It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I thought we were discussing the Constitution not the Declaration of Independence.
Now you're just being insulting, rude, vulgar and nit picking...
It deprives an individual of their INALIENABLE rights which PREEMPT the article making it *legal*.
Lawful/legal - massive difference, etc, etc.
So therefore if a Judge upheld the Constitution in it's fullest, and recognized the preemption of natural rights to the Constitution. No one could ever be held as an indentured servant as this deprives their right to liberty.
Slaves were seen in societies eyes as property before individuals. So as such they weren't recognized by society as having natural rights.
Fast forward, and oh my god. Now we see every human has natural rights, and slavery is unlawful under the Constitution despite it being in the Constitution! Because now they're humans and not property, yaaaay!
Secondly, the Constitution can not exist without the Declaration, and the Declaration establishes the PURPOSE of government.
He's also making the claim that the bill of rights didn't apply to states prior to the 14th amendment, which is also ridiculous considering the bill of rights addresses our natural rights - which don't change no matter who is governing.
(Source Wikipedia)
Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) established a precedent on whether the United States Bill of Rights could be applied to state governments.
John Barron co-owned a profitable wharf in the Baltimore harbor. He sued the mayor of Baltimore for damages, claiming that when the city had diverted the flow of streams while engaging in street construction, it had created mounds of sand and earth near his wharf making the water too shallow for most vessels. The trial court awarded Barron damages of $4,500, but the appellate court reversed the ruling.
The Supreme Court decided that the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that government takings of private property for public use require just compensation, are restrictions on the federal government alone. Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall held that the first ten "amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them." Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250.
The case was particularly important in terms of American government because it stated that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights did not restrict the state governments. Later Supreme Court rulings would reaffirm this ruling of Barron, most notably United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). However, beginning in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the process and doctrine of selective incorporation. Therefore, as to most, but not all, provisions of the Bill of Rights, Barron and its progeny have been circumvented, if not actually overruled.
Again, just because the supreme court says they don't apply to everyone at all times doesn't mean they don't. The supreme court is a criminal institution of federalists.
The federal government can not be an impartial arbiter of disputes in regards to its own power.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Originally posted by rnaa
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and defines the mechanisms of arbitrating disputes between the branches and the States. What other impartial arbiter do you suggest? The United Nations perhaps? Or the British Crown? How about Fidel Castro or Nelson Mandela?
In your particular post I'm referred to, you seem to be advocating Taxation without Representation.
There are no specific terms included in the 17th Amendment that cause any modification, clarification, overturn or repeal of Article 4, Section 4, which means that it's still valid & Constitutional to provide the State Government with proper due representation in Congress!
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
The 17th Amendment stands as a direct violation, in that it denies representation to the States, even while the US Government continues to tax the States! Without proper representation in Congress, our Federal government violates the Republic guaranteed to the States!
Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
Perhaps you should do some research on the 16th amendment. There are several good arguements that it was not legally ratified. Ive looked into it, and there is good arguement for it.
It also seems that the SCOTUS is very reluctant to ave a hearing on the matter too...And this is in addition to the SCOTUS ruling on numerous specific cases where SCOTUS ruled that the 16th Amendment grants "no new Powers of taxation." Which means we have to go right back to the original Constitutional text, that does specify Tax Powers.
Originally posted by rnaa
The history of the 16th Amendment is indeed very interesting, not least because people don't want to pay their fair share toward the operation of their nation and look for any excuse to weasel out of their taxes.
Originally posted by mryanbrown
Uh, not only was this Amendment not ratified.
There's evidence that shows it wasn't. The only evidence that says it was, was the evidence stating it was.
Robert Welch
And for well over a hundred years our politicians, statesmen, and people remembered that this was a republic, not a democracy, and knew what they meant when they made that distinction.
Thomas Jefferson
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
US Constituion; Preamble
We the People of the United States... ...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Thomas Jefferson
Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people.
Thomas Jefferson
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
A Constitutional Republic protects the RIGHTS of the individual.
A Democracy allows the subjugation of the minority.
Originally posted by rnaa
America is BOTH a democracy and a republic. They are not mutually exclusive terms, they are complimentary terms.
Democracy is a political form of government where governing power is derived from the people, either by direct referendum (direct democracy) or by means of elected representatives of the people (representative democracy). The term comes from the Greek: dēmokratía, "rule of the people."
I notice that rnaa seems to completely disregard any thought to Article 4, section 4, as I pointed out in my earlier posts...It guarantees the States with a Republican (ie: representative) form of government within the Senate, but the 17th Amendment violates it by making the Senate a public vote. There has been no Amendment or legislation of any kind that specifically "amends" Article 4, Section 4.
Source: Jefferson on Politics & Government
"We may say with truth and meaning that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition; and believing as I do that the mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights, and especially that the evils flowing from the duperies of the people are less injurious than those from the egoism of their agents, I am a friend to that composition of government which has in it the most of this ingredient." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23