OpEd: Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Perhaps semantics, but a T.I.N. is a business tax identification number, not a personal income tax number. Only a business is required to have a T.I.N. People are required to report their taxable income using their Social Security Number, which is not, technically, a tax identification number.

You are quibbling with this and making the same arguments of semantics the tax collectors make. One must apply for a T.I.N. number in order to gain one, and one will not be granted a business license without one. The T.I.N. is an contract made with the I.R.S. regarding income taxation. This is how employers have effectively become fiat tax collectors on behalf of the I.R.S. when they deduct an employees taxes from their paychecks, due to that T.I.N. which then offers up a myriad of regulations regarding Form W-4's and obtaining Social Security Numbers from their employees. I might add that these myriad of regulations are overwhelmingly misinterpreted, either through willful fraud, or by mistake of fact, but both the U.S.C. and the C.F.R. give precise instructions in what do do in the event an employee fails to supply an identifying number or refuses to sign a Form W-4, and at no point is an employer instructed to refuse employment or coerce an employee into acquiescence by withholding pay until demands of acquiescence are met.

As to your earlier question in an above post, yes that is my estimation of tyranny and more in line with our Founders principles.

reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe

I think this system is arbitrary, anti-business, anti-consumer, inviting of graft and corruption, but I do not believe it is unconstitutional. The Sixteenth Amendment clearly makes it constitutional. That said, I am a *staunch* advocate of the Fair Tax.

The Sixteenth Amendment does not make income taxation Constitutional, and for the record I never argued income taxation was unconstitutional. Abhorrent to freedom, especially when levied in perpetuity, but not unconstitutional. The Sixteenth Amendment is a response to the SCOTUS' ruling of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), which had struck down an early income tax portion of a revenue bill as unconstitutional because the Pollock court viewed it as being a direct tax without any apportionment. The Sixteenth Amendment was Congress flexing their own muscles and reminding the courts that they have the complete and plenary power of taxation, and that any future income tax levied without apportionment was to be viewed as an indirect tax and not a direct tax.

A "fair tax" would be a defeatable tax, meaning an indirect tax levied upon some form of activity that people can opt out of if they choose to. Earning income is not an activity that people can opt out of, nor has earning income ever been specifically named as a taxed activity by Congress.

Which was one of my primary original points. I *could* choose to live outside the system if I *chose* to do so. Therefore, it is my premise that I do not live under tyranny in this subset of our discourse.

Living outside of the system will be met with much harassment and coercion, I assure you. If it were so easy to live outside of the system, far more people would be doing it. The system has been set up to ensure that living outside of it only brings threat of much harassment from both government and even private businesses who increasingly insist they will only do business with those inside the system, and if one is not careful about how they live outside of this system they could, and some have, found themselves imprisoned for doing so.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe

 

The portion you just quoted is in response to you asserting that the courts are the biggest threat to freedom in this country. The courts do not determine what is enforced, this is wholly determined by the Executive Branch.

Ah, here I completely disagree.

The courts determine the enforcement [by declaring the constitutionality] of gun laws, which are almost universally unconstitutional, and I could make the case that they may be universally so.

The courts determine the constitutionality of discriminatory actions against homosexuals, re: the Defense of Marriage Act.

The courts decided that a woman has a Constitutional Right to have an abortion. A right gained completely outside the Legislative and Executive branches. And, FTR: One I agree with.

The courts are going to be called upon to decide whether or not Arizona has the right to enforce their new law on illegal immigrants.

It is our courts that were set up as, and are, our "final arbiters." Yet, just about every year there is a case that comes before the courts that has the potential to *fundamentally* *rewrite* America. At least our president and congressional legislators face reelection on a regular schedule... our justices do not. They are not answerable to anyone.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

As to your earlier question in an above post, yes that is my estimation of tyranny and more in line with our Founders principles.

Then I would posit that you would define every society and social contract that has ever existed to be tyrannical.

I believe in maximum personal liberty, but even I would not go so far as to have *no* laws restraining behaviors. Society cannot function as a "well ordered society" without the social contract.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Living outside of the system will be met with much harassment and coercion, I assure you. If it were so easy to live outside of the system, far more people would be doing it. The system has been set up to ensure that living outside of it only brings threat of much harassment from both government and even private businesses who increasingly insist they will only do business with those inside the system, and if one is not careful about how they live outside of this system they could, and some have, found themselves imprisoned for doing so.

I would argue that one could easily live outside the system, and suffer no harassments, as long as one did not wish to live *within* society. It's a choice. Perhaps not an attractive choice, but it is a choice none the same.

I don't think its a slippery slope, I think think it is deliberate and well planned. It is no accident, the direction which the developed nations are heading is clear to everyone but only the most propaganda washed people. You need a license for just about everything. That right there is reason enough to overthrow the U.S government and dismantle the machine. The abundance of harmful laws increases every year and you no longer own anything (you must pay insurance, taxes and registrations). America, at least, no longer is a nation of sovereign citizens, but instead, slaves to the state, from cradle to grave.

Originally posted by wheresthetruth


Council on Foreign Relations
Formation of the Federal Reserve
Formation of the Bilderburg Group
Kennedy Assassination
Trilateral Commission
NAFTA
Patriot Act


This is just a very VERY short list of actions taken against US citizens to chip away at freedoms and move this nation towards an oppressive one world governing system.

It is only obvious when you start looking beyond the limitation of your comfortable lounge chair.

If I could, I'd like to add:

The Gold confiscation Act in the 1930's
Patriot Act II
Homeland Security Act
Lincoln Assassination
The Defense Act
About 40 or so Executive Orders
Stripping police of their role as 'serve and protect' to becoming thugs for the govt.
Disrupting our rights to Assembly and Free Speech
Soon to be mandated govt run healthcare program
Soon to be implemented Cap & Trade taxes for their mistakes

There's more, but I just drew a blank

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
I don't think its a slippery slope, I think think it is deliberate and well planned. It is no accident, the direction which the developed nations are heading is clear to everyone but only the most propaganda washed people. You need a license for just about everything. That right there is reason enough to overthrow the U.S government and dismantle the machine. The abundance of harmful laws increases every year and you no longer own anything (you must pay insurance, taxes and registrations). America, at least, no longer is a nation of sovereign citizens, but instead, slaves to the state, from cradle to grave.

I agree with that. I tend to think of it more as a controlled crash than a freefall. They continue to shorten the pilings that hold up our house of cards. Our best bet these days is to just completely abandon their influence, and start our own. We need a new FDA, CDC, AMA, ADA, Treasury, DHEC, OSHA, EPA, Supreme Court, and get rid of any Republicrats. Since we don't like their rules, we'll just ignore them and make our own, along with a reliable infrastructure to maintain it where WE influence what we eat, drink, read, learn, and believe..

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I have the impression that you believe that any restriction is tyranny. Is this correct?

No, he believes that any restriction to HIM is tyranny. If it is someone else being restricted, that would be fine.

He is intelligent, but he is self-interestedly intelligent. He sees some problems clearly, if they are problems for him. What he fails to see is that America was not founded for his sole pleasure and convenience. It was founded for The people, not just one person, or even one kind of person.

Any society requires individual sacrifice. It is a balancing of personal liberties against the common good. We all have restrictions on our freedoms, that range from not being able to pee freely in the streets, to having to register our businesses, and at the very extreme upper end, some people sacrifice their very lives for the good of society. The ultimate inconvenience, you might say.

You cannot find a society in which this is not true. From the most basic tribe all the way up to great nations.

Personally, I smell a spoiled little rich man, who chafes at the fact that the little people think they can restrain his regal movements.

General Observation [of the personal sort]:

Sometimes I wonder if I'm an unwitting participant of a writ large version of "The Dollar Game" wherein I have too much invested to give up.

Or...

If others do not have enough invested to be *invested* in the country and the outcome. As in: Just toss everything in the rubbish bin.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Personally, I smell a spoiled little rich man, who chafes at the fact that the little people think they can restrain his regal movements.

Were I asked I would call that unduly harsh.

This is just about the best arguing [as in: Debating] I've had in... well... I couldn't name since when.

Theory and logic can often seem "bloodless" or pompous. I may disagree with some of JP's points, but his logic is sound and his facts seem to be in order. So, ultimately, it is opinions we are arguing [debating].

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe

Were I asked

I would call that unduly harsh.

You dont have to be asked, as you well know you can offer whatever opinion you have.

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
This is just about the best arguing [as in: Debating] I've had in... well... I couldn't name since when.

You should join the debate forums then. We have a lot of fine debaters on ATS.

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
Theory and logic can often seem "bloodless" or pompous. I may disagree with some of JP's points, but his logic is sound and his facts seem to be in order. So, ultimately, it is opinions we are arguing [debating].

You are preaching to the choir in terms of theory and logic. I majored in philosophy, and I take my logic seriously. I am also aware that logic is a form, and has nothing to do with truth. There is a reason Plato and others who cared about truth loathed sophistry. You can make very logically sound arguments about unicorns and fairies, and since neither exist, say nothing at all about the truth.

Our friend here does bring in facts into his argument, he isnt presenting us with unicorns and fairies, but presenting the facts that suit your argument and not those that dont have little to do with cutting to the truth, now do they?

It doesnt take a logician, nor a genius, to see that his criticism of packing courts, etc., seems rather lopsided. Ie; it is wrong when it works against the interests of big business and the wealthy. When and if I hear him arguing about misbehavior on both sides of the fence, I will retract my comment. Until then, it stands.

I simply loathe self interest unless it is honest self interest. I detest it when people pretend to stand on principle, but then fail to apply it when it doesnt suit them. If he were honestly self interested, and just said, "I want this because it suits me" I could at least respect his position. I dont respect dishonesty. And he is being intellectually dishonest by omission.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Before going back to address the O.P. in this discourse I will take the time to first suggest you might have your olfactory organ checked out as your sense of smell is way off. I have never been rich, and while I certainly aspire to someday be, at the time I am wretchedly poor doing the best I can to "live outside of the system".

You have arrogantly deigned to speak on my behalf, hypocritically declaring my self interest as a problem, refusing to admit that your arrogance to speak on my behalf is founded upon your own self interest.

Further, I wonder what the difference between intelligence that is "self-interestedly" so as to opposed what is presumably a collectivist intelligence, not to be confused with a collective knowledge, but to be understood as the opposite of personal self-interest, actually is in your opinion. Your arrogance, (simply defined as a presumption of knowledge), continues with your assertion that I believe that that "America" was founded for my sole purposes, blatantly ignoring the many posts I have made, and tireless efforts I have made fiercely advocating inalienable rights for all. You do not ascribe this characteristic to me based on any other knowledge than your own self interest. When you enter into this thread simply to attack my character based upon nothing more than an ill informed opinion, one has to wonder what you believe your self interest is.

The insidious of cultural memes is part of the problem with this incremental and covert tyranny we currently live under, and presumably this is why you have chosen to enter this thread to make personal attacks against my character, because you wish to advocate the current system, but not by offering up any sound logic or wisdom, but by attacking that which you perceive as an opponent. The word selfish has been currently defined by lexicographer's, in its simplest term, as having a chief concern for ones own interest, especially with disregard for others. I would argue this is nothing more than double speak, and the comma and qualification that follows "a chief concern for ones own interest" is wholly fabricated and couldn't be further from the truth.

Humans are social beings, and in that context, a chief concern for ones own interest clearly includes the well being of others. Family is important for ones own interest, and in order to ensure success of that interest, regard, indeed fierce regard for that family, is more than prudent. Friends become a part of group that people, who acting in their own best interest, join in order to further achieve that best interest. Showing regard for friends is clearly in ones best interest. After family and friends there is humanity as a whole, and where many collectivists will tend to argue for "population control", I am on record in this site as being staunchly against this, because humanity matters, each and everyone of us, and family matters, and every person has a right, indeed an inalienable right to create a family without asking for permission from the state, or collectives.

Where you advocate sacrifice as a fundamental part of society, I point to history and show you many cultures that quite literally fell due to gross and barbaric sacrifices. Sacrifice in its simplest terms is giving up something of a higher value in exchange for something of a lesser value. It is not at all in any persons best interest to make sacrifices. It is not in societies best interest to advocate sacrifice. Mel Gibson was fiercely attacked for his film Apocalypto because he made the point that the Mayan civilization fell, in a large part, due to its barbaric practice of sacrifice. Those that attacked Gibson were not advocates of personal self-interest at all.

When you assert that society requires a "balancing of personal liberties against the common good", you offer no description or definition of what this common good is and instead play a game of smoke and mirrors and instantly begin arguing that freedom comes with restrictions. This is a common game made by collectivists who advocate personal sacrifice. You clearly hope to define freedom as being the right to abrogate and derogate the rights of others, but this is not freedom, it is tyranny, which ultimately is what you advocate.

It is ironic that you mention "freely peeing in the streets", as my lesson in law and legislation began years ago back in Chicago when I chose to walk home from work one evening and found myself in the unenviable position of having to pee. I was with two of my workmates and we stopped in several establishments, where I asked to use their restroom so I could pee, but each time was denied access without first purchasing their product. I was not in a position to do so and my bladder was demanding I handle the problem immediately. So, I chose an alley way and hid behind a dumpster to pee. My friends stood by the dumpster sort of as a look out to warn me if anyone was coming. All efforts were made to make sure my urination was not in anyway viewed by the public.

Unfortunately, a police car drove by and seeing my two friends, and part of me hiding behind a dumpster, understandably pulled into the alley way to see what was happening. When they asked me what I was doing, I told them, and they arrested me for doing so. However, when they charged me, it was not for public urination, and instead I was charged with indecent exposure. I challenged this immediately and argued that the police officers arguably wouldn't even have known what I was doing if I hadn't told them, and of course pointed out that they had to ask me what I was doing, as my private parts were back in my pants at the time they asked.

They explained to me that there was no other laws on the books to charge me with, and that this was the closest they could find to charge me with. I challenged this and they, in effect, told me that I could tell it to the judge. This I did. Several weeks later I went to court and when the judge read me my charges he asked me if I understood. I said I did not. He read them again and said the charges were pretty straight forward and asked me if I understood. I said I did not. He asked me what the problem was, and I said I had not indecently exposed myself, and explained the circumstances and facts of the case. The courtroom bust out with laughter. The judge rapped his gavel and asked for silence and asked me how I figured peeing behind a dumpster was not indecent exposure.

I answered by asking him how it was, and insisted that what I did was not at all a sexual offense. The judge disagreed. I respectfully asked the judge if he was asserting that he derived sexual pleasure every time he urinated. Again the courtroom began laughing, and quite loudly so. The judge called for order again, and looked clearly angry. However, he asked to speak to the arresting officer, who was there, and asked him why he had charged me with indecent exposure. The officer gave the judge the same explanation he gave me, and the judge was silent for a moment. Then he asked the officer if there was not any law on the books that prohibited public urination. The officer answered no. The judge became outraged and began berating this police officer telling him he had no right to simply invent a crime in order to arrest me for what he felt was a crime.

The judge looked at me and apologized for my ordeal and dismissed the charges. This was not my first experience with the system and justice, this was just my first experience with understanding law. Soon afterward I began my journey in discovering the law, and learning what that meant compared to the myriad of legislative acts currently on the books. So, you are mistaken about peeing in the streets being prohibited, even if you might find such an act repulsive. I would suggest that if one simply whipped it out in full view of the public and began peeing, indecent exposure laws would apply, but simply finding a place to pee that does not violate any existing laws, is not inherently a restriction on freedom, and once you begin restricting freedom, it is no longer freedom.

You are willfully ignoring what I have offered as what a right is and isn't, and the self evidence of that right lies in its lack of harm to others. Hiding behind a dumpster to pee in area void of public restrooms is not an action that hurts others. I instinctively understood this prior to peeing, and even then did my due diligence in finding a proper restroom to handle the act, but since I was denied access I did what had to be done. Your advocacy of sacrifice may be self serving, but is not in anyone's best interest.

Your claim that you cannot find a society that can exist without sacrifice is specious, and history is filled with failed civilizations, and certainly tribes, that have undeniably failed. While there are many reasons why these historical civilizations ultimately failed, sacrifice is one of the primary reasons. So, beyond your clear faulty sense of smell, I respectfully submit your ability to reason and think logically is faulty as well.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux




It is late, but rest assured, I will address your "argument."

And you are right, in regards to your being a spoiled little rich man, I may have been in error. I forgot that wanna-bes are often as staunch supporters of "free markets" as those who have already made their killing in them.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Geeky_Bubbe
This is just about the best arguing [as in: Debating] I've had in... well... I couldn't name since when.

You should join the debate forums then. We have a lot of fine debaters on ATS.

I was unaware of ATS having debate forums. I will have to poke around to see if I can find them, though by the sound of it I would no doubt be completely outclassed... I've never even taken a class in philosophy let alone majored in it.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

When and if I hear him arguing about misbehavior on both sides of the fence, I will retract my comment. Until then, it stands.

Very well, I will hold to your word. Here are some posts I have made in the past:

Corporatism is not capitalism and the corporate mentality has revealed time and time again their profound disgust for capitalism and free market principles. In that regard, it can easily be argued that those who run corporations adhere to more of a Marxist ideology than a capitalist one. Indeed, in order for a corporation to survive it needs a working class. Conversely in order for massive competition to survive it needs many small businesses where "labor" is the same as the efforts those who own that business put into it.

It is not clear why you think that the only definition of success means being one who is in the top 1% of the wealth index, but this sort of envy is not doing you any justice.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

On the same page of that thread in a different post:

Your complaints are against oligopolism or corporatism and have nothing to do with capitalism except for the bill of goods you were sold by Marx. Furthermore, the "working class" is not bound to indentured servitude and can at any time break free of this "class" and strike out on their own and do business. Even in a highly regulated marketplace there are still street vendors across the nation who ignore the oppressive licensing and prohibition laws and sell their goods in public places anyway. They do so because there is a demand for those goods and people will buy those goods, regardless of the regulation that would seek to hinder it.

On the next page of that thread, and ironically directly below a post of yours, where you are addressing one of my arguments, and begin with this:

While I agree with much of what you wrote, we really cant have it both ways. It is a fact that there will be businesses that fail, and it is also a fact that there will be individuals that "fail" to thrive in a pure capitalist system.

To clarify that was your words I just quoted, and what I am about to quote is another post and argument I made in response to another poster:

Corporations do not lobby for less regulation but for more. Banks have lobbied for all sorts of regulations that would force people to do business with them. Indeed, only the top percentile need banks as all a bank can do is store wealth. Yet, most people do business with banks because of a system created to favor banks. That system is founded on legislation and mistaken beliefs that employers must pay their employees by checks instead of cash for one thing.

I continue in the next paragraph with this argument:

The "alternative medicine" industry has been under great attack by the pharmaceutical companies who have thrown billions of dollars into lobbying Congress to create laws that would demand vitamins and herbs gain FDA approval. On top of this are the unions that also lobby Congress for this oppressive regulation.

On that same page in another post further down I make this argument in response to a different poster:

You have made an excellent point and a great argument. I would have to agree that by not responding to non paying customers they do indeed place their paying customers in harms way, and as such it is an inefficient way to do business. However, taken to its logical extension, we can point to the homeless problem today and argue that the market place doesn't effectively allocate shelter, or we can point to the hungry and argue that the food markets don't effectively allocate food, but it should be clear, given that these markets are regulated that neither does regulation work.

I follow that paragraph with another in the same post:

As I responded to you in my last post, the market place, as regulated as it is today, is rife with fraud. It remains a caveat emptor reality with or with out the regulations. Indeed, in the U.S. we have anti-trust laws intended to prevent companies from becoming "too big to fail" and yet, we have a President, Congress and Chairman of the Federal Reserve arguing that tax dollars must be spent to bail out companies that are "too big to fail". Regulation does more harm than good and in the instance of fire departments, you have my wholehearted agreement, and it is nice to actually point to something government does well, and that would be fire departments, but the regulations of markets they don't do so well.

On the next page, I finally get around to responding to your original post addressing me, first with this:

Apologies Illusion, I just now read your reply to me. I agree that Smith's theories mimic "natural selection" quite remarkably so. I also find it ironic that it is "survival of the fittest" that has been most refuted in Darwin's theory. It has always struck me that those same Marxists and Leninist who wish to frame oligopolism as capitalism have also endeavored to erase "survival of the fittest" from the theories of evolution.

Followed with this paragraph:

I am, however, not sure what you mean by "can't have it both ways". I do acknowledge that there will be people who fail to thrive in a pure system of free market principles, but there are people who will fail to thrive regardless of the system in place.

Later in that post addressed to you, I offer this:

I have been insistent that capitalism has never had a chance to thrive because of heavy regulations. I am more than willing to acknowledge this is indicative of a flaw with in the theory of capitalism, but when faced with such hybrid theories like "Keynsian capitalism" or mild forms of socialism, that have been given a chance and look at the inequities they've produced, I hold strong that given a chance, capitalism might work.

And finally end that post addressed to you with this paragraph:

People are basically good, and can be trusted to do the right thing, for the most part. There are no doubt bullies and thugs and there always will be no matter what system is in place. However, under a free and unregulated market all people can compete unencumbered by suppression and oppression, but regulate that market and it favors the bullies and thugs who rely upon the law as legal plunder.

You then respond to that post, and my next post is a reply that begins as such:

It is acknowledged and agreed that the system is not set up so that everyone can succeed, but what system is? Certainly not the evolutionary process where some will quite literally fall prey to predators, whether they be beast or virus. What economic system can address the problems of inequality, both economic inequities and physical differences, not to mention psychological differences?

I follow that paragraph with this argument:

In terms of labeling an attitude that asserts that not all can succeed as jaded, I don't mean to argue that all can be rich and everyone can exist at the top 1%, mathematically that is just impossible. But the top 1% nor even 10% shouldn't be the limit to what defines success. Many teachers operate at a budgetary lifestyle well below the top 40 percentile and yet they are so profoundly good at what they do, so remarkably influential in their teaching that it would be a great disservice to us all to dismiss their efforts as not successful, to give just one example.

A few paragraphs later I make this argument.

Part of the reason usurpers have been able to use the law to legally plunder is that they have been successful in their propaganda convincing large masses of population that "there is nobility in poverty", or that systems that will work, are sold as systems that won't. Whether it be tyrants who sell a bill of goods wrapped in notions of divine right of kings, or priest class mystics who claim an authority, or megalomaniacs who pretend to serve as leaders of the collective, they gain this power through propaganda.

In a later post to yet another member I make this argument:

Furthermore, corporations are statutorily created entities that exist by the grant of the people and can be destroyed by the people by revoking their charters. Yet who actually works towards this goal? Instead, most people turn towards imagined leaders and ask them to reign in or control these corporations rather than simply destroy them.

In that same post:

Do you want to fix the problem? Stop abdicating your inherent political power and unite with others to destroy the corporate system and let freedom reign, but is this what you want or do you crave some other system of controlling people? Would you attempt to put in place some system that criminalizes greed? Who amongst any of us is expected to believe that you are any less greedy than the next person, and who amongst us is expected to believe that if only some ideal leader would come along then they could protect us all from us?

There are many more arguments I make in that thread advocating the end of the corporate system and praising the efforts of small and honest business, but I am running out of space. Would you have me continue trawling through old threads just to find more arguments I have made against banking institutions and corporatism before you honor your words and offer that retraction I rightfully have earned?

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

It is late, but rest assured, I will address your "argument."

And you are right, in regards to your being a spoiled little rich man, I may have been in error. I forgot that wanna-bes are often as staunch supporters of "free markets" as those who have already made their killing in them.

Yeah, you seem to forget very easily and must have one of those memory of conveniences. Perhaps a little rest will bring you back tomorrow in a more reasonable state of mind.

Explanation: S&F!

My only problem and its a petty one of semantics is that IMO it is not a slippery slope but instead a greasy totem pole. TPTB have to work real hard to be the SOB's that they really are AND since there is more than one Tyrant and they compare themselves to their rival peers it's more about King of the Mountain bravado and braggardo with each other than anything to do with the rest of us at the bottom of the pile.

Personal Disclosure: Its not the slippery slope to the pit of tyranny at all... it is the greasy totem pole and it just looks like the pit of tyrany because WE ARE ALL BRICKED IN! It's the Powerfull and therefor Free Megalomaniacs that are able to run riot and clamber for the top!

reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe

The courts determine the enforcement [by declaring the constitutionality] of gun laws, which are almost universally unconstitutional, and I could make the case that they may be universally so.

The courts no more determine the enforcement of laws than Congress does. Either the Executive branch will enforce them or they will not. Consider the Executive branches willful refusal to enforce much of the immigration laws on the books legislated by Congress today, as just one example. I wholeheartedly agree with you that gun laws are unconstitutional and universally illegal, but in the U.S. gun laws are not enforced because the courts made it so, the courts have, in the past, simply upheld these dubious laws, and the Executive branch has willingly enforced them.

Further, when you speak of courts determining the Constitutionality of legislation, you are referring to the legal concept of judicial review, which was not expressly granted the SCOTUS by Constitution, and instead was granted to The Supreme Court by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison. It was the reasoning of that Court that the Constitution, while not expressly granting this authority, implicitly does. I agree with this assessment but there are others who will disagree:

Critics argue that judicial review is not firmly founded either in the constitutional text or in history. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court’s first full exercise of the power to invalidate a federal law, Chief Justice John Marshall for a unanimous Court argued that a written Constitution limits the authority of all branches of the government, that “it is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” that the judiciary cannot enforce a law that conflicts with the Constitution, and that the oath taken by judges requires them to uphold the Constitution in making decisions that come before them. Nonetheless, the Constitution does not specifically fix in the judiciary the authority to interpret whether a law conflicts with the Constitution; and in many other democratic nations this task is left to the legislative branch. Since executive and legislative officials also take an oath to uphold the Constitution, this constitutional requirement does not specifically vest the final authority to interpret the Constitution in the judiciary. Read more: Judicial Review - Cooper v. Aaron, Brown, Collected Legal Papers, Marbury v. Madison, Marbury, Federalist Paper law.jrank.org...

Thomas Jefferson was incensed at the ruling of Marbury v. Madison and saw it as nothing more than a power grab by the courts.

The courts determine the constitutionality of discriminatory actions against homosexuals, re: the Defense of Marriage Act.

Here is an interesting argument, that has less to do with judicial review, and more to do with licensing schemes. Who say's that in order to get married a couple must first obtain a license to do so? Keeping in mind that a license is a grant to do something that would otherwise be illegal, how is it the state gets off in pushing a licensing scheme regarding marriage? Let's be clear here, the gay marriage issue is not one of getting married, it is one of getting the same tax benefits as heterosexual married couples do, which now drags in that damned income taxation I keep ranting against. Do you understand? How is not tyrannical to demand couples be licensed in order to be "legally" married? Remove that licensing scheme and it matters not what the courts say about gay marriage.

The courts decided that a woman has a Constitutional Right to have an abortion. A right gained completely outside the Legislative and Executive branches. And, FTR: One I agree with.

The courts did not just arbitrarily "decide" that there is a right to have an abortion, Norma L. McCorvey asserted she had a right to privacy in this matter, and the SCOTUS agreed with her. The Supreme Court did not invent this right, they understood, based upon the 9th Amendment that the right to privacy exists. Ironically, the courts are capricious and whimsical in acknowledging this right to privacy and certainly will not acknowledge it when it comes to personal drug use, or prostitution, or even gambling, but will acknowledge it when it comes to abortion.

The courts are going to be called upon to decide whether or not Arizona has the right to enforce their new law on illegal immigrants.

It is not a given that the SCOTUS will hear this case, not yet at least. Certainly the 10th Amendment suggest that Arizona does have a right to enforce their own legislation, particularly since even before The Bill of Rights in the Constitution, there is the fact that this Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government, and what is meant by that is that the minority can not be trumped by the majority. Further, even if the SCOTUS does agree to hear the case, and for whatever reasons rules against Arizona, it will not be that Court enforcing that law, and it will have to be the Executive branch. It is not clear that the current administration will be the regime at the time such a ruling would be rendered, and there is always a chance a new regime is elected that would be inclined to do what Jackson did and simply ignore the ruling, if indeed The Supreme Court does hear the case, and rules against Arizona. That is a lot of ifs.

It is our courts that were set up as, and are, our "final arbiters." Yet, just about every year there is a case that comes before the courts that has the potential to *fundamentally* *rewrite* America. At least our president and congressional legislators face reelection on a regular schedule... our justices do not. They are not answerable to anyone.

First, technically speaking, the Supreme Court is the final court of appeals, and most importantly The Supreme Court is most assuredly answerable to the people, and I respectfully submit that the SCOTUS upheld the Constitutionality of the 18th Amendment, and the people not only told Congress and the Executive branch to go to hell, they told the Supreme Court to go to hell as well. This is why that Amendment was eventually repealed by yet another Amendment.

reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe

I would argue that one could easily live outside the system, and suffer no harassments, as long as one did not wish to live *within* society. It's a choice. Perhaps not an attractive choice, but it is a choice none the same.

See, but here you have subtly gone from arguing that one can "live outside the system" to now arguing that one has the choice to no live within society. Society is not the system, they are two separate things.