reply to post by rnaa
Man you seriously need to do some research on the way our judicial system works (checks and balances), but I do commend you on your debating skills.
I feel as if I could be having this argument with Alexander Hamilton, the Rothschild lackey who loved the idea of a powerful central government.
You very artfully ignore certain parts of an argument while addressing other parts.
First, I would like for you to address the issue of income, which you ignored, and as I said before is the crux to the argument we are having over the
direct unapportioned taxation of the 16th amendment.
How does the Supreme Court define income and why does that apply to the 16th amendment?
Second, it doesn't matter what kind of welfare is supposed to be provided.
This clause that you are referring to is the basis for the 14th amendment, which more or less negates the previous ten (the Bill of Rights), but
honestly NONE OF THAT MATTERS.
According to Baron v. Baltimore, we never had access to the first ten anyway, because they were the basis for every state's constitution.
There was no need to enforce federal rights that we were already privy to by the fact that we are state citizens.
The concept of the 14th amendment is totally redundant.
And states rights should
always trump federal.
Or at least that is what the 10th tells me.
If you don't believe me, then look into the concepts of incorporation and reverse incorporation.
The bottom line to this argument is that the 14th amendment essentially contracted the enforcement of our rights to the federal government.
This is something that was never meant to happen.
Everything past the 14th Amendment could be considered unconstitutional because the 14th is an adhesion contract that makes everyone a subject of the
It is a contract that we were never a party to negotiating.
THUS AN ADHESION CONTRACT, WHICH IS NOT A LEGAL CONTRACT.
Since you seem to know case law, then you surely are aware of Marbury versus Madison, which clearly states that any laws created by congress or
proposed by congress that contradict the original intent of the US Constitution are not constitutional.
Period. End of story.
It does not matter what is written in DC. What is ratified, or what is amended, because....
A jury can always find someone NOT GUILTY because they believe that the law is unjust. And there is not one single thing that anyone can do about it.
And it only takes ONE person to hang a jury.
The last protection built into the US Constitution against the tyranny of a big central government is the concept of JURY NULLIFICATION.
Would you also care to address Sherry Jackson, the ex IRS agent who I would gander knows the law much, much better than you or I?
She makes the exact same argument that I am making, and she is being illegally detained for doing so.
This argument that you and I are having is the exact same argument that was being discussed in the Federalist Papers, especially number 10.
If you want to make this about semantics, then fine.
That seems to be how all of the esquires to the crown (lawyers) have turned our Constitution inside out.
But everyone reading owes it to themselves to investigate the concept of jury nullification.
They owe it to themselves to know what few rights we have left and how to defend them.
As I said before, our rights are GOD GIVEN, and inalienable.
The citizenship issue was never addressed by the founding fathers because they knew that citizenship equals subject.
We have been unknowingly duped into a contract with the federal government to "enforce" our rights. We are "subjects" of the federal government,
which is a foreign corporation known as The United States of America.
And I pray to God that you stay in Australia with the other criminals.
(That was a joke dude. I am from the state of Georgia, the original penal colony. I do have respect for your debate skills)