosecuted a small number of minor offenses, we are told less than seven per cent of the criminal income tax evasion cases involving the filing of false returns, as misdemeanors under § 3616(a). More recently, a series of cases brought the relation of § 145(b) to § 3616(a) into focus, and called for an interpretative analysis of the history of these sections in order to ascertain their respective functions. And so now, for the first time, has the Government made a detailed survey of the problem of alleged overlapping between § 3616(a) and § 145(b).
> 
> *Section 3616(a) goes back to the Act of 1798, 1 Stat. 580, 586, when excise taxes and customs duties were the main sources of federal revenue. Being general in scope, this section, as successively reenacted, was applicable to the first federal taxes on income from 1861 to 1871, and again in 1894; there were no separate provisions for punishing income tax evasions. See, e.g., the Act of 1861, 12 Stat. 292, 309; the Act of 1894, 28 Stat. 509, 553.*
> 
> A different story begins with the income tax legislation that followed the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment. Section II of the Revenue Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 114, 166, contained its own criminal sanctions. Section II(F) proscribed the making of a false return with intent to evade the income tax, an act that would otherwise have been punishable under what was then § 3179 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, the immediate predecessor of § 3616(a). The offense would have been a misdemeanor under either statute. But § II(F) provided a maximum fine of $2,000, while § 3179 only permitted a fine of up to $1,000. It seems clear that § II(F) displaced § 3179. Such implied repeal, pro tanto, is further demonstrated by the fact that §§ 3167, 3172, 3173 and 3176 of the Revised Statutes, related provisions in the enforcement of the revenue laws, were specifically incorporated, as modified, into § II, but § 3179 was not. Nor was it incorporated by reference; § II(L) made applicable only those administrative and general tax provisions "not inconsistent with the provisions of this section," and § 3179 was obviously inconsistent with § II(F).
> 
> The Revenue Act of 1916, 39 Stat. 756, 775, and the Act of 1917, 40 Stat. 300, 325, offer further evidence that Congress withdrew the income tax from the reach of the general provisions of § 3179. Both of those Acts imposed income taxes, proscribed the making of false returns as a misdemeanor, and punished that offense more severely 
> 
> http://supreme.justia.com/us/353/373/case.html


Gee no penalty for tax evasion which is like what.... most of criminal tax cases?  Go figure.  I sure as hell wish someone who knew what the hell they were talking about would explain all of this $#@! to me.  Oh wait... that would include people in your age bracket.  No wonder I never heard about this $#@! and had to learn it on my own.




> So what size of central government do you think is ideal?


Whatever size it takes to eliminate monopoly and coercion.

----------


## Deborah K

The Constitution was designed to limit the scope and power of the federal government.  That it has been subverted beyond recognition is a testament to the complacency of the American people.  It was, and has been our job to select, pay, and instruct our representatives to do our bidding.  We have failed miserably for various reasons.

To those of you who hate the Constitution and the Founders, I have one question: What other country has provided more freedom and prosperity than America - and why aren't you living there?

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

Why the $#@! would anyone blindly support the Constitution? It's clearly flawed. 

One simple example, Supreme Court justices stay in for life then retire whenever they want, allowing them to time their resignations to mesh with their own political preferences as to their successors.

Anyone here that's comfortable with even that is ANTI-liberty and there are many more where that came from. Stop looking at the founders as gods, they were unelected, wealthy land owning, *slave owning, white men who wanted to be free*!!!

----------


## Deborah K

> Why the $#@! would anyone blindly support the Constitution? It's clearly flawed. 
> 
> One simple example, Supreme Court justices stay in for life then retire whenever they want, allowing them to time their resignations to mesh with their own political preferences as to their successors.
> 
> Anyone here that's comfortable with even that is ANTI-liberty and there are many more where that came from. Stop looking at the founders as gods, they were unelected, wealthy land owning, *slave owning, white men who wanted to be free*!!!


The Supreme Court isn't the final say.  There is a balance of power.  Look at Article III sec. 2

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

The Constitution is like handing a lighter to an arsonist and telling him not to light anything on fire. When you give the power to tax you open the flood gates that will eventually give way to a totalitarian state. It is absurd to hope the arsonist doesn't use the lighter for its intended purpose..

----------


## Deborah K

> The Constitution is like handing a lighter to an arsonist and telling him not to light anything on fire. When you give the power to tax you open the flood gates that will eventually give way to a totalitarian state. It is absurd to hope the arsonist doesn't use the lighter for its intended purpose..


If you elect an arsonist, then you had it coming.

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

> The Constitution was designed to limit the scope and power of the federal government.  That it has been subverted beyond recognition is a testament to the complacency of the American people.  It was, and has been our job to select, pay, and instruct our representatives to do our bidding.  We have failed miserably for various reasons.
> 
> *To those of you who hate the Constitution and the Founders, I have one question: What other country has provided more freedom and prosperity than America - and why aren't you living there?*


For arguments sake, lets pretend no other country is as free as the US (HAHAHAHAAH), why not strive for better? What kind of constitution just forgot about slavery and women suffrage? 

Big deal, we are the hottest Denny's waitress, can't we strive for something better? Please look at some of the arguments regarding why the constitution is flawed and maybe we can fix them.

----------


## Deborah K

Why do people who hate the Constitution become members of this forum?  Have you read the mission statement????

----------


## dude58677

> Again you jest.  I quoted a post by Danke listing every Revenue Act except 1861.  I find your link inadequate.  I would prefer to read it from the horses mouth, the actual Acts of Congress.
> 
> Lets see what The Revenue Act of 1861 Section 49 says:
> 
> 
> I look forward to your next un-enlightened comment about a tax on the annual income of every resident in the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I take it back, calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist is laughable. It is one thing to say the government fixes court cases that go against what the founders intended but you cite Hamiliton and omit everyone else inclusing the anti-federalists and you are here trying to get the last word in as all Statists who debate online do. 

You also said NOTHING about how the taxes are a moot point given that we have these new liberty candidates coming in. 

It would also be another thing if you were trying to give a reason why the Articles of Confederation were better and you cited the anti-federalist papers as a result, but you are not even doing that. 

Do NOT compare yourself to Per Bylund and DO NOT compare youself to Ron Paul. You are a socialist and to say otherwise is an insult to everyone's intelligence. Maybe some people are fooled by you or you have a few socialist buddies in here with you by you are not fooling me and you are not fooling Galileo Galilei.

----------


## Travlyr

> Why the $#@! would anyone blindly support the Constitution? It's clearly flawed. 
> 
> One simple example, Supreme Court justices stay in for life then retire whenever they want, allowing them to time their resignations to mesh with their own political preferences as to their successors.
> 
> Anyone here that's comfortable with even that is ANTI-liberty and there are many more where that came from. Stop looking at the founders as gods, they were unelected, wealthy land owning, *slave owning, white men who wanted to be free*!!!


Just curious... have you ever studied the Constitution?

----------


## Deborah K

> For arguments sake, lets pretend no other country is as free as the US (HAHAHAHAAH), why not strive for better? What kind of constitution just forgot about slavery and women suffrage? 
> 
> Big deal, we are the hottest Denny's waitress, can't we strive for something better? Please look at some of the arguments regarding why the constitution is flawed and maybe we can fix them.


"We the People, in order to create a more perfect union......"   Sounds to me like they were striving to better the lives of posterity in that opening statement of the Constitution.  They knew that slavery was an abomination but not everything could be solved in one fell swoop.  Ron Paul understands this as well, which is why he would never abolish social security, medicare, the FED et.al. in one day.

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

> Just curious... have you ever studied the Constitution?


Yes

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> If you elect an arsonist, then you had it coming.


Why is it you say I have no knowledge of human nature. You think there is such thing as altruists who will magically get elected by the ever intelligent majority of the masses to secure your freedom and liberty? That is about as utopian, and contrary to everything we know as is the "Socialist Man". _Besides, that is a non-sequitor._  The issue at hand is when you hand over the power to tax, you become a slave. A totalitarian state will always arise once this power over you is given. To think you are going to "limit" the destruction or tyranny, because you write it down and hand over any sort of mechanism to fight back (If you resist the Feds, they will kill you), is absurd. Hence, the perfect analogy of the arsonist. If you hand him the lighter you are giving him the object of destruction. Same with the Constitution. 

It's why there has never been a "limited" Government that ever stay limited. Why do you try to harken back to failed systems? How about you learn from their mistakes and shun the State? Embrace voluntary governance, and reject compulsory taxation, courts, law, etc. Makes no sense to me, but I guess you like giving to your children the ultimate benefit of a tyranny.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Why do people who hate the Constitution become members of this forum?  Have you read the mission statement????


You sound like LE. A broken record who spouts idiotic statements. I come here for liberty, not to worship a sacrosanct piece of script. What is more important to you. Liberty, or a piece of paper?

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

> "We the People, in order to create a more perfect union......"   Sounds to me like they were striving to better the lives of posterity in that opening statement of the Constitution.  *They knew that slavery was an abomination but not everything could be solved in one fell swoop.*  Ron Paul understands this as well, which is why he would never abolish social security, medicare, the FED et.al. in one day.


HAHAHAHAH! Yet they owned slaves, how convenient.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I take it back, calling yourself an anarcho-capitalist is laughable. It is one thing to say the government fixes court cases that go against what the founders intended but you cite Hamiliton and omit everyone else inclusing the anti-federalists and you are here trying to get the last word in as all Statists who debate online do.


I see.  Please enlighten the forum on the history of income taxation and it's application in the United States.




> You also said NOTHING about how the taxes are a moot point given that we have these new liberty candidates coming in.


Just because you think a couple potential seats in Congress will create some epiphany in Congress that hasn't happened in anyone's lifetime and I don't... well I will believe it when I see it.




> Do NOT compare yourself to Per Bylund and DO NOT compare youself to Ron Paul. You are a socialist and to say otherwise is an insult to everyone's intelligence. Maybe some people are fooled by you or you have a few socialist buddies in here with you by you are not fooling me and you are not fooling Galileo Galilei.


How about get off my ass until you can put up an intelligent argument based on something tangible that has occurred in United States history.

----------


## dude58677

> I see.  Please enlighten the forum on the history of income taxation and it's application in the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you think a couple potential seats in Congress will create some epiphany in Congress that hasn't happened in anyone's lifetime and I don't... well I will believe it when I see it.
> 
> 
> 
> How about get off my ass until you can put up an intelligent argument based on something tangible that has occurred in United States history.

----------


## Deborah K

> You sound like LE. A broken record who spouts idiotic statements. I come here for liberty, not to worship a sacrosanct piece of script. What is more important to you. Liberty, or a piece of paper?


Your ad hominem attacks reveal your inability to articulate your point.  If you come here for Liberty, how does this forum fulfill that, given that you vehemently disagree with its mission and think that people who do agree with it are idiots?

----------


## Deborah K

> HAHAHAHAH! Yet they owned slaves, how convenient.


Yeah, they ALL owned slaves!  Have you cracked open a history book lately?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Is Dude58677 actually Galileo's alter-ego? Is he going to become the second biggest troll on RPF? We shall see. Live Free or Die a socialist? Don't make me laugh

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> 


I didn't think you had anything intelligent to contribute.

----------


## Travlyr

> HAHAHAHAH! Yet they owned slaves, how convenient.


While it wasn't right... slavery was the institutionalized norm for the times all over the world.  There are many black people and women who helped establish our republic.  It doesn't sound like you have studied much history.

----------


## NMCB3

> Why is it you say I have no knowledge of human nature. You think there is such thing as altruists who will magically get elected by the ever intelligent majority of the masses to secure your freedom and liberty? That is about as utopian, and contrary to everything we know as is the "Socialist Man". _Besides, that is a non-sequitor._  The issue at hand is when you hand over the power to tax, you become a slave. A totalitarian state will always arise once this power over you is given. To think you are going to "limit" the destruction or tyranny, because you write it down and hand over any sort of mechanism to fight back (If you resist the Feds, they will kill you), is absurd. Hence, the perfect analogy of the arsonist. If you hand him the lighter you are giving him the object of destruction. Same with the Constitution. 
> 
> It's why there has never been a "limited" Government that ever stay limited. Why do you try to harken back to failed systems? How about you learn from their mistakes and shun the State? Embrace voluntary governance, and reject compulsory taxation, courts, law, etc. Makes no sense to me, but I guess you like giving to your children the ultimate benefit of a tyranny.


I have to agree with you. At one time I believed in the Constitution but after much self education on the matter I now reject it and the tyrannical state it has spawned. A failed system indeed.

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

> *While it wasn't right*... slavery was the institutionalized norm for the times all over the world.  There are many black people and women who helped establish our republic.  It doesn't sound like you have studied much history.


That just makes my point. If they were wrong on slavery, how much other $#@! did they $#@! up?

Come on people, they were aristocrats from their time looking out to preserve their wealth. Sure they wanted freedom, but only for themselves.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Your ad hominem attacks reveal your inability to articulate your point.  If you come here for Liberty, how does this forum fulfill that, given that you vehemently disagree with its mission and think that people who do agree with it are idiots?


I can't have a rational conversation with you because you spin everything I say like Bill O'Reilly, or Rudy Ghouliani. First off, if you could find where I attacked your character, and not your statements, then please quote that, because I can't find it. Why won't you ever argue my points? You can't have an intelligent conversation when the person you are conversing with never gives a rebuttal. 

This forum fulfills it because there are other people than you Deborah who don't show a sort of blind worship to a document that was ultimately a failure (as is any which gives power to tax). You never rebut any arguments that go against your worldview, you instead block them out. Why are you so intellectually dishonest with yourself? 

I like to think I am at least somewhat less dogmatic and open to reasoned objections to my worldview. I don't just mindlessly read only David Gordon, or Mises. I take the time out to read the other side, and other libertarian viewpoints like Roderick Long, Wendy McElroy, Robert LeFevre, Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Anthony de Jasay, etc. 

I still don't understand how you think the majority of people will vote to keep _your_ liberty. Where is this enlightened man?

----------


## dude58677

> Your ad hominem attacks reveal your inability to articulate your point.  If you come here for Liberty, how does this forum fulfill that, given that you vehemently disagree with its mission and think that people who do agree with it are idiots?


Right on.

----------


## Deborah K

> Why is it you say I have no knowledge of human nature. You think there is such thing as altruists who will magically get elected by the ever intelligent majority of the masses to secure your freedom and liberty? That is about as utopian, and contrary to everything we know as is the "Socialist Man". _Besides, that is a non-sequitor._  The issue at hand is when you hand over the power to tax, you become a slave. A totalitarian state will always arise once this power over you is given. To think you are going to "limit" the destruction or tyranny, because you write it down and hand over any sort of mechanism to fight back (If you resist the Feds, they will kill you), is absurd. Hence, the perfect analogy of the arsonist. If you hand him the lighter you are giving him the object of destruction. Same with the Constitution. 
> 
> It's why there has never been a "limited" Government that ever stay limited. Why do you try to harken back to failed systems? How about you learn from their mistakes and shun the State? Embrace voluntary governance, and reject compulsory taxation, courts, law, etc. Makes no sense to me, but I guess you like giving to your children the ultimate benefit of a tyranny.


It is pointless to debate with the likes of people who have no respect for the opinions of others.  You, and others like you, think you are the ultimate authority on freedom, and in your zeal to convince yourselves that you have won the argument, you use tactics which include brow beating, insults and condescension.   If your goal is to convert people to anarchy using such tactics, then I don't see how you are any different than the power structure you are so inclined to condemn.

----------


## dude58677

> I didn't think you had anything intelligent to contribute.


It was intellegient. Your arguments are so stupid they aren't even worth wasting time on. I'm here to tell you off, not play one of your games which is to drag me into a endless frivolous debate.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> I have to agree with you. At one time I believed in the Constitution but after much self education on the matter I now reject it and the tyrannical state it has spawned. A failed system indeed.


Congratulations. Someone with an open mind. On the nature of the State, I find Rothbard and Jasay are the two best. If you have the time I recommend reading _The State_ by Anthony de Jasay, and _The Anatomy of the State_ by Rothbard. (There is also _Our Enemy the State_ by Nock, and _The Law_ by Bastiat)

The fact of the matter is, that it is utter suicide to _legally_ give someone the power to steal your labor (tax), and expect to "limit" it. When it (State) can call armies at his beckon, and raise gendarmes to plunder and kill you, what pray tell is your chance of liberty?

----------


## Travlyr

> That just makes my point. If they were wrong on slavery, how much other $#@! did they $#@! up?
> 
> Come on people, they were aristocrats from their time looking out to preserve their wealth. Sure they wanted freedom, but only for themselves.


It wasn't all peaches and cream for the "aristocrats" at the time.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=198876

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> It is pointless to debate with the likes of people who have no respect for the opinions of others.  You, and others like you, think you are the ultimate authority on freedom, and in your zeal to convince yourselves that you have won the argument, you use tactics which include brow beating, insults and condescension.   If your goal is to convert people to anarchy using such tactics, then I don't see how you are any different than the power structure you are so inclined to condemn.


Where have I ever brow-beat anyone? If you are going to allege things about me at least back it up with evidence. Just because you say so, doesn't make it true. Again, this is the same tired tactics of Hannity, O'Reilly, Romney, etc. 

I have respect for others opinions, but I will not show deference to them, and I will try and correct them when the opportunity arises. You don't even give the common courtesy of rebutting or responding to anything I say. You try and change the subject as often as the wind blows. You never respond to my questions and concerns raised. You never try and defend your position. 

My goal is try to get people to think without showing some magical divine deference to tradition and "olden times". Given their circumstances, they did pretty well in crafting the Articles of Confederation. A document which a so-called limited Government activist should embrace (Not the centralization of the Constitution...). I could at least respect the Night Watchmen consistency if you defended that document, but to defend the Constitution is pretty loose. 

So I ask again, are you going to actually try and refute anything I say, or are you going to try and slyly demean my character and change the subject to wherever it may go -- anywhere other than where my prose targets?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> It was intellegient. Your arguments are so stupid they aren't even worth wasting time on. I'm here to tell you off, not play one of your games which is to drag me into a endless frivolous debate.


You can tell me off all day long.  Maybe you missed one of these recent posts in the thread.




> He posts pretty harshly, confrontationally, and maybe overconfidently on issues of legal terminology, but he's posted here in good faith for a long time.





> We had an income tax before the 16th A.  The 16th A, as LFOD stated, did not create a new tax.
> 
> The income tax is and always has been an _indirect tax_.





> Is Dude58677 actually Galileo's alter-ego? Is he going to become the second biggest troll on RPF? We shall see. Live Free or Die a socialist? Don't make me laugh


This thread has 2,134 views and odds are very strong in my favor I educated someone.  It probably wasn't because of my charming personality, it likely is because I showed up to the conversation with historical facts and articulated them.

----------


## dude58677

> Congratulations. Someone with an open mind. On the nature of the State, I find Rothbard and Jasay are the two best. If you have the time I recommend reading _The State_ by Anthony de Jasay, and _The Anatomy of the State_ by Rothbard. (There is also _Our Enemy the State_ by Nock, and _The Law_ by Bastiat)
> 
> The fact of the matter is, that it is utter suicide to _legally_ give someone the power to steal your labor (tax), and expect to "limit" it. When it (State) can call armies at his beckon, and raise gendarmes to plunder and kill you, what pray tell is your chance of liberty?


You might think you are helping the cause of freedom but actually you are doing the opposite because you are making arguments for the Statists on how to continue destroying the document.

If we convince the public that the Constitution meant well then more people will be willing to get into office and cut government. After that then we can talk about getting rid of the State.

----------


## NMCB3

> Congratulations. Someone with an open mind. On the nature of the State, I find Roth bard and Cassy are the two best. If you have the time I recommend reading _The State_ by Anthony DE Cassy, and _The Anatomy of the State_ by Rothbard. (There is also _Our Enemy the State_ by Nock, and _The Law_ by Bastiat)
> 
> The fact of the matter is, that it is utter suicide to _legally_ give someone the power to steal your labor (tax), and expect to "limit" it. When it (State) can call armies at his beckon, and raise gendarmes to plunder and kill you, what pray tell is your chance of liberty?


I`ve read "our enemy the state" Rothbards "the ethics of liberty" for a new liberty" Herbert Spencers "The Man Versus The State" Spooner, Mises Hazlett, Hayek, and dozens more. That is all part of my continuing education. I cant ignore the truth or sound logical reasoning, and the truth is if you believe that using force or violence against innocent people is wrong, then the state must be abolished because it is a one trick pony, violence is the only card it holds.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> You might think you are helping the cause of freedom but actually you are doing the opposite because you are making arguments for the Statists on how to continue destroying the document.
> 
> If we convince the public that the Constitution meant well then more people will be willing to get into office and cut government. After that then we can talk about getting rid of the State.


Your argument is similar to the Marxist sentiment that once they get people in power, then they will cut the State. People usually don't relinquish the chains of power. It takes a special man who values liberty, self-determination, and ultimately a quiet lifestyle over the indulgence of power. Those men are few and far between. The Jeffersonians were once dominant. Even under there watch they did not cut the State, so I would imagine the same would be had under your Government. Hear me now -- I am no ones slave. Not yours. Not anyones. No one has any legitimate authority to plunder my labor. 

Honestly, if you think my arguments of no compulsory government (E.g. State), give any oomph to Statists, you have never talked to any Statist. _The Statists defend the Constitution_. When you talk to them they use the Supremacy clause, General Welfare, Interstate Commerce, Power to Tax & Raise Armies, Post Roads, Executive powers, etc. You are defending a centralized authoritarian document....

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I would have to say that your opponent may be correct.  The Constitution is a tremendously flawed document when looked at in the context of sound governance pursuant to the ideals of personal liberty.  To suggest that the brilliant minds of the likes of Madison and Hamilton were not aware of the problems inherent in the very structure of many of the sentences therein is to stretch credulity beyond the breaking point.  By no means could I call myself a Constitutional scholar, but I am aware that there was quite a lot of drama attached to the architecture of the new government and while I admire the likes of Jefferson, there are several other characters whose trustworthiness finds non-trivial question in my eyes.  I believe it behooves us to view these men as human beings and not as demigods as many are so apt to do.  Who is to say that there may not have been a traitor or two among even the greatest of those men - those who would craft clever loopholes in the interests of an agenda no in consonance with that of liberty, fairplay, and equal opportunity for all?  Had he not been caught, would not Benedict Arnold likely be viewed through similarly rose-colored lenses today?  We really must be smarter than this.
> 
> That aside, there are the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist documents, as well as voluminous other written works that exposed the framers intentions.
> 
> More to the point, who cares?  Seriously, what does it matter?  Why must we look to the framers for validation?  I have seen some middling to better brilliance right here in this forum.  What immutable law of nature denies us our voice and reason?  I see none.  It is readily demonstrable that freedom is the proper and natural state of human existence and that any initiation of force against the rightful actions of the individual cannot be justified under any circumstance whatsoever.  It is readily demonstrable that even in America we are slaves to a mob of immoral usurpers that have no rightful claim to the authorities they presume to wield over the rest of us.  The very concept of "government" is one of the most dangerous notions mankind has ever managed to vomit forth from the bowels of its most profoundly wretched members.  Governance, OTOH, when set forth and administered in its properly minimal extent and in honest fashion, is a very different proposition.
> 
> The longer this charade proceeds, the more clearly I see that those wishing to be free must assert that state of existence for themselves with the unequivocal willingness to apply the held instrumentality of force in the degree and manner required to secure and maintain that state.  The ONLY thing the usurpers understand is force.





> Live_Free_Or_Die not trolling.  He posts pretty harshly, confrontationally, and maybe overconfidently on issues of legal terminology, but he's posted here in good faith for a long time.  Importantly, he's not exactly defending the income tax, so to speak.  He's defending its legality on technical grounds, but he still recognizes it as extortion/theft.
> 
> Galileo, on the other hand is a bit dogmatic, and he tends to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of being a troll.  He's called me a troll, he's called Amy a troll in this very thread, he's calling Live_Free_Or_Die a troll, and I honestly couldn't count how many honest regulars he has called a troll, simply for disagreeing with him.  I'd take his opinion on who is and isn't a troll with a grain of salt. 
> 
> I don't know who's actually correct on the question of the income tax's Constitutionality.  I mean, it's pretty obvious that an income tax signed into law in 1861 and 1862 by Abraham Lincoln of all people is not itself strong evidence of Constitutionality, since a.) unconstitutional laws are passed all the time, and b.) this was the same guy who destroyed federalism...and I guess this is partially how he funded it.   Similarly, Supreme Court decisions by themselves should be taken with a grain of salt, since the SC regularly rules in a manner totally contradictory to the text of the Constitution.





> So everyone who has a problem with the Constitution is a socialist?  Well excuse me all to Hell.  Somebody send a memo out to Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Doug Casey, Boston T. Party and others informing them that they have been stripped of their "Party status" until further notice, and that they must report to Minitrue at 0600 hours for formal re-education.


Even when the $#@! piles up in a thread so quick and so deep that you need wings to stay above it, there are always nuggets of gold to be found.

Well done gentlemen.

----------


## dude58677

> Your argument is similar to the Marxist sentiment that once they get people in power, then they will cut the State. People usually don't relinquish the chains of power. It takes a special man who values liberty, self-determination, and ultimately a quiet lifestyle over the indulgence of power. Those men are few and far between. The Jeffersonians were once dominant. Even under there watch they did not cut the State, so I would imagine the same would be had under your Government. Hear me now -- I am no ones slave. Not yours. Not anyones. No one has any legitimate authority to plunder my labor. 
> 
> Honestly, if you think my arguments of no compulsory government (E.g. State), give any oomph to Statists, you have never talked to any Statist. _The Statists defend the Constitution_. When you talk to them they use the Supremacy clause, General Welfare, Interstate Commerce, Power to Tax & Raise Armies, Post Roads, Executive powers, etc. You are defending a centralized authoritarian document....


That makes sense, so what ways can we protect ourselves from the State? I know a society can function without a government such as a full free market. But as we speak there are still governments(mafia's) imposing their way on us. Ignoring a mafia isn't going to make it go away. Trying to imagine a world without it, won't make it go away. What can we do in the meantime? We're obviously not going to rely on the Bill of Rights.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> That makes sense, so what ways can we protect ourselves from the State? I know a society can function without a government such as a full free market. But as we speak there are still governments(mafia's) imposing their way on us. Ignoring a mafia isn't going to make it go away. Trying to imagine a world without it, won't make it go away. What can we do in the meantime? We're obviously not going to rely on the Bill of Rights.


Simply don't follow their edicts. Civil Disobedience, Agorism, entreprenuership (developing the institutions now to replace the State), etc. The State gets its power from consent. Even if a small minority were to refuse consent it would come down pretty fast. Look at the success in New Hampshire. If you contested, and refused consent to every action by the State it would topple pretty fast. They even have to shut court down now in NH and refuse to try cases because the system is so backed up. That's one small way. Ultimately though, we have to change the "schelling point" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schelling_point), of society. It's going to be a long road, and our greatest successes will happen when the old generation dies off, and is replaced with the younger and newer generation who understands, and values freedom and liberty. 

Sunshine patriots need not apply. 

PS: Here is a great piece written by one of the all-time great thinkers -- La Boetie (http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html)

PPS: Geographical prominence. Those of us who love and value liberty must get together. Being spread out and severely placed in the minority is detrimental. It is for this reason I am moving to NH next year. We need all the voluntaryists, and liberty lovers, activists, etc. we can get. The more the merrier!

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> That makes sense, so what ways can we protect ourselves from the State? I know a society can function without a government such as a full free market. But as we speak there are still governments(mafia's) imposing their way on us. Ignoring a mafia isn't going to make it go away. Trying to imagine a world without it, won't make it go away. What can we do in the meantime? We're obviously not going to rely on the Bill of Rights.


Your Pick:

1.  Create a majority of force

2.  Breed a majority of force

3.  Convince a majority of force

4.  Kill a majority of force

5.  Comply with a majority of force

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## low preference guy

> Just for the record, if anyone tries to get rid of the US Constitution, I consider that an act of war. All enemies, foreign and domestic. My knives are sharpened and my powder is dry. 
> 
> That is all.


now it would be a foolish idea, but when it replaced the articles of confederation, it was a mistake. many founders warned us it would lead to a big central government, and they were right.

----------


## Arion45

> Expanded:  The Constitution established a republic with three separate branches of governance.
> Limits:  The "_Bill of Rights_" states that the government cannot infringe on certain inherent rights.
> 
> The U.S. Constitution was not intended to allow unlimited power to government.  The people have responsibility in government, but they have ignored their responsibility for generations and continue to ignore their responsibility.  Until the people take their responsibility seriously, then government will continue to trample on the rights of the people.


This the most dangerous and highly fallacious excuse for the lack of liberty. As if the people have some kind of power over the government. With only one vote every two to four years. With all the thousands upon thousands of laws enacted each year and the American people get one choice every 2 and 4 years. In addition the unelected bureaucrats that enact policy that is just as forceful as law. The lobyists that the politicians listen to because of the money that they give. 

How can someone post on Liberty Forest and yet still live within the Matrix?

----------


## Arion45

> The original Constitution did prohibit income taxes.  The Constitution did a great job keeping the central government small, yet provided for free trade and order so wealth could be accumulated without a need to build giant castles with knights protecting the landowners.
> 
> It was the state governments that blew it.  First the southern states kept slavery and then Jim Crow laws, which provided the impetus for centralizers.  From the 1840s until the 1960s, the chief argument used by centralizers has been racial bias.
> 
> Second, the States abandoned the principles of James Madison when they amended the Constitution twice in 1913.  People here continually blame the federal government for these amendments, but it is the states that did them.


The original constitution left open the potential for the income tax. It left open the the potential for unlimited government. 

Lincoln, not the states turn this country into a nation from individual sovereign states. Don't get me wrong all government sucks. But you compare apples and oranges.

----------


## Arion45

> The Constitution hasn't failed, the people fail in their duty to the Constitution.  
> 
> You are correct that the Oath is a contract.  And a contract requires consideration in order to be valid.  Elected officials are required to purchase a penal bond (consideration) in order to validate their contract "The Oath of Office.  The fact that no elected official has purchased the penal bond since the 1960's means that all public offices are currently vacant.  It also means that the elected officials who are pretending to hold office are likely felons through embezzlement.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=249886


You speak of collectives. "The People" failed. This such a farce. Please tell how to change the government without making it my primary occupation. We all know that the politicians have a full time job and that is to steal the money of the people of the United States. In addition to this they grow and cement their power.

----------


## Arion45

> That's another lame anti-Constitutional argument used by liberals; the Constitution isn't perfect, so let's just ignore it or pretend it is too complicated to understand.
> *
> "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."*


Or we can pretend it limits government while the government continues to grow and destroy the American way of life. Lets hold up this holy piece of paper and imagine it as it used to be while the America dream crumbles and becomes a memory. Or people can wake up and figure out that pieces of paper have no hold on a government. Which is just an imaginary figment of the imagination that is made up of individual authoritarian psychopaths all vying for American  money and power. 

Wake up...

----------


## Arion45

> Wow!!!!!! You are now against Ron Paul? Just as Galileo Galilei and I have figured. You are a TROLL!


Ron Paul is not some god to hold up as infallible. People can disagree with him and not be a Troll.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> The Constitution is like handing a lighter to an arsonist and telling him not to light anything on fire. When you give the power to tax you open the flood gates that will eventually give way to a totalitarian state. It is absurd to hope the arsonist doesn't use the lighter for its intended purpose..


You sound eerily similar to Barack Obama.  Does the dailykos fund your free time?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> The original constitution left open the potential for the income tax. It left open the the potential for unlimited government. 
> 
> Lincoln, not the states turn this country into a nation from individual sovereign states. Don't get me wrong all government sucks. But you compare apples and oranges.


The Articles of Confederation left open the likelihood of income tax and unlimited government.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> now it would be a foolish idea, but when it replaced the articles of confederation, it was a mistake. many founders warned us it would lead to a big central government, and they were right.


We were on the verge of civil war under the AoC.  We had the Newburgh conspiracy in March of 1783 where the military officers (who hadn't been paid) voted to march from New York (still occupied by 10,000 British soldiers) to Philadelphia and arrest the congress for not paying them.  On top of this, most soldiers from the Revolution had not been paid either.  This was averted simply because George Washington, in a unique act in history stopped them.  However, Washington's speech didn't solve the problems that LOTS of people were owed money by the AoC government and the government had NO WAY to pay it back.  On top of this, we already had low level civil wars going on between New York and Connecticut, between Vermont and Connecticut, Between Kentucky and Virginia, between Tennessee and North Carolina, between Maine and Massachusetts, between eastern and western Pennsylvania, civil war in South Carolina, etc.  We had Indian wars between Georgia and Florida and many other places.  There were all kinds of disputes over the ownership of western lands that crossed between private and state claims.  There was NO WAY to settle all this under the AoC.  That's why ALL the Founders Fathers wanted changes with more powers to the central government.  We are still talking about a very weak central government that accounted for between 1% and 2% of the GNP.  That's all that was needed to maintain peace and order and run basic functions like foreign policy.

Most revolutions end up in military dictatorship because at the end of the revolution the government always owes money to the army.  The people here arguing for the AoC are ignorant of history.

----------


## BuddyRey

> You sound eerily similar to Barack Obama.  Does the dailykos fund your free time?


There is _no...no...NO_ relation between the big government progressivism advocated by the DailyKos and the Austrian-grounded perspective of Misesian voluntaryists.  You are deliberately distorting and misrepresenting your fellow soldiers in the battle for liberty.  It's hurtful and counterproductive.  Please stop!

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Keep us posted on that, I'd be really curious to see what happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 90 percent of what's discussed here is well beyond the understanding of most citizens.


Yet, a lawyer doesn't know anything outside of lawyering.  When the Chinese do finally take over our nation, the smartest of us, these being the official lawyers with the power to back up what they know, will be totally useless to these orientals outside of being cut up  and used for swine food.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> There is _no...no...NO_ relation between the big government progressivism advocated by the DailyKos and the Austrian-grounded perspective of Misesian voluntaryists.  You are deliberately distorting and misrepresenting your fellow soldiers in the battle for liberty.  It's hurtful and counterproductive.  Please stop!


No, they have a lot in common.  They both will use any argument they can concoct to denounce the US Constitution and dump on the Founding Fathers.  Results-orientated people can see this.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Yet, a lawyer doesn't know anything outside of lawyering.  When the Chinese do finally take over our nation, the smartest of us, these being the official lawyers with the power to back up what they know, will be totally useless to these orientals outside of being cut up  and used for swine food.


Uncle, you have baffled me on a number of occasions, but this one takes the cake.

I would *love* to hear an expansion of this idea.

<<<sits back and gets comfortable.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Your argument is similar to the Marxist sentiment that once they get people in power, then they will cut the State. People usually don't relinquish the chains of power. It takes a special man who values liberty, self-determination, and ultimately a quiet lifestyle over the indulgence of power. Those men are few and far between. The Jeffersonians were once dominant. Even under there watch they did not cut the State, so I would imagine the same would be had under your Government. Hear me now -- I am no ones slave. Not yours. Not anyones. No one has any legitimate authority to plunder my labor. 
> 
> Honestly, if you think my arguments of no compulsory government (E.g. State), give any oomph to Statists, you have never talked to any Statist. _The Statists defend the Constitution_. When you talk to them they use the Supremacy clause, General Welfare, Interstate Commerce, Power to Tax & Raise Armies, Post Roads, Executive powers, etc. You are defending a centralized authoritarian document....


You don't have a clear definition of the State.  Genghis Khan had a private army.  You supposedly support everything private, right?  So when Khan's private army took over central Asia and set up a military empire, you favor that as well, correct?  He eliminated many states on the way, and privatized them.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> It's why there has never been a "limited" Government that ever stay limited.


The US had a limited government from 1787 until 1912.  During that period of time, averaged over 125 years, the central government accounted for less than 2% of the GNP.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> That just makes my point. If they were wrong on slavery, how much other $#@! did they $#@! up?
> 
> Come on people, they were aristocrats from their time looking out to preserve their wealth. Sure they wanted freedom, but only for themselves.


All of the major Founding Fathers opposed slavery.  The problem was that the voters almost all supported slavery and were racists by today's standards.  This is the same situation we have today when many political leaders oppose the Drug War, but know that the voters support it.

The difference between the Founders and today's leaders is that the Founders were able to take many steps to reduce slavery and set the path for its eventual elimination.  Today's leaders who oppose the Drug War do little or nothing about it, besides Ron Paul.

----------


## Arion45

> The Articles of Confederation left open the likelihood of income tax and unlimited government.


Did it give it the apparatus to do so? I think not.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> now it would be a foolish idea, but when it replaced the articles of confederation, it was a mistake. many founders warned us it would lead to a big central government, and they were right.


The anti-Federalists who said the Constitution would lead to a big central government were not out there shouting; "Oh my God, in 1913 we are going to have a big central government!"

They were worried that the Constitution would quickly evolve into a large central government like almost all other revolutions did.  But once the anti-Federalists got a chance to study the document, read the _Federalist Papers_, have the Bill-of-Rights ratified, and see the Constitution in operation for a few years, they all supported the Constitution.

If you need some more proof of this, just take a look at the 11th amendment.  The 11th amendment was a reaction to a bad Supreme Court decision, the Chisholm case.  But rather than call for a new revolution, instead, the states just passed an amendment, overturning the decision.

*Chisholm v. Georgia*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisholm_v._Georgia

*Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevent...s_Constitution

The States and the People can do the same today.  They can pass an amendment banning the Drug War, banning income taxes, banning wars of aggression, banning the welfare state, etc.  They have the power to do it, if they want to.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Did it give it the apparatus to do so? I think not.


It did.  All the congress had to do was set up an alliance with the military, declare an emergency and then do it.  Under the AoC, power was centralized into one body.  There was no Supreme Court or executive branch to stop them.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

The Federalist coo argued a confederation of independent States was incapable of voluntarily solving the problems of the day.  The Federalist coo advocated a strong central government with enough teeth to coerce States because of fear.

The Globalists argue a world of independent nations are incapable of voluntarily solving the problems of the day.  The Globalist coo advocates a strong world central government with enough teeth to coerce Nations because of fear.

You Federalists make the exact same case the Globalists do.  Coincidence?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> The Federalist coo argued a confederation of independent States was incapable of voluntarily solving the problems of the day.  The Federalist coo advocated a strong central government with enough teeth to coerce States because of fear.
> 
> The Globalists argue a world of independent nations are incapable of voluntarily solving the problems of the day.  The Globalist coo advocates a strong world central government with enough teeth to coerce Nations because of fear.
> 
> You Federalists make the exact same case the Globalists do.  Coincidence?


Explain how the AoC government was going to pay back all the money it owed to Revolutionary War Officers and patriotic soldiers?  The debts amounted to around $75 million dollars.

If they didn't pay, would the military be justified in arresting the AoC congress for violating the law?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

Still waiting for an answer.....   How was the AoC government going to pay the money it owed to military officers and soldiers?  Should the military then arrest the AoC congress in an attempt to collect the debt?  You believe in contract enforcement, right?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

The silence is deafening.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

Does everyone here know that one of the first orders of business under the new Constitution was how to pay back the war debts from the Revolution?  This issue also caused the first break between James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.  The AoC advocates certainly don't know about this.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Explain how the AoC government was going to pay back all the money it owed to Revolutionary War Officers and patriotic soldiers?  The debts amounted to around $75 million dollars.
> 
> If they didn't pay, would the military be justified in arresting the AoC congress for violating the law?


Before I assume the role of wise overlord please share the details and a break down of the Revolutionary War debt.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Before I assume the role of wise overlord please share the details and a break down of the Revolutionary War debt.


Oh, you didn't know about this before you came up with your lame theories?  Nice.  Real nice.

----------


## Danke

> Does everyone here know that one of the first orders of business under the new Constitution was how to pay back the war debts from the Revolution?


It is my understanding that it was a major impetus for the creation of the Constitution.  Yes.

Just look up the legal definition of Constitutor.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Okay, Ron Paul Forum posters!  Don't let me down here!
> 
> I am in a constant political debate on a comic book message board that consists of 80% liberals, 10% Republican, and literally TWO libertarians.  I just posted this to someone:
> 
> 
> 
> to which a liberal law degree grad replied with the following:
> 
> 
> ...


He's right.  Compare the AoC or the DoI and the Constitution, and you'll see a vast expansion of Centralized government.  (note: I didn't have time to read the whole thread)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Does everyone here know that one of the first orders of business under the new Constitution was how to pay back the war debts from the Revolution?  This issue also caused the first break between James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.  The AoC advocates certainly don't know about this.


I know about it, but the Constitution was not/is not the best solution.  P.S.  The Revolutionary War was unnecessary in the first place (secession would have prevented the war), so your point is self-serving and misleading to begin with.  I call shinanigans on thee!

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Oh, you didn't know about this before you came up with your lame theories?  Nice.  Real nice.


Man do I love it when you make it personal, especially when the topic is American War.  What were your ancestors doing during the revolutionary war?  Were they even in America at the time?  We're they fighting for the British?  Or were your ancestors in the sorry ass ruling class throwing the patriots in debtor prisons after the war?  What were they doing?  

The actual figure including foreign and domestic debts is going to be closer to $100 million.  It has already been pointed out the Constitution is nothing more than a surety document.  That is the whole purpose of it.  As frequently as I post about the Uniform Commercial Code you don't think I know what a financial instrument looks like?  I guess you missed my no government should ever serve two masters comment earlier in the thread?

I am not doing your homework for you.  Post a debt breakdown and then we can talk about the debts owed to soldiers which is going to be a much smaller chunk of the debt compared to other state or continental creditors.

Then if you want to talk about Federalist champions such as Mr. Gerrymandering's speech on why club fed should assume the debt of the states we can certainly talk about that too.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I know about it, but the Constitution was not/is not the best solution.  P.S.  The Revolutionary War was unnecessary in the first place (secession would have prevented the war), so your point is self-serving and misleading to begin with.  I call shinanigans on thee!


That's what the Revolution was, a secession.  The British then invaded us.  So we had to raise an army on borrowed money to fight them off.  You still dodged the question as how to pay the US military officers and soldiers.  In fact, all the AoC defenders have dodged it.  Because you are ignorant of hisory and think you are smarter & more patriotic than our Founders.  You're not.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> He's right.  Compare the AoC or the DoI and the Constitution, and you'll see a vast expansion of Centralized government.  (note: I didn't have time to read the whole thread)


So you favor a military dictatorship instead?  Our Founders OPPOSED a military dictatorship.  And a central government that uses up about 1.5% of the GNP is not very centralized in my opinion.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Man do I love it when you make it personal, especially when the topic is American War.  What were your ancestors doing during the revolutionary war?  Were they even in America at the time?  We're they fighting for the British?  Or were your ancestors in the sorry ass ruling class throwing the patriots in debtor prisons after the war?  What were they doing?  
> 
> The actual figure including foreign and domestic debts is going to be closer to $100 million.  It has already been pointed out the Constitution is nothing more than a surety document.  That is the whole purpose of it.  As frequently as I post about the Uniform Commercial Code you don't think I know what a financial instrument looks like?  I guess you missed my no government should ever serve two masters comment earlier in the thread?
> 
> I am not doing your homework for you.  Post a debt breakdown and then we can talk about the debts owed to soldiers which is going to be a much smaller chunk of the debt compared to other state or continental creditors.
> 
> Then if you want to talk about Federalist champions such as Mr. Gerrymandering's speech on why club fed should assume the debt of the states we can certainly talk about that too.


Lot's of babble, but no answer on how the AoC would pay the army.  If you don't pay the army, they usually take over.  Just take a look at what happened after Mexico seceeded and gained independence.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So you favor a military dictatorship instead?  Our Founders OPPOSED a military dictatorship.  And a central government that uses up about 1.5% of the GNP is not very centralized in my opinion.


You know very well I don't favor military dictatorship.  A central government that takes up 1.5% of GNP is less centralized than the one we have now.   (It's more accurate to say that "some of" the founders opposed military dictatorship.  Washington's supporters wanted him to be king-and he would have been if he hadn't resigned) My argument was the "lesser of two evils" one.  Really, the best route is Voluntaryism.  Sorry to cause confusion.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> You know very well I don't favor military dictatorship.  A central government that takes up 1.5% of GNP is less centralized than the one we have now.   My argument was the "lesser of two evils" one.  Really, the best route is Voluntaryism.  Sorry to cause confusion.


You do favor a military dictatorship becasue you oppose paying the army.  In most historical situations, the army would have a plant in the congress.  You fit that role perfectly.  We had plants or the army sitting in congress while the Newburgh conspiracy unfolded.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Lot's of babble, but no answer on how the AoC would pay the army.  If you don't pay the army, they usually take over.  Just take a look at what happened after Mexico seceeded and gained independence.


That is because the conversation is still waiting for you to publish a breakdown of the revolutionary war debts for it to proceed.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You do favor a military dictatorship becasue you oppose paying the army.  In most historical situations, the army would have a plant in the congress.  You fit that role perfectly.  We had plants or the army sitting in congress while the Newburgh conspiracy unfolded.



Grasping at straws, I see.  Nice and desperate art thou! lolz!  If only you could be honest in regards to my opinion, that would be a nice start.  I've written extensively about my opposition to standing armies, as did the finest Anti-Federalists.   Nice of you to conveniently ignore that.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Grasping at straws, I see.  Nice and desperate art thou! lolz!  If only you could be honest in regards to my opinion, that would be a nice start.  I've written extensively about my opposition to standing armies, as did the finest Anti-Federalists.   Nice of you to conveniently ignore that.


Great, you oppose standing armies.  Shoud the army be disbanded before paying them?  Or after?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> That is because the conversation is still waiting for you to publish a breakdown of the revolutionary war debts for it to proceed.


try a google.  Our Founding Fathers already knew this stuff when they made their decisions.  You have made your decision without knowing about it.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> try a google.  Our Founding Fathers already knew this stuff when they made their decisions.  You have made your decision without knowing about it.


Let me know when you have something to present that can actually be discussed.  Do your own googling to substantiate your claims.

----------


## low preference guy

> The anti-Federalists who said the Constitution would lead to a big central government were not out there shouting; "Oh my God, in 1913 we are going to have a big central government!"


1790
1798

And worst of all, 1861. 

The fact that all these things happened within 100 years, some within 10 years, shows that the Constitutional order is really weak. If Jefferson died sooner for some reason, the First Central Bank probably would've collapsed the fledging country. So the complete centralization of power didn't happen within the lifetime of the Founders due to exceptional circumstances, such as having exceptional people like Jefferson, not because of having the Constitution. And now, not even exceptional people can stop the centralization. Google "Barry Goldwater" to see what I am talking about.

----------


## Arion45

> It did.  All the congress had to do was set up an alliance with the military, declare an emergency and then do it.  Under the AoC, power was centralized into one body.  There was no Supreme Court or executive branch to stop them.


Except for the individual sovereign states that did not want to loose their power. Did we forget about that?

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

> That's what the Revolution was, a secession.  The British then invaded us.  *So we had to raise an army on borrowed money to fight them off.*  You still dodged the question as how to pay the US military officers and soldiers.  In fact, all the AoC defenders have dodged it.  Because you are ignorant of hisory and think you are smarter & more patriotic than our Founders.  You're not.


says who? 

What about civil disobedience or political action? Obviously you favor nonviolence over using your 2nd amendment right to overthrow the government because either you feel it works better or...

you are just plain chicken.

YouTube - back to the future 2 Marty McFly - chicken?

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Except for the individual sovereign states that did not want to loose their power. Did we forget about that?


Wrong.  These states also had militia's that had not been paid.  All the continental army do is set up an alliance with a few state militia's.  That's what usually happens after revolutions, civil wars, and secessions.

The fact is; when you secede from a military empire, the military empire will resist.  So the people resisting will need money they don't have to pay their army and militias.  If the people seceding and revolting are able to win the battles and wars, then the provisional governments will owe large debts to the military.  If they don't pay, the military just arrests the government or declare an emergency.  This has happened thousands of times in world history.  One of the few places it did not happen was in the United States.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> says who? 
> 
> What about civil disobedience or political action? Obviously you favor nonviolence over using your 2nd amendment right to overthrow the government because either you feel it works better or...
> 
> you are just plain chicken.
> 
> YouTube - back to the future 2 Marty McFly - chicken?


Civil obedience to make the British army and navy to leave the port of Boston?  Or to leave Manhattan?  Or to stop the siege of Charleston?  You deny the right of self-defense.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> 1790
> 1798
> 
> And worst of all, 1861. 
> 
> The fact that all these things happened within 100 years, some within 10 years, shows that the Constitutional order is really weak. If Jefferson died sooner for some reason, the First Central Bank probably would've collapsed the fledging country. So the complete centralization of power didn't happen within the lifetime of the Founders due to exceptional circumstances, such as having exceptional people like Jefferson, not because of having the Constitution. And now, not even exceptional people can stop the centralization. Google "Barry Goldwater" to see what I am talking about.


Baloney.  If the Founding Fathers had followed your advice, the military would have just arrested the government for non-payment and set up a military dictatorship right from the beginning.  Take a look at what happened in Mexico and South America not long after to see what usually happens.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Let me know when you have something to present that can actually be discussed.  Do your own googling to substantiate your claims.


No, you do your own research.  The Founding Fathers did their research.  You simply don't know what you are talking about.  Explain to me how the AoC government was going to pay the military what was owed to them.  Read a book about the secession of Mexico from the Spanish Empire.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> No, you do your own research.  The Founding Fathers did their research.  You simply don't know what you are talking about.  Explain to me how the AoC government was going to pay the military what was owed to them.  Read a book about the secession of Mexico from the Spanish Empire.


Your claiming 75 million owed to the military.  I am not doing your research.  I don't have a problem citing or sourcing something utilizing information available online.  And if I had to scan something from a book or other source not available online I can do that to.

If you can't do your own research to present something substantiating your claim of 75 million owed to the military there is nothing to talk about.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

While I am waiting for you to get a clue and pony up something to substantiate your claim how about those private Acts of Congress....




> Chapter XXVI.An Act to allow the Baron de Glaubeck the pay of a Captain in the Army of the United States.September 29, 1789.
> 
> The pay of a captain allowed to Baron de Glaubeck.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the pay of a captain in the army of the United States be allowed to the Baron de Glaubeck, from the ninth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-one, to the twenty-fourth day of August, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two, to be paid in the same manner as other foreign officers in the service of the United States have been paid.
> 
> Approved, September 29, 1789.





> Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That John White, late a commissioner to settle the accounts between the United States and the states of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, and his clerks, John Wright, and Joshua Dawson, be considered as in office until the fourth day of February, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.
> 
> Approved, September 29, 1789.





> Chap. XVI.An Act for finally adjusting and satisfying the claims of Frederick William de Steuben.
> 
> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That, in order to make full and adequate compensation to Frederick William de Steuben, for the sacrifices and eminent services made and rendered to the United States during the late war, there be paid to the said Frederick William de Steuben, Annuity of 2,500 dols. for life, in full of claims. an annuity of two thousand five hundred dollars, during life, to commence on the first day of January last; to be paid in quarterly payments, at the treasury of the United States; which said annuity shall be considered in full discharge of all claims and demands whatever, of the said Frederick William de Steuben against the United States.
> 
> Approved, June 4, 1790.





> Chap. XX.An Act for the relief of Thomas Jenkins and Company.
> 
> Duties on certain goods lost by fire, remitted.Be it enacted, &c., That the duties, amounting to one hundred and sixty-seven dollars and fifty cents, be remitted on a parcel of hemp, duck, ticklenburg, and molasses, the property of Thomas Jenkins and Company, merchants, of the city of Hudson, in the State of New York, which were lost by fire in the brig Minerva, on her passage from New York to the city of Hudson, her port of delivery: and the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States is hereby authorized and directed to allow a credit on the bond or bonds executed by the said Thomas Jenkins and Company, for payment of the duties on the said goods.
> 
> Approved, June 14, 1790.





> Chap. XXIV.An Act for the relief of Nathaniel Twining.
> 
> Penalty remitted to N. Twining.Be it enacted, &c., That the penalty, amounting to five hundred and sixty-seven dollars and forty-one cents, incurred by Nathaniel Twining, for a failure in neglecting to transport the mail between Charleston and Savannah, from the month of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, until the first of January, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, pursuant to a contract made with the late postmaster-general, shall be, and the same is hereby remitted.
> 
> Approved, July 1, 1790.





> Chap. XXIII.An Act to satisfy the claims of John McCord against the United States.
> 
> Payment to John McCord, in full of all claims.Be it enacted, &c., That there be paid to John McCord, out of the duties arising on impost and tonnage, the sum of eight hundred nine dollars seventy-one cents, being the amount of his account against the United States, as settled and admitted by the Auditor and Comptroller of the Treasury, on a bill of exchange dated the fifth of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-six, drawn in Canada for supplies, by General William Thompson, General William Irvine and other officers, in favor of William Pagan, on Messieurs Meredith and Clymer of Philadelphia: And the farther sum of five hundred dollars, in full of all his claims and demands against the United States, as well for lands and rations granted by several resolutions of Congress to Canadian sufferers, as on any other account whatsoever.
> 
> Approved, July 1, 1790.





> Chap. XXXVII.An Act for the relief of John Stewart and John Davidson.
> 
> Remission of duty on a certain quantity of salt.Be it enacted, &c., That so much of the duties accruing on eighteen hundred bushels of salt, imported in the ship Mercury, into the port of Annapolis, in the state of Maryland, some time in the month of April last, on account of Messieurs John Stewart and John Davidson, as relates to thirteen hundred and twenty-five bushels thereof, which were casually destroyed by a flood on the night of the same day on which the said salt was landed and stored, shall be, and the same are hereby remitted.
> 
> Approved, August 4, 1790.





> Chap. XLIV.An Act for the relief of disabled soldiers and seamen lately in the service of the United States, and of certain other persons.
> 
> Persons entitled to pensions, and at what rate.Be it enacted, &c., That Stephen Calilfe, Jeremiah Ryan, Joseph MGibbon, Samuel Garretson, Ephraim MCoy, Christian Kuhn, David Steele, Joseph Shuttliet, and Daniel Culver, disabled soldiers lately in the service of the United States, be allowed pensions at the rate of five dollars per month from the time their pay in the army respectively ceased. That Christian Wolfe, a disabled soldier, be allowed a pension at the rate of four dollars per month from the date of his discharge. That Edward Scott, a disabled soldier, be allowed a pension at the rate of three dollars per month from the date of his discharge. That David Weaver and George Schell, disabled soldiers, be each allowed a pension, at the rate of two dollars per month, from the date of their respective discharges. That Seth Boardman, a disabled soldier, be allowed a pension, at the rate of three dollars and one-third of a dollar per month, from the seventeenth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-six. That Severinus Koch, a disabled captain of Colonel Jacob Klocks regiment of New York militia, be allowed a pension, at the rate of five dollars per month, from the twentieth day of August, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-seven. That John Younglove, a disabled major, of Colonel Lewis Van Woorts regiment of New York militia, be allowed a pension, at the rate of six dollars per month, from the thirtieth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-one. That William White, a disabled private of Colonel Williams regiment of New York militia, be allowed a pension, at the rate of three dollars and one-third of a dollar per month, from the first day of April, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-six. That Jacob Newkerk, a disabled soldier of Colonel John Harpers regiment of New York state troops, be allowed a pension, at the rate of three dollars per month, from the twenty-second day of October, one thousand seven hundred and eighty. That David Poole, a disabled seaman, lately in the service of the United States, be allowed a pension of five dollars per month, to commence on the fifth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.
> 
> Sum granted and pension allowed to Caleb Brewster.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That Caleb Brewster, lately a lieutenant, who was wounded and disabled in the service of the United States, be allowed three hundred forty-eight dollars and fifty-seven cents, the amount of his necessary expenses for sustenance and medical assistance, while dangerously ill of his wounds, including the interest to the first of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety. And that the said Brewster be allowed a pension equal to his half pay as lieutenant, from the third of November, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, he first having returned his commutation of half pay.
> 
> Pension allowed to N. Gove.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That Nathaniel Gove, a disabled lieutenant, lately in the service of the United States, be allowed a pension, at the rate of six dollars and two-thirds of a dollar per month, from the twentieth of May, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight, to the first day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-six, and that he be allowed at the rate of thirteen dollars and one-third of a dollar per month, from the said first day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-six.
> 
> Sec. 4. And be it further enacted,Commissioner of army accounts to settle pay of certain officers. That the commissioner of army accounts be authorized and directed to settle the pay and depreciation of pay of John Stevens, a hostage in the late war at the capitulation of the cedars, as a captain in the line of the army, and that he issue certificates accordingly. That he also issue a certificate to Charles Markley, lately a captain in Armands corps, for the commutation of his half pay. That he also settle the accounts of James Derry, and Benjamin Hardison, who were made prisoners in Canada in May one thousand seven hundred and seventy-six, and forcibly detained in captivity among the Indians, and that he issue certificates for the balance of their pay respectively, to the third of November, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.
> ...





> Chap. ⅩⅬⅤ.An Act for the relief of the persons therein mentioned or described.
> 
> Be it enacted, &c.Register of the treasury to grant a certificate to S. Stirling. That the register of the treasury shall, and is hereby required to grant unto Sarah, the widow of the late Major-General Earl of Stirling, who died in the service of the United States, a certificate to entitle her to a sum equal to an annuity for seven years half pay of a major-general, to commence as from the fourteenth day of January, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, in conformity to the act of the late Congress, passed on the twenty-fourth day of August, one thousand seven hundred and eighty; the amount for which the said certificate is to be granted, to be ascertained by the Secretary of the Treasury, and on similar principles as other debts of the United States are liquidated and certified.
> 
> Sec. 2. And be it further enacted,To Frances E. Laurens. That the said register shall grant To Frances unto Frances Eleanor Laurens, the orphan daughter of the late Lieutenant-Colonel John Laurens, who was killed whilst in the service of the United States, a certificate to entitle her to a sum equal to an annuity for seven years half pay of a lieutenant-colonel, to commence as from the twenty-fifth day of August, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two, according to the act of the late Congress of the twenty-fourth day of August, one thousand seven hundred and eighty; the amount for which the said certificate is to be granted, to be ascertained by the Secretary of the Treasury in manner aforesaid.
> 
> And whereasArrears of pensions. no provision hath heretofore been made for discharging the arrears of pensions due to officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers, who were wounded and disabled whilst in the service of the United States: Therefore,
> 
> Sec. 3. Be it further enacted,To invalid pensioners. That each of the officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers, who were so wounded and disabled, and who are now placed on the books in the office of the secretary for the department of war, as a pensioner, or to be so placed in conformity to any law of this Congress, shall receive from the register of the treasury, who is hereby required to grant the same, a certificate, to be liquidated and settled in such manner as the Secretary of the Treasury shall direct, for a sum equal to the pension annually due to him, to commence from the time he became entitled thereto, or from the time to which the same had been paid, as the case may be, which shall be ascertained and certified by the said secretary for the department of war, and which annuity shall be liquidated to the fourth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine, from which day the United States have assumed the payment of the pensions certified by the several states. And in case of the death of any person so entitled, the certificate shall pass to his heirs or legal representative or representatives.
> ...





> Aug. 2, 1790.
> 
> Resolution No. 3.
> 
> Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,Compensation of clerks. That the clerks in the office of the commissioner of army accounts are entitled to receive for their services a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, to be paid in the same manner, and at the same rate, as the salary allowed to the clerks in the Department of Treasury; and that the auditor and comptroller be authorized to adjust the accounts of the clerks in the said office, upon the same principles as those of the treasury department, agreeably to the appropriation by law.
> 
> Approved, August 2, 1790.


75 million for the military eh.... still waiting for the breakdown...

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> While I am waiting for you to get a clue and pony up something to substantiate your claim how about those private Acts of Congress....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are making my point.  The military wasn't being paid under the AoC.  The AoC was a big rip-off to thousands of people.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> You are making my point.  The military wasn't being paid under the AoC.  The AoC was a big rip-off to thousands of people.


If paying out for fires and floods is making your point the military was due 75 mil them I am doing a great job illustrating you can't read.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> If paying out for fires and floods is making your point the military was due 75 mil them I am doing a great job illustrating you can't read.


You don't it.  The military actually voted to go and arrest the AoC congress because they were not paid, in the Newburgh conspiracy of March, 1783..  The plan was thwarted by George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, otherwise a coup would have happened.  The $75 million includes debts to soldiers, officers, banks, and other military contractors.  Typically, a coup will involve a coalition among groups that are owed money.  Banks and the military often work together in a coup.

You have absolutely NO ANSWER for these issues.  The Founding Fathers did NOT WANT a military coup, possibly supported by banks and military contractors.  That's why they wanted to get rid of the AoC or at least make severe modifications.

The military debts is also the reason George Washington signed the bank bill that was opposed by Madison and Jefferson.  Washington felt that the debts could not be paid without a bank under the control of the government.  It was a very close call.  The bank was not to "stabilize the economy" as liberal historians tell us.

Even with the bank, a lot of people were still ripped off and never paid and paid less than they were owed, or slow payed.  But the number was substantially decreased.

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

> Civil obedience to make the British army and navy to leave the port of Boston?  Or to leave Manhattan?  Or to stop the siege of Charleston?  You deny the right of self-defense.


Yes, wouldn't be the only time it was used successfully against the Britts.

"_One of its earliest massive implementations was brought about by Egyptians against the British occupation in the nonviolent 1919 Revolution[3]. Civil disobedience is one of the many ways people have rebelled against what they deem to be unfair laws. It has been used in many well-documented nonviolent resistance movements in India (Gandhi's campaigns for independence from the British Empire), in Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution and in East Germany to oust their communist governments [4][5], in South Africa in the fight against apartheid, in the American Civil Rights Movement, in the Singing Revolution to bring independence to the Baltic countries from the Soviet Union, recently with the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia and the 2004 Orange Revolution[6] in Ukraine, among other various movements worldwide_"

--source

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Yes, wouldn't be the only time it was used successfully against the Britts.
> 
> "_One of its earliest massive implementations was brought about by Egyptians against the British occupation in the nonviolent 1919 Revolution[3]. Civil disobedience is one of the many ways people have rebelled against what they deem to be unfair laws. It has been used in many well-documented nonviolent resistance movements in India (Gandhi's campaigns for independence from the British Empire), in Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution and in East Germany to oust their communist governments [4][5], in South Africa in the fight against apartheid, in the American Civil Rights Movement, in the Singing Revolution to bring independence to the Baltic countries from the Soviet Union, recently with the 2003 Rose Revolution in Georgia and the 2004 Orange Revolution[6] in Ukraine, among other various movements worldwide_"
> 
> --source


The civil disobedience preceded the war.  James Otis started it in 1760, and it lasted 15 years.

The British were attempting a divide and conquer approach.  That's what the US empire is doing right now in the Middle East and Iraq.

In the rest of the British Empire between 1588 and WWI, civil disobedience rarely worked.

----------


## low preference guy

> Baloney.  If the Founding Fathers had followed your advice, *the military would have just arrested the government for non-payment and set up a military dictatorship right from the beginning.*


delusional as usual.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> You don't it.  The military actually voted to go and arrest the AoC congress because they were not paid, in the Newburgh conspiracy of March, 1783..  The plan was thwarted by George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, otherwise a coup would have happened.  The $75 million includes debts to soldiers, officers, banks, and other military contractors.  Typically, a coup will involve a coalition among groups that are owed money.  Banks and the military often work together in a coup.
> 
> You have absolutely NO ANSWER for these issues.  The Founding Fathers did NOT WANT a military coup, possibly supported by banks and military contractors.  That's why they wanted to get rid of the AoC or at least make severe modifications.
> 
> The military debts is also the reason George Washington signed the bank bill that was opposed by Madison and Jefferson.  Washington felt that the debts could not be paid without a bank under the control of the government.  It was a very close call.  The bank was not to "stabilize the economy" as liberal historians tell us.
> 
> Even with the bank, a lot of people were still ripped off and never paid and paid less than they were owed, or slow payed.  But the number was substantially decreased.


I agree the Constitution was about money not "forming a more perfect union".  Which amazes me you even claimed the Constitution never authorized diverse taxation earlier in the thread opposing income tax when the Constitution was all about tax to pay creditor interests using coercion.  The question is not whether it is about money, the question is who claimed they were owed money, what for, who got paid, and who didn't.  Since you are still unwilling or unable to provide a breakdown of the debt substantiating your claim there is no discussion.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> delusional as usual.


Yeah, right.  You don't know your history.  Lack of pay is the # 1 pretense for a military coup during a time of turbulence.  It has been going on for thousands of years.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I agree the Constitution was about money not "forming a more perfect union".  Which amazes me you even claimed the Constitution never authorized diverse taxation earlier in the thread opposing income tax when the Constitution was all about tax to pay creditor interests using coercion.  The question is not whether it is about money, the question is who claimed they were owed money, what for, who got paid, and who didn't.  Since you are still unwilling or unable to provide a breakdown of the debt substantiating your claim there is no discussion.


So you oppose paying the military what is owed to them?  Tell that to the military and they will arrest you.  You are essentially an advocate for military dictatorship.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yeah, right.  You don't know your history.  Lack of pay is the # 1 pretense for a military coup during a time of turbulence.  It has been going on for thousands of years.



Perhaps (I haven't spoken to LPG personally), but you twist what little you know to fit your neo-federalist agenda, even though more knowlegable folks have been pwning that nonsense for decades.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yeah, right.  You don't know your history.  Lack of pay is the # 1 pretense for a military coup during a time of turbulence.  It has been going on for thousands of years.


An excellent reason not to have a standing army in the first place!

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> So you oppose paying the military what is owed to them?  Tell that to the military and they will arrest you.  You are essentially an advocate for military dictatorship.


Since the conversation is going to be propaganda only as you have no facts to present, here is a nice excerpt:




> Hamiltons assumption plan, by which the Federal government assumed the states unpaid debts, catered to the upper classes solely in order to transfer their loyalty from the state to the new central government. The means of doing this, as Madison, Rush, and others protested, was immoral, since the original owners of the securities had had to sell them at a great loss to speculators, who now stood to gain unconscionably.  But Hamilton was here, and in his other state papers, only concerned with the overriding principle of establishing the public credit of the new nation so that the central government would be strengthened, American natural resources developed, and a capitalist economy settled upon the land. His critics, he believed, had no theory, no general principles. Can that man be a systematic or able statesman who has none, he asked I believe not. No general principles will hardly work much better than erroneous ones.  Apparently, it meant little to Hamilton that Revolutionary War veterans, their widows and children, and other poor people would suffer from this political manipulation. But, then, Hamilton in his utopian scheme for a great Federal power was prepared to use immoral means, and, as pointed out above, he had never subscribed to the Declaration of Independence with its doctrine of the natural rights of the person.
> 
> Hamilton, unlike Jefferson, never seems to have understood the Western concept of the person and his inalienable rights. His reading, evidently, was confined to highly selective ancient and modern authors like Demosthenes, Cicero, Plutarch, Bacon, Montaigne, Machiavelli, and Rousseau.  In the company of the great majority of his American contemporaries, he knew next to nothing about the Middle Ages and its Christian teaching of the primacy of the person made in the image of God. He was acquainted with natural law, for it was of course an integral part of the 18th century world-view, but from Lockes Treatise of Government Hamilton seems to have drawn implications that led more to corporate idealism and collectivism of Rousseau than to the individualism of Jefferson. In any case, the Frenchmans concept of the general will rather than Lockes majority will was the fundamental tenet of Hamiltons political philosophy, at leasr before 1800. Accordingly, there was no place for minority rights, natural rights to life, liberty, and property in his ideal state which he tried to construct as secretary of the Treasury and adviser to Washington.
> 
> Like Rousseau and all utopians, secular and religious, Hamilton justified coercion of the individualforcing him to be free, Rousseau called itin order to achieve the perfect society of his dream. Freedom was a great treasure, Hamilton agreed with the ideologues, propagandists, social engineers, and manipulators of all ages, but it must be organized against abuse. Unrestrained mans freedom degenerated into license and anarchy. Shall the general will prevail, or the will of a faction? Shall there be government or no government, was the way Hamilton put it in his Tully essays of 1794, written to prepare the people for the Federal governments military action against the Whiskey RebelsPennsylvania frontiersmen who opposed his excise taxwhich he was already planning.(29) And Hamilton himself in September of that year, fantasizing about military glory, rode out with a militia army of 12,000 men to force the Whiskey insurgents to be free!
> 
> Just as he morally never appreciated the persons infinite worth, viewing man with Calvin and Hobbes rather than Locke, so Hamilton could never advance in his social and political thinking to the concept of localism, better, of subsidiarity, as normative in mans relationship to other men. His twisted conception of human nature prevented him from seeing that Every agent is perfected by its own activity, which is the principle of subsidiarity. Society, he failed to see, exists only in and for its members. It has no higher unity under which the individual is subsumed, no ethical priority over its members. The common good, which Hamilton as a utopian confused with the totalitarian general will of Rousseau, and which he used force to impose on the backwoodsmen of western Pennsylvania, required that he place the good of the Whiskey insurgents before the collectivity of his ideal state. The common good also required that, as Madison proposed, the Federal government in its funding program discriminate between the original holders of certificates and speculators, but Hamilton himself would brook none of that. Like todays Marxists and other totalitarians, Hamilton did not realize that society, the state, or any organization exists for the good of the individual and not vice versa, that the communitys raison detat is to help man actualize the powers that God has given him.
> 
> http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...us/ah0015.html


Since the Federalists, who brought the misery of super sized central government upon the American people, were unable to clean up their own ranks ridding us of Hamiltonians, I do not predict Federalists surviving round three of an American Revolution.  They will become an extinct species in America buried right along side their Federalist Hamiltonian allies.

P.S.  Under Hamilton's debt plan it was only about 54 million... 27 million in domestic debt, 26 million of State debt, and 11 million of foreign debt.  But not all debt was included:




> North Carolina Army certificate, unspecified interest, 1 May 1786. Authorized December 1785, these were excluded from the federal debt assumption plan in 1790 because of irregularities in their issue.
> 
> http://www.masshist.org/findingaids/doc.cfm?fa=fao0004


Let me know when you have a breakdown to share on that 75 mil.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> An excellent reason not to have a standing army in the first place!


It wasn't a standing army.  It was an army trying to kick the British out of North America.  You are the one who supports the standing army.  If you don't pay the, the army usually does not disband.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Since the conversation is going to be propaganda only as you have no facts to present, here is a nice excerpt:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Federalists, who brought the misery of super sized central government upon the American people, were unable to clean up their own ranks ridding us of Hamiltonians, I do not predict Federalists surviving round three of an American Revolution.  They will become an extinct species in America buried right along side their Federalist Hamiltonian allies.
> 
> P.S.  Under Hamilton's debt plan it was only about 54 million... 27 million in domestic debt, 26 million of State debt, and 11 million of foreign debt.  But not all debt was included:
> 
> 
> ...


The States owed debts as well.  You still haven't explained how the army, militia, and others owed money were to be paid under the AoC.  The fact is, Hamilton;'s plan is no worse and probably better than just blowing off all the people who money is owed to, you idea.

----------


## Minuteman2012

The liberal poster is right to a degree, the Constitution was written to expand the powers of the Central Government, but it had very clear and defined powers set out in Article 1 Section 8. However, just because it was written to expand central power, doesn't mean it allows for the kind of Federal power grabs he endorses. His argument is a non-sequitur.

----------


## Flash

> Simply don't follow their edicts. Civil Disobedience, Agorism, entreprenuership (developing the institutions now to replace the State), etc. The State gets its power from consent. Even if a small minority were to refuse consent it would come down pretty fast. Look at the success in New Hampshire. If you contested, and refused consent to every action by the State it would topple pretty fast. They even have to shut court down now in NH and refuse to try cases because the system is so backed up. That's one small way. Ultimately though, we have to change the "schelling point" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schelling_point), of society. It's going to be a long road, and our greatest successes will happen when the old generation dies off, and is replaced with the younger and newer generation who understands, and values freedom and liberty. 
> 
> Sunshine patriots need not apply. 
> 
> PS: Here is a great piece written by one of the all-time great thinkers -- La Boetie (http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html)
> 
> PPS: Geographical prominence. Those of us who love and value liberty must get together. Being spread out and severely placed in the minority is detrimental. It is for this reason I am moving to NH next year. We need all the voluntaryists, and liberty lovers, activists, etc. we can get. The more the merrier!


What part of New Hampshire? I would recommend Keene since it seems like all the activism is there.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> The States owed debts as well.  You sill, haven't explained how the army, militia, and others owed money were to be paid under the AoC.  The fact is, Hamilton;'s plan is no worse and probably better than just blowing off all the people who money is owed to, you idea.


As soon as you account for the 75 mil I will be happy to play wise overlord and resolve it.

In the meantime I am going to be exiting this thread until I can tolerate some more of your bull$#@! debate tactics.  I will leave you with this profound parting thought I articulated earlier in the thread until I should decide to return or you pull some evidence out of your ass to justify 75 mil:

Government should never be allowed to serve two masters.




> to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States


And that was included in the AoC before it ever found it's way into the Constitution.

----------


## 8th Degree

PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FOR 11th & 14th AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS
http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-48361/TS-398313.mp3
 Besides violating the 11th & 14th Amendment, the Congress has deliberately hidden from the people the original ratified 13th Amendment, "The Act of Nobility,"which prohibits all Nobles from serving in public office and makes them non-citizens. Therefore all persons who are "Esquires," a title of Nobility, are non-citizens of the Republic which by virtue of thier magnamity in Congress makes null and void every Amendment created thereafter unlawfull and illegal since 1819. As well, every Act, Law and/or Federal Regulations are null and void along with every Federal Agency created after 1819 and in particular since 1860 where the President was a known Esquire, holding Noble Status and conducted, along with Congress, an unlawful and illegal Civil War.
 Click on the more link to read the whole document.
http://tinyurl.com/2br59ss

Join the Private Attorney General network      http://privateattorneygeneral.spruz....50FB&save=html

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

> *As soon as you account for the 75 mil I will be happy to play wise overlord and resolve it.*
> 
> In the meantime I am going to be exiting this thread until I can tolerate some more of your bull$#@! debate tactics.  I will leave you with this profound parting thought I articulated earlier in the thread until I should decide to return or *you pull some evidence out of your ass to justify 75 mil*:
> 
> Government should never be allowed to serve two masters.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was included in the AoC before it ever found it's way into the Constitution.


That won't happen any time soon. More important, he purposely brought it up to sidetrack the real issues. It's clear his holy bible Constitution is flawed,  nobody has defended it without bringing up the tired old pathetic argument "times were different." 

Well times have changed and it's about time we correct the bull$#@!. The constitution has set up so many barriers, it's $#@!ing disgusting. Sure it has succeeding in what it was designed to do, keep the unelected aristocrats wealthy, but it has yet to dispense justice.

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

> As soon as you account for the 75 mil I will be happy to play wise overlord and resolve it.
> 
> In the meantime I am going to be exiting this thread until I can tolerate some more of your bull$#@! debate tactics.  I will leave you with this profound parting thought I articulated earlier in the thread until I should decide to return or you pull some evidence out of your ass to justify 75 mil:
> 
> Government should never be allowed to serve two masters.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was included in the AoC before it ever found it's way into the Constitution.


You know what? We should feel sorry for him, he is such a sad soul. He has such disdain for his own mother. He cherishes a constitution that exudes his own mother from voting, my god he must hate her. A boy that that has such little respect for his own mother must think she's a piece of $#@! bitch. I'm sure both of us agree our mothers are human, it's sad to realize some people think their own mother is some kind of subhuman dog.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> As soon as you account for the 75 mil I will be happy to play wise overlord and resolve it.
> 
> In the meantime I am going to be exiting this thread until I can tolerate some more of your bull$#@! debate tactics.  I will leave you with this profound parting thought I articulated earlier in the thread until I should decide to return or you pull some evidence out of your ass to justify 75 mil:
> 
> Government should never be allowed to serve two masters.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was included in the AoC before it ever found it's way into the Constitution.


According to the sources I've read, the total debt of the states and federal government combined was about $75 million in 1789, when Washington first became president.  If you have better sources, please share them with us.  The money was in general owed to military officers, soldiers from the continental army, state militia officers & soldiers, suppliers of the military, banks, and diplomatic officers.  I don't have the breakdown in front of me.

A lot of the debt had been sold off onto the secondary market, with IOU's trading at below 10% of face value.  This was another huge problem for the AoC because desperate farmers, needing money, might have an IOU worth $100.  Since they figured the AoC could never pay it, they would sell the IOU for say, $6, just to get some cash.  People like you, of course, don't care about poor farmers and veterans from the Revolution getting ripped off.  Of course, your theories are much more important than reality.

Just to give an example of the financial problems, one of our greatest heroes, James Monroe, a man who took a bullet at the battle of Trenton, and who freed Thomas Paine from prison during the French Revolution, Monroe was never repaid for his diplomatic expenses in Europe, and went to his grave on July 4, 1826 bankrupt.  So that means this giant central government you are talking about still couldn't even pay James Monroe!

Another example - Joseph Plumb Martin was born in 1760.  In 1775, he joined the continental army.  He fought for our freedom all the way until Yorktown in 1781, rising in rank.  In 1830, Martin wrote a book describing his times.  In it, he complained that the government never paid him enough for his services.  Martin died in 1850.

btw - In the French Revolution, the military took over.  Guess what, the military got paid after they took over.

----------


## phill4paul

Whether or not it was intended to expand power it is a damn sight better than the machinations of James Monroe, Alexander Hamilton and Nathaniel Gortham to petition Prince Henry of Prussia to become king of America in 1786.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Whether or not it was intended to expand power it is a damn sight better than the machinations of James Monroe, Alexander Hamilton and Nathaniel Gortham to petition Prince Henry of Prussia to become king of America in 1786.


got a source for your bull$#@!?

----------


## phill4paul

> got a source for your bull$#@!?


  The Peoples Almanac Volume #2 published 1978 page 400.

  If you don't have the book I'm sure you can google it.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Just to give an example of the financial problems, one of our greatest heroes, James Monroe, a man who took a bullet at the battle of Trenton, and who freed Thomas Paine from prison during the French Revolution, Monroe was never repaid for his diplomatic expenses in Europe, and went to his grave on July 4, 1826 bankrupt.  *So that means this giant central government you are talking about still couldn't even pay James Monroe!
> *
> Another example - Joseph Plumb Martin was born in 1760.  In 1775, he joined the continental army.  He fought for our freedom all the way until Yorktown in 1781, rising in rank.  In 1830, Martin wrote a book describing his times.  In it, he complained that the government never paid him enough for his services.  Martin died in 1850.


Now you are making my points for me.  Absolutely correct.  this giant central government that...

1) Reorganized under a Federalist coo for the purpose of money, which expressly delegated complete powers of taxation, and the power to collect said taxation using force.

...did not pay people such as James Monroe.  

How f'n pathetic is that?

This goes to my point earlier about the Federalist cabal.  You could not keep your own house in order from the get go!  Your Federalist boy Hamilton had his fingers in everything.  That is what you want people to sign on board for?  A Constitutional do over?  I don't think so...  more like move over when the GOP fails to deliver one final time.

Isn't your whole pro-ConstitutionalistGlobalist argument independent States are incapable of paying the military or voluntarily resolving problems without strong central government based on the theory there would be a military takeover?

Considering the military got $#@!ed anyway and the speculators made all the profits under the Constitution, how does your theory of a military takeover that never happened holdup?  The damn military should have taken over to stop the Federalist coo because the Colonial Militia was We The People and they probably would have implemented something with a little more common sense than the aristocracy. 

This would also be the same giant central government when you were trying to claim this hogwash:




> The power of an individual federal income tax on wages was not allowed by the original Constitution, nor was it allowed in the rulings right after 1913, per the Supreme Court and the Constitution.


But someone got paid under the debt acts which is why there can be no discussion without the nitty gritty details of what debt was being claimed and who got paid.  As you pointed out a lot of the actual military already got paid because they sold the IOU's to speculators for a fraction of face IOU value.  That is what happens in the free market.  Bad debt gets liquidated.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

Posts #271 & #272 made my week!

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> The Peoples Almanac Volume #2 published 1978 page 400.
> 
>   If you don't have the book I'm sure you can google it.


I checked google books, and that page is not available.  Monroe never did what you claim he did.  You need a better source than third-hand hearsay.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Now you are making my points for me.  Absolutely correct.  this giant central government that...
> 
> 1) Reorganized under a Federalist coo for the purpose of money, which expressly delegated complete powers of taxation, and the power to collect said taxation using force.
> 
> ...did not pay people such as James Monroe.  
> 
> How f'n pathetic is that?
> 
> This goes to my point earlier about the Federalist cabal.  You could not keep your own house in order from the get go!  Your Federalist boy Hamilton had his fingers in everything.  That is what you want people to sign on board for?  A Constitutional do over?  I don't think so...  more like move over when the GOP fails to deliver one final time.
> ...


So you think things turned out better than in France?  How was the AoC going to pay it's debts to the military?  You ignore the 8000 pound gorilla in the corner.

----------


## phill4paul

> I checked google books, and that page is not available.  Monroe never did what you claim he did.  You need a better source than third-hand hearsay.


  No. I don't.

  I meant if you don't have the book then google the information I provided.

  I could give two $#@!s whether it was Monroe or any other specifically. But the fact remains that it was considered by some that were founders and I'm glad that the Prince refused the proposal.

  I prefer the Constitution to this endeavor.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> No. I don't.
> 
>   I meant if you don't have the book then google the information I provided.
> 
>   I could give two $#@!s whether it was Monroe or any other specifically. But the fact remains that it was considered by some that were founders and I'm glad that the Prince refused the proposal.
> 
>   I prefer the Constitution to this endeavor.


None of these three people favored a king.  If they actually wanted a king, they would have promoted George Washington.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So you think things turned out better than in France?  How was the AoC going to pay it's debts to the military?  You ignore the 8000 pound gorilla in the corner.


The soldiers' families, friends, and churches would have raised funds through charity.  (people still have to raise money to support soldiers, in fact, no thanks to your beloved CONstitution)

----------


## phill4paul

> None of these three people favored a king.  If they actually wanted a king, they would have promoted George Washington.


  as you said...




> got a source for your bull$#@!?

----------


## Danke

CONSTITUTOR: He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> The soldiers' families, friends, and churches would have raised funds through charity.  (people still have to raise money to support soldiers, in fact, no thanks to your beloved CONstitution)


So if that doesn't work, then the military just arrests to government for non-payment of debt and/or other pretenses.  The AoC never paid the debts and had no plausible way to do it.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> CONSTITUTOR: He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation.


Tell that to the people leading the military coup.  That'll stop 'em!!

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> What part of New Hampshire? I would recommend Keene since it seems like all the activism is there.


Any. Manchester & Keene are probably the two biggest hotbeds, though there is stuff going on everywhere in the State. Pick wherever suits you best. The more bodies there that hold libertarian principles the better.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> So you think things turned out better than in France?  How was the AoC going to pay it's debts to the military?  You ignore the 8000 pound gorilla in the corner.


I think the fact most of the IOU's were sold to speculators by your own admission calls into question your whole theory of a military takeover.  It is a contradiction to your claim the military was owed money if the vast majority of those IOU's were already liquidated.

Shay's rebellion was over debtor prisons and debt relief.  It was about farmers getting the shaft who just left the militia broke fighting one war only to return home and find themselves facing debtor prisons or property loss due to heavy taxes.

I don't blame them at all.  If I risked everything to fight a war, was wounded in that war, resigned unpaid, only to return home facing debtor prison I would be advocating for a change in management too.




> "I have been greatly abused, have been obliged to do more than my part in the war; been loaded with class rates, town rates, province rates, Continental rates and all rates...been pulled and hauled by sheriffs, constables and collectors, and had my cattle sold for less than they were worth...The great men are going to get all we have and I think it is time for us to rise and put a stop to it, and have no more courts, nor sheriffs, nor collectors nor lawyers."





> "On September 19, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts indicted eleven leaders of the rebellion as "disorderly, riotous, and seditious persons."


If history is going to repeat itself in America.  I am going to be standing on the right side of battle lines.  I will stand and fight with Daniel Shays.  If George Washington comes out of retirement to oppose it so be it.  If Samuel Adams wants to advocate suspending habeas corpus and a punishment of execution in opposition so be it.

If there is a third chapter in the American revolution it is not going to take place in the hills of Virginia, Maryland, or Pennsylvania.  It is going to take place in living rooms and it will be up close and personal.

----------


## Travlyr

> *Constitution for the United States of America*
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


This is the intent.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So if that doesn't work, then the military just arrests to government for non-payment of debt and/or other pretenses. * The AoC never paid the debts and had no plausible way to do it.*


So?  The Constitution was a poor solution to this problem.  Your fundamental assumption is that the government had the right to the moneys of the citizenry. (i.e. "So if that doesn't work, then the military just arrests to government for non-payment of debt and/or other pretenses.")    This false assumption then leads you to further false assumptions, such as the legitimacy of robbery (aka taxation) and the other tyrannies legitimatized by the CONstitution.  

Again, my argument should not be construed to be so much a defense of the AoC as a defense of Voluntaryism and opposition to the coercive nature of both the AoC and the CONstitution (and every other Statist form of government, for that matter).  It just so happens that the AoC is less tyrannical than the CONstitution.  (if the AoC were in existence now, I would be arguing against it as well)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This is the intent.


That is the eyewash for the masses.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> This is the intent.


That is the sales pitch.

----------


## Travlyr

> That is the eyewash for the masses.





> That is the sales pitch.


Then explain this:  

Article. VI. Clause 3
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Then explain this:  
> 
> Article. VI. Clause 3
> "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."


That is to the guard against any federal infiltrator rebellions to insure the creditors of society get paid.

----------


## Travlyr

> That is to the guard against any federal infiltrator rebellions to insure the creditors of society get paid.


Or, it is to empower the people to protect them from elected officials ignoring their duty to the constitution.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Or, it is to empower the people to protect them from elected officials ignoring their duty to the constitution.


I can see how one could arrive at such a noble, idealistic interpretation if we completely ignored the historical record of the federal government serving creditor interests before We The Peoples interests.

----------


## Travlyr

> I can see how one could arrive at such a noble, idealistic interpretation if we completely ignored the historical record of the federal government serving creditor interests before We The Peoples interests.


The intentions of the founding fathers were honorable as evidenced by the Preamble, and their inclusion of Article VI. Clause 3 forcing elected officials the duty of upholding the Constitution by Oath.  

The fact that the people do not exercise their duty to the Constitution is the only reason that creditors are, and have been, 1st priority.  And why not?  Natural selection.  The strongest/smartest wins.  The people still do not understand the Constitution, their rights, or their duty.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> The intentions of the founding fathers were honorable as evidenced by the Preamble, and their inclusion of Article VI. Clause 3 forcing elected officials the duty of upholding the Constitution by Oath.


I guess that depends on your definition of honorable.  I find nothing honorable about Washington coming out of retirement to oppose Shays rebellion.  I find nothing honorable about any of the other founders harsh criticism of it.

Jefferson on the other hand had no problem with it since this is where his the tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time remark comes from.

The Constitution first represents expanding central power to provide a surety for creditors and second a compromise among aristocrats with different interests on how such a government should work.




> The fact that the people do not exercise their duty to the Constitution is the only reason that creditors are, and have been, 1st priority.  And why not?  Natural selection.  The strongest/smartest wins.  The people still do not understand the Constitution, their rights, or their duty.


I do believe most people are generally good but I don't agree with your extremely optimistic point of view people will throw off chains of servitude if it is easier to bear them.  

The only redeeming quality I find with the Constitution is that it can be amended.  Considering I am overwhelmingly surrounded by statist, war mongering, protectionist, xenophobes I wish the same could be said about the American people.

----------


## treyfu

Take a few minutes to read what Lysander Spooner had to say about the Constitution.

http://lysanderspooner.org/node/44

----------


## Agorism

It was an expansion.

----------


## mczerone

> While technically correct, the major government expansion came after the money changers took control.


"Took" control?  Are you really implying that they weren't there from the start?  That Hamilton and the rest of the merchantalists weren't the driving factor behind replacing the Arts. of Confederation with the document that ex nihilo created the power to impose tariffs, the power to coin money, the power to run a fixed-rate postal service, the power to regulate interstate commerce, the power to impose a federal militia, etc.?

The anti-Federalists needed to compromise with these barons in order to impose the Bill of Rights, and to defend the rights of individuals (some by means of protecting the power of the several states).  You have fallen for the "Nader fallacy" whereby you claim that the massive powers of the federal government were created without ill intent, were later subjugated to evil self-interested, and can be reclaimed by a benevolent bureaucrat to set things right.  

Unfortunately history shows that the offices, institutions, and constitutions themselves were imparted by the self-interested rent seekers, and serve no good role, even if they were to be run "correctly".


To the OP: your friend is very correct, and the Constitution would be a great base-line to try to return to, but it itself was a vast power-grab to try to reduce the number of power-centers to which the special interests needed to lobby for favors.

----------


## Deborah K

I'm still not clear as to why those of you who are adversaries of the Constitution are members of this forum?  What is your objective?  AustrianEconDisciple claims he is here to find liberty.  But by condemning the philosophy of the mission statement with which 2/3rds of the forum members agree makes your motives appear subversive.  

Galileo, I applaud your efforts and your patience.  Keep it up.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm still not clear as to why those of you who are adversaries of the Constitution are members of this forum?  What is your objective?  AustrianEconDisciple claims he is here to find liberty.  But by condemning the philosophy of the mission statement with which 2/3rds of the forum members agree makes your motives appear subversive.  
> 
> Galileo, I applaud your efforts and your patience.  Keep it up.


I take it you think that the people defending the Constitution come closer to Ron Paul's viewpoint than the ones you call "adversaries of the Constitution." Is that right? If so, why do you think that?

----------


## Deborah K

> I take it you think that the people defending the Constitution come closer to Ron Paul's viewpoint than the ones you call "adversaries of the Constitution." Is that right? If so, why do you think that?





> Forum Mission Statement
> 
> Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this forum is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.


Read some of the posts in this thread and tell me those posters have respect for this mission.

And, you would be wrong.  I don't think that defenders of the Constitution are necessarily closer to Ron Paul's views.  That is not my complaint.

----------


## Travlyr

> "Took" control?  Are you really implying that they weren't there from the start?  That Hamilton and the rest of the merchantalists weren't the driving factor behind replacing the Arts. of Confederation with the document that ex nihilo created the power to impose tariffs, the power to coin money, the power to run a fixed-rate postal service, the power to regulate interstate commerce, the power to impose a federal militia, etc.?


Shay's Rebellion had great influence on creating a strong central government.  Many people were fearful of allowing anarchy.  The people of that time were much like we are here on RPF... not a lot of agreement.  But if you read diaries from 1830's - 1860's (after President Jackson outed the bankers) many people, as they expanded westward, were free, peaceful & prosperous. 



> The anti-Federalists needed to compromise with these barons in order to impose the Bill of Rights, and to defend the rights of individuals (some by means of protecting the power of the several states).  You have fallen for the "Nader fallacy" whereby you claim that the massive powers of the federal government were created without ill intent, were later subjugated to evil self-interested, and can be reclaimed by a benevolent bureaucrat to set things right.


I'm not falling for any fallacy.  Liberty can be reclaimed, not by bureaucrats, but by the people.  Except, most people don't know why the Constitution was written, they don't understand the simple concept of rights, and they are too lazy to perform their duty.  Until the people really want liberty, it will be evasive... it's not free.

What part of Article VI. Clause 3 do you not understand?
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Right now, some courageous individuals are challenging the legality of the establishment on this very principle.  They could use support from people who have read and understand the Constitution.  Read what they are doing:   *Kenneth Gomez for Governor of New Mexico*

----------


## erowe1

> Read some of the posts in this thread and tell me those posters have respect for this mission.
> 
> And, you would be wrong.  I don't think that defenders of the Constitution are necessarily closer to Ron Paul's views.  That is not my complaint.


I read a lot of this thread awhile back and don't want to go back through to catch up. I think I've seen enough of the anti-Constitution position from the usual suspects to know where they're coming from, and I've never seen anything that doesn't mesh with the mission statement you quoted.

We should use the Constitution as a tool to help us shrink government. If by some miracle we actually get the federal government back down to a size that fits within the boundaries defined by the powers enumerated in the Constitution, we shouldn't stop there (and I don't think Ron Paul would either). We should keep going until we have freed ourselves from all subjugation to a government that imposes itself on us without our consent, constitutional or not.

But until that time, the constitutionalists and the anti-constitutionalists want to move in the same direction, and the mission statement you quoted is part of that.

----------


## Deborah K

> I read a lot of this thread awhile back and don't want to go back through to catch up. I think I've seen enough of the anti-Constitution position from the usual suspects to know where they're coming from, and I've never seen anything that doesn't mesh with the mission statement you quoted.


Really?  How about this:  




> The Constitution is like handing a lighter to an arsonist and telling him not to light anything on fire. When you give the power to tax you open the flood gates that will eventually give way to a totalitarian state. It is absurd to hope the arsonist doesn't use the lighter for its intended purpose..


What if something similar was written about Ron Paul's views?  I doubt anyone would be so dismissive.




> We should use the Constitution as a tool to help us shrink government. If by some miracle we actually get the federal government back down to a size that fits within the boundaries defined by the powers enumerated in the Constitution, we shouldn't stop there (and I don't think Ron Paul would either). We should keep going until we have freed ourselves from all subjugation to a government that imposes itself on us without our consent, constitutional or not.
> 
> But until that time, the constitutionalists and the anti-constitutionalists want to move in the same direction, and the mission statement you quoted is part of that.


On this we can agree.  But that is not what is going on.  The adversaries are not respectfully voicing an opinion, they are attempting to change everyone's views on the Constitution.   And those who disagree with them are treated with disdain.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> On this we can agree.  But that is not what is going on.  The adversaries are not respectfully voicing an opinion, they are attempting to change everyone's views on the Constitution.   And those who disagree with them are treated with disdain.


If your only argument is to make character assassinations without contributing to the discussion by presenting contradicting evidence or factual rebuttals based on the historical record what is your purpose?

----------


## Deborah K

> If your only argument is to make character assassinations without contributing to the discussion by presenting contradicting evidence or factual rebuttals based on the historical record what is your purpose?


My contributions to the discussion are noted in many thousands of posts.  My contributions in real life are also documented.  The difference between you and I is not only our philosophical views, but the way in which we share those views.  I find your methods to be offensive and futile.  And your use of the term "character assassination" to describe my complaint is way off base.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> The difference between you and I is


one of us has probably been to war, caged for saying no, assaulted by thugs in uniforms, and has had real property stolen which might create a life experience that does not respect the principle of servitude to effect change.  These contributions are also documented.

But hey, lets keep it a holier than thou thread instead of debating the mountain of evidence contained in the historical record because that discussion would truly be offensive and futile.

----------


## Deborah K

> one of us has probably been to war, caged for saying no, assaulted by thugs in uniforms, and has had real property stolen which might create a life experience that does not respect the principle of servitude to effect change.  These contributions are also documented.
> 
> But hey, lets keep it a holier than thou thread instead of debating the mountain of evidence contained in the historical record because that discussion would truly be offensive and futile.


Sorry to hear that.  But it's no excuse for the disdain you have for people who don't see things your way.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> If your only argument is to make character assassinations without contributing to the discussion by presenting contradicting evidence or factual rebuttals based on the historical record what is your purpose?


You don't have any explanation as to how to pay the debts from the Revolutionary War.  If your answer is to just blow them off, then the military and banks would likely have orchestrated a coup d'etat to collect their money.  That is what Santa Ana did in Mexico and Napoleon in France.  It has happened all over the world for thousands of years.

The AoC government also owed a lot of money to British interests.  The British military empire used a "divide and conquer" technique.  That is a technique were the British targets are made to destroy themselves.  We have been doing this in Iraq for a long time.

But the British were favoring some states over other states.  In the times after the Revolution, the British would let cargo from the NE states pass, while impressing and kidnapping ships from the middle and southern states.  The British wanted to set up a military alliance and reconquest.  All they needed was ONE state to serve as a base.  Even a small colony like Delaware or Rhone Island would have worked; just one major port as a base.

Your theories are devoid of reality.  You are a fanatic who believes something because you read it somewhere.  Now, no matter what the evidence, you refuse to believe the truth.  The Founding Fathers were not idiots or power mongers.  They were patriots and lovers of liberty.  They did not want a large centralized state, nor did they want a military coup or continuous civil war over rivers, ports, and western lands with ever-shifting alliances among the English, French, Spanish, and the Indians.

They did one hell of a job, the best in all of known history.  So get off the Founders backs.

And one last thing; the Constitution is not perfect.  But James Madison is perfect.  He is a divine man who never made a single mistake that has entered into the historical record.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> You don't have any explanation as to how to pay the debts from the Revolutionary War.


I haven't presented an explanation as to how to pay any debts.  Nor do I automatically pay a bill that simply shows up in my mail box.  I have repeatedly stated there can be no discussion about how to pay something unless one knows exactly what is supposed to be paid and why.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Sorry to hear that.  But it's no excuse for the disdain you have for people who don't see things your way.


I have disdain for bull$#@! claims lacking citations or evidence.  As a disciple of truth my beliefs are always on the table debating any discussion and I am always willing to reconsider any view or belief based on factual evidence.

----------


## Rancher

> You don't have any explanation as to how to pay the debts from the Revolutionary War.  If your answer is to just blow them off, then the military and banks would likely have orchestrated a coup d'etat to collect their money.  That is what Santa Ana did in Mexico and Napoleon in France.  It has happened all over the world for thousands of years.
> 
> The AoC government also owed a lot of money to British interests.  The British military empire used a "divide and conquer" technique.  That is a technique were the British targets are made to destroy themselves.  We have been doing this in Iraq for a long time.
> 
> But the British were favoring some states over other states.  In the times after the Revolution, the British would let cargo from the NE states pass, while impressing and kidnapping ships from the middle and southern states.  The British wanted to set up a military alliance and reconquest.  All they needed was ONE state to serve as a base.  Even a small colony like Delaware or Rhone Island would have worked; just one major port as a base.
> 
> Your theories are devoid of reality.  You are a fanatic who believes something because you read it somewhere.  Now, no matter what the evidence, you refuse to believe the truth.  The Founding Fathers were not idiots or power mongers.  They were patriots and lovers of liberty.  They did not want a large centralized state, nor did they want a military coup or continuous civil war over rivers, ports, and western lands with ever-shifting alliances among the English, French, Spanish, and the Indians.
> 
> They did one hell of a job, the best in all of known history.  So get off the Founders backs.
> ...


I have to agree.  IMO, the Mises Institute is doing a bad job of rewriting history.

----------


## South Park Fan

> You don't have any explanation as to how to pay the debts from the Revolutionary War.  If your answer is to just blow them off, then the military and banks would likely have orchestrated a coup d'etat to collect their money.  That is what Santa Ana did in Mexico and Napoleon in France.  It has happened all over the world for thousands of years.
> 
> The AoC government also owed a lot of money to British interests.  The British military empire used a "divide and conquer" technique.  That is a technique were the British targets are made to destroy themselves.  We have been doing this in Iraq for a long time.
> 
> But the British were favoring some states over other states.  In the times after the Revolution, the British would let cargo from the NE states pass, while impressing and kidnapping ships from the middle and southern states.  The British wanted to set up a military alliance and reconquest.  All they needed was ONE state to serve as a base.  Even a small colony like Delaware or Rhone Island would have worked; just one major port as a base.
> 
> Your theories are devoid of reality.  You are a fanatic who believes something because you read it somewhere.  Now, no matter what the evidence, you refuse to believe the truth.  The Founding Fathers were not idiots or power mongers.  They were patriots and lovers of liberty.  They did not want a large centralized state, nor did they want a military coup or continuous civil war over rivers, ports, and western lands with ever-shifting alliances among the English, French, Spanish, and the Indians.
> 
> They did one hell of a job, the best in all of known history.  So get off the Founders backs.
> ...


You don't think instituting a draft, invading Canada, or establishing the Second Bank of the United States were mistakes?

----------


## Deborah K

> I have disdain for bull$#@! claims lacking citations or evidence.  As a disciple of truth my beliefs are always on the table debating any discussion and I am always willing to reconsider any view or belief based on factual evidence.


I'll remember that the next time I tangle with you.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> The Founding Fathers were not idiots or power mongers.


Let me address this.  You use this term in a way that is impossible to be true.  You refused to acknowledge a petition to be king a few posts back.  The founding fathers represent a diverse group of people with a variety of interests.  The founding fathers include signors of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution as well as other historical figures over the span of several years.  The founding fathers primarily come from a group of people from a privileged class in society.  How many of the founding fathers were farmers?  Lawyers?

Let me also point out that when I say privileged class I mean privileged historically because the Colonies were under the crown.  How many every day peasants were involved with government under the crown?

I do not think the "founding fathers" in general were idiots, nor would I use the label power monger.  I would say, like most human beings, the founding fathers wanted to protect their interests  under what was from their perspective, reasonable government.  But if your interests were whiskey, reasonable can be considered relative if that interest was not adequately represented.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I'll remember that the next time I tangle with you.


By all means please do.  I could point you to a couple threads I have acknowledged error on my part if it would create a warm fuzzy feeling for you.

----------


## Deborah K

> By all means please do.  I could point you to a couple threads I have acknowledged error on my part if it would create a warm fuzzy feeling for you.


I believe you.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> You don't think instituting a draft, invading Canada, or establishing the Second Bank of the United States were mistakes?


No, I don't.

1) Madison never instituted draft, and we won the War of 1812 without a draft.

2) We did not invade Canada, we counter-attacked the British empire by invading the province of Canada.  It was good military strategy, be we had bad luck because Napoleon had just attacked Russia, so it took pressure off the British.  We still won the war anyway.

3) The Second bank was the same as the first bank, so no precedent was established.  But Madison vetoed a different bank bill in January 1815 that would have expanded the powers of the bank.  Madison believed that the first congress and George Washington set a precedent on what powers a central bank and could not have.  Madison's constitutional precedent should have been used in 1913 to stop the Fed.

We won the War of 1812 with a federal budget of less than 4% of the GNP.  That would be like winning a war with China today with a federal budget of $600 billion.

If you want an idea how remarkable James Madison was, imagine what was going on in January 1815:

1) the Hartford convention was discussing possible secession and non-cooperation.

2) the treaty talks in Europe had not progressed all that much for 6 months.

3) the British were favored to win the Battle of New Orleans.

4) the federal government was desperate for money, trying to fight a war with no central bank or income tax.

Yet despite this INCREDIBLE PRESSURE, James Madison vetoed the bank bill.

----------


## Danke

> You are a fanatic who believes something because you read it somewhere.


lol.  So where did you learn your history?  Are you a reincarnated founding father?

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Sorry to hear that.  But it's no excuse for the disdain you have for people who don't see things your way.


How frighteningly funny and ironic coming from you. I don't have any disdain, merely disappointment. So close, but yet so far away. _I'm for freedom, but I support taxation._  Funny. 

You won't even debate, acknowledge, or illustrate in any manner when presented with conflicting information to your world view. That is to be though, you are older, and older people generally are rigid in their views. It is to be expected. This revolution will be won with the younger generation.

----------


## South Park Fan

> No, I don't.
> 
> 1) Madison never instituted draft, and we won the War of 1812 without a draft.


 Perhaps you are unfamilar with Henry Clay's speech denouncing Madison for attempted to push a draft?




> 2) We did not invade Canada, we counter-attacked the British empire by invading the province of Canada.  It was good military strategy, be we had bad luck because Napoleon had just attacked Russia, so it took pressure off the British.  We still won the war anyway.


 "Good military strategy" is trying to impose American rule on a people that didn't want it, based on the faux justification of being at war? Also, how can we "counterattack" the British Empire when it was the United States that declared war on Britain? Was Germany "counterattacking" Poland by invading them? Also, the Treaty of Ghent restored the status quo ante bellum, so it was essentially a stalemate in terms of outcome.




> 3) The Second bank was the same as the first bank, so no precedent was established.  But Madison vetoed a different bank bill in January 1815 that would have expanded the powers of the bank.  Madison believed that the first congress and George Washington set a precedent on what powers a central bank and could not have.  Madison's constitutional precedent should have been used in 1913 to stop the Fed.


 Any libertarian should oppose any form of central bank. It doesn't matter what "precedent" says about it. Washington and Hamilton were wrong when they implemented the First National Bank, so trying to defend Madison by hiding under Washington's legacy doesn't work. 




> We won the War of 1812 with a federal budget of less than 4% of the GNP.  That would be like winning a war with China today with a federal budget of $600 billion.


 That was still a drastic increase of the federal budget compared to the budget prior to the war. So one should support Madison because he didn't spend quite as much as modern presidents (which isn't saying anything at all!)?




> If you want an idea how remarkable James Madison was, imagine what was going on in January 1815:
> 
> 1) the Hartford convention was discussing possible secession and non-cooperation.


 Good for them. That would be a win-win: New Englanders wouldn't have to fight in a war that didn't benefit them and Southerners wouldn't be burdened by protectionist tariffs. 




> 2) the treaty talks in Europe had not progressed all that much for 6 months.
> 
> 3) the British were favored to win the Battle of New Orleans.


 So Madison gets credit for Jackson's military victory?




> 4) the federal government was desperate for money, trying to fight a war with no central bank or income tax.


 Maybe they shouldn't have fought the war in the first place. One of the many benefits of not having a central bank or income tax is that it restrains the governments' warmaking endeavors. 




> Yet despite this INCREDIBLE PRESSURE, James Madison vetoed the bank bill.


 Non sequitor.

----------


## Deborah K

> How frighteningly funny and ironic coming from you. I don't have any disdain, merely disappointment. So close, but yet so far away. _I'm for freedom, but I support taxation._  Funny. 
> 
> You won't even debate, acknowledge, or illustrate in any manner when presented with conflicting information to your world view. That is to be though, you are older, and older people generally are rigid in their views. It is to be expected. This revolution will be won with the younger generation.


Your so-called "disappointment" is well hidden by your disdain.  The reason you think I don't engage you is because I'm unwilling to go in circles and repeat myself over and over.  Make the effort to understand my position before you accuse me of old age and rigidity in my views.  I'm not so easily swayed as a young person is because I have life experience under my belt.  And while you're at it, you might try remembering that Ron Paul is 73.  

I do not support taxing people's right to exist ( taxing our wages).  So, you're off base there.  You would know that if you took the time to read my threads. But I also understand that gov't is supposed to be in place to protect the rights of individuals and that requires funding it.  Dr. Paul's position on this is very clear and I am in agreement with him on it i.e. federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs.  If it is a voluntary tax, then it can't be theft, and it is no different than a community voluntarily hiring security, for example.  I understand that it has gone way out of control, and I have stated that I firmly believe it is because the American people fell asleep at the wheel.  It is no different than a parent who loses control over their kids - whose fault is that?  Or a business owner that lets his employees run amok - whose fault is it?  Same difference in my book.  

Look, you have a right to believe how you want, as I do.  My issue with you and others like you,  is that you are 'bringing clubs to the meeting' and verbally clobbering anyone who isn't as "enlightened"  as you.  Justify it if you must, but understand that freedom prevails through civil discourse, not heavy-handedness.

----------


## Travlyr

> Your so-called "disappointment" is well hidden by your disdain.  The reason you think I don't engage you is because I'm unwilling to go in circles and repeat myself over and over.  Make the effort to understand my position before you accuse me of old age and rigidity in my views.  I'm not so easily swayed as a young person is because I have life experience under my belt.  And while you're at it, you might try remembering that Ron Paul is 73.  
> 
> I do not support taxing people's right to exist ( taxing our wages).  So, you're off base there.  You would know that if you took the time to read my threads. But I also understand that gov't is supposed to be in place to protect the rights of individuals and that requires funding it.  Dr. Paul's position on this is very clear and I am in agreement with him on it i.e. federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs.  If it is a voluntary tax, then it can't be theft, and it is no different than a community voluntarily hiring security, for example.  I understand that it has gone way out of control, and I have stated that I firmly believe it is because the American people fell asleep at the wheel.  It is no different than a parent who loses control over their kids - whose fault is that?  Or a business owner that lets his employees run amok - whose fault is it?  Same difference in my book.  
> 
> Look, you have a right to believe how you want, as I do.  My issue with you and others like you,  is that you are 'bringing clubs to the meeting' and verbally clobbering anyone who isn't as "enlightened"  as you.  Justify it if you must, but understand that freedom prevails through civil discourse, not heavy-handedness.


Good answer.  Yet, they are not "enlightened."  They make false assumptions and think they have it all figured out.  They read something on Mises and believe it without question.  It's sad really.  You are absolutely right:  _"gov't is supposed to be in place to protect the rights of individuals and that requires funding"_ 

No one has presented a complete answer on how a society gets organized without government.  And I have asked many times... only to have them point me to Stefbot, Rothbard and others... but they never answer the question... "absent government, how are rights protected?"

A republic is the best answer ever devised.  The problem is who it serves.  Right now it is serving the central banking master, but when the people get really fed up... I mean really fed up... fed up to the point that real revolution takes place... the republic will be restored for the people.  The answer is in the U.S. Constitution... it was written for the people... it is brilliant.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Perhaps you are unfamilar with Henry Clay's speech denouncing Madison for attempted to push a draft?


It was Daniel Webster, not Henry Clay.  Madison never asked for a draft.  James Monroe asked for the states to draft if not enough volunteers enlisted.  Webster was a big government fear-mongering windbag.  There wasn't even close to enough votes to pass a draft bill and even if it passed, Madison would have vetoed it.




> "Good military strategy" is trying to impose American rule on a people that didn't want it, based on the faux justification of being at war? Also, how can we "counterattack" the British Empire when it was the United States that declared war on Britain? Was Germany "counterattacking" Poland by invading them? Also, the Treaty of Ghent restored the status quo ante bellum, so it was essentially a stalemate in terms of outcome.


The province of Canada was imposing its will on French people, which was almost half its population, and a large proportion of English people wanted to be free of the British military empire.

Canada was providing naval bases for the British assault on American shipping.  The British navy had seized about 400 vessels and kidnapped around 8000 men.  If this wasn't bad enough, the British navy was not just kidnapping the men, but using them in their own navy to impose world domination.  Canada was also providing material support to Indians who were encouraged to attack Americans and scalp them.  On top of all this, there were two incidents were the British fired upon Americans, the _Leander_ and _Chesapeake_ shootings.  In both cases, several men were in injured, killed and kidnapped and the ships seized.

You are basically a liar.  You talk of Canada like it was a neutral independent nation, when in fact is was part of the British military empire.  So are you pro or anti-empire?  I am anti-empire.  You seem to be pro-empire.  Ron Paul is anti-empire.




> Any libertarian should oppose any form of central bank. It doesn't matter what "precedent" says about it. Washington and Hamilton were wrong when they implemented the First National Bank, so trying to defend Madison by hiding under Washington's legacy doesn't work.


I do oppose a central bank.  But if you understand what was going on during the time of first congress, you will understand why they voted for a temporary bank and then George Washington signed it.  If you understand this, then you can explain why the Fed is blatantly unconstitutional, yet be able to handle the retort that George Washington and James Madison signed bank bills.




> That was still a drastic increase of the federal budget compared to the budget prior to the war. So one should support Madison because he didn't spend quite as much as modern presidents (which isn't saying anything at all!)?


James Madison's spending was vastly lower than modern presidents.  The total federal spending was less than 4% of the GNP, which would be like a $600 billion dollar federal budget today.  Also, the war was declared by congress, not by James Madison, per the US Constitution.  Once war is declared it is the president's job to win it.




> Good for them. That would be a win-win: New Englanders wouldn't have to fight in a war that didn't benefit them and Southerners wouldn't be burdened by protectionist tariffs.


The main motive of the Hartford Convention was to keep the Mississippi river closed to American commerce.  The NE banking interests wanted a monopoly on trade.  James Madison wanted the Mississippi river open to American commerce.




> So Madison gets credit for Jackson's military victory?


Some credit, since Madison was the commander-in-chief.  James Monroe deserve some credit for working to supply Jackson.  The pirates Lafitte helped, too.  But Jackson did a marvelous job and got most of the credit for that victory which he deserved.




> Maybe they shouldn't have fought the war in the first place. One of the many benefits of not having a central bank or income tax is that it restrains the governments' warmaking endeavors.


So you are pro-empire?  People exploited and suppressed by a military empire shouldn't fight back?  Do you also condemn those who resist the American empire in the Middle East & central Asia today?  Or should they just lay down and take it?




> Non sequitor.


Your entire post is nonsense.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Good answer.  Yet, they are not "enlightened."  They make false assumptions and think they have it all figured out.


I want to separate the B from the S on minarchy versus anarchy so I am going to address this remark in depth.




> No one has presented a complete answer on how a society gets organized without government.


Here is a complete answer...

Every minarchist I have ever heard defend the Constitution claims this:




> I understand that it has gone way out of control, and I have stated that I firmly believe it is because the American people fell asleep at the wheel.  It is no different than a parent who loses control over their kids - whose fault is that?  Or a business owner that lets his employees run amok - whose fault is it?  Same difference in my book.


That right there is what we call almost truth.  What does it mean?  It means the only way minarchy is possible is if people believe in it.  Ironically this is not far from the truth and is only a small leap away from truth.

The world is anarchy.  This is truth.  This is fact.

So what does that make society?  Obviously something other than anarchy.  Since anarchy is truth any intervention against anarchy is artifical.  It is fiction.  It is make believe.  It is only sustainable if people believe in it.

The greater truth is that ANY society is only sustainable if people believe in it.  Since voluntaryism is also in the realm of fiction in that it is a form of society or an intervention against nature due to the non-aggression principle it also is only sustainable if people believe in it.

Any other society ever known to man is only sustainable if people believe in it.  Monarchy, or whatever else you want to call it.

So here is what the best minarchist argument that can be made boils down to even though none of the minarchists around here have ever made it.

Minarchy is more viable because the idea is more marketable and sellable than voluntaryism.  This argument can really only be made because more people have heard about the Constitution than have heard about voluntaryism despite the fact that more people who have heard about the non-aggression principle comprehend it far easier than the Constitution.

But the more people have heard about it argument is weak and despite the fact I'd rather not because it is not necessary, we can certainly compare the marketing potential and features of two fictional society's that are only sustainable if people believe in them and require people achieving a state of enlightenment.  Not to mention if minarchy was a popular product the United States wouldn't even be in the mess that it is in.

If it takes a majority believing in something then I would rather be selling the best product the market has to offer... voluntaryism.

But I am not really selling voluntaryism.  I am selling truth.  I am selling society is only sustainable with magic pixie fairy dust.  The magic pixie fairy dust is eternal vigilance.  Eternal vigilance is nothing more than generations of people believing in a particular type of intervention against the natural world of anarchy aka... society.  If everyone realizes society is only sustainable because we believe in it why choose coercion and second best?

As I mentioned earlier minarchy and voluntaryism are not popular products.  It really doesn't matter which one you are selling because people are not buying what we are selling.  Arguing that one society is better than another society (minarchy versus socialism) is arguing over the features of two fictional products.  It is a much weaker argument than the truth.  The truth is society is fiction and is only sustainable if a majority of force (whether or not that is a majority of people is irrelevant) believes in it.  Which might be changing in the near future if there is major economic turmoil.

----------


## Brian Defferding

Update:  I am now in a new epic debate with the same guy over the Tenth Amendment, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause.  I will say this, this dude is good, as I would expect a law graduate to be.

Go here, and see my posts (I am under the same user name), and check out his response (his user name is Frozen Sooner):

http://606studios.com/bendisboard/sh...93848&page=188

Check out the next pages to see the debate in length.

----------


## Noob

I do wonder what America would be like today if America was successful in capturing Canada, and how the Civil War would have played out with Canada being part of America at the time.

----------


## Nate-ForLiberty

//

----------

