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.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
While we're on the subject of this so called "Personal Income Tax", another question that might be asked is does Congress - who undeniably has the complete and plenary power of taxation - have the power to tax a right. Is not earning an income a fundamental right?
Earning the income yes. But once we take ownership of the monetary amount, that amount becomes property. Property taxes have never really been a big issue among Americans. Damn, I could be a darn good politician!
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
But, the so called "Personal Income Tax" is not a direct tax upon property, it is an indirect tax on some specific taxed activity, and income is used to measure how much is owed.
Originally posted by mal1970
to infringe: from Latin - infringere - to break, to weaken.
ANY restriction or weakening by the Fed Gov of my right to keep & bear arms is an infringement. My right has been weakened unlawfully & in violation of the supreme law of the land.
to question: to challenge or dispute, to cast doubt upon
Any challenge or dispute by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to my right to bear arms has been forbidden by it's own Constitution.
Originally posted by mal1970
No, they should not 'allow' it because I ALREADY HAVE that right. Both the Fed 2nd Amendment & Art1Sec21 of my State Con simply state that the Fed Gov & my State Gov respectively do not have the power or authority to restrict, trespass upon, hinder or even question that right. Period. It is other color-of-law statues that violate these superior laws that restrict my ability to do so.
Originally posted by mal1970
Edit to further add:
Now, to use your own logic against you, you have stated that protestors blocking a street are violating others right to travel. But, by your reasoning, if they have an alternate means of reaching that destination, then no one's rights are being violated. So, next time protestors close down a street, tough crap. Turn around & find another way. The only time protestors would be in the wrong is if that street is the *only* way to go from point A to point B. Correct?
Originally posted by mal1970
So then turning airports into constitution free zones & molestation stations is perfectly fine, as you don't have to fly, you can drive, walk, take a horse, etc. So this logic would hold true for picketers clogging up 4th St. Take 5th St instead & let the protestors alone.edit on 2011/10/17 by mal1970 because: further addendum
Originally posted by Jezus
Originally posted by Xcathdra
My direction was to point out that the people stating their rights were being aken away, couldnt adequately explain what their rights are. If they dont know, then how can they make the claim?
Freedom is a privilege?
You must prove yourself competent to deserve rights?
Originally posted by mal1970
Originally posted by Xcathdra
Life liberty and the pruist of happiness is not a right, yet people invoke it.
Woah, wait, what?!
Life is not a right? Liberty is not a right? I think you are missing a major point here. These 'non-rights' are natural rights, endowed upon us by our Creator, inherent in all mankind. They are so fundamental as to not need to be mentioned or enumerated & they are certainly beyond questioning. I can see now why you *think* traveling in any method one chooses is not a right. It is, of course, falling under Liberty, but i can see your argument against it with your... umm, belief structure. You call upon all these statues, the fallacy of case law, & your LE background, but you fail to grasp the basic rights of just being a human in God's image.
Wow, just... wow. That clears things up for me.
Originally posted by openyourmind1262
reply to post by Xcathdra
Check your facts again Mr.Shill. It was presented to congress prior to Ist Trade Center Bombing. It failed to get the votes. But after.... well we all know the outcome. And we as individuals cannot do anything about repealing the patriot act. Plain & simple. It aint on the ballot.
Saying it does not take rights away is silly.
Originally posted by Stratus9
HEY you are RIGHT!! That's exactly how Hitler used the Gestapo to get past the German constitution!
Wow people- stop complaining! You haven't lost any rights at all!
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Easy answer here . . .
I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
--Laws are constantly made to prohibit the free exercise of religion.
This is an interesting topic for discussion and JPZ would better suited to answer; but the basics of it would be:
If Government has been restricted and is prohibited from the free exercise thereof, why do we require permission from the IRS to proclaim our faith in regards to tax purposes. Maybe Jean Paul could expand that for me. I know him and I have discussed that very issue.
Originally posted by Mexocali
reply to post by Xcathdra
Lousianians can't sell used items to anyone with cash
Californians can't have more than 10 bullets on hand
Colorado can't collect the water off their own roof
Tenesee cops stop people and take their cash without charging them
Most states you cannot buy raw milk
Local zoning has stacks of incredulous restrictions, like no hanging laundry outside, no camping on your property
The list is big these are just the headlines research yourself
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I can't slap a gun on my hip and travel freely.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
When you don't bother to read the thread, you can jump to the wrong conclusions, as you did in this case.
When listing their rights, people have invoked life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. the problem with that is its not in the constitution, but in fact found in the declaration of Independence.
The Constitution guarantees an individual the freedom to travel unhindered within a state as well as across state lines. It does not specify the manner of transportation.
People want to use their own interpretations of the constitution based on what they think it should be, and its a valid point, but doesn't take into account the remaining population in the country.
My point was to show that if the people don't understand their rights, where they come from and how they apply, and how the levels of government work and apply, how can we expect things to be fixed? As I pointed out in a post prior to this, we are beyond the part where the mindset of "this is bad, someone else will fix it". Its all hands on deck or abandon ship.
I for one want to see the ship of state fixed and restored, but the only way to do that is for people to educate themselves on the government and participate, in all of it.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Quite true. Here is something too to ponder. The IRS claims "You may have taxable income from certain transactions even if no money changes hands" or if you barter, you have to determine "fair market value for your services/goods exchanged".
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ownbestenemy
Quite true. Here is something too to ponder. The IRS claims "You may have taxable income from certain transactions even if no money changes hands" or if you barter, you have to determine "fair market value for your services/goods exchanged".
Take note how careful the IRS is to use the word "may" in their suggestion. They are inviting "taxpayers" to take on more debt. This is the game of legality. This is the holy ritual handed down to us by the priest class lawyer sect, and you have just shared with us all one of their mystical incantations.
"Ooooga boooga oooga....maybe.....oooga booga oooga!"
Do you understand? No? Me neither. Leave mysticism for the mystics and law for the scientists.
When you dont bother to read the thread, you can jump to the wrong conclusions, as you did in this case.
When listing thier rights, people have invoked life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. the problem with that is its not in the constitution, but in fact found in the declaration of Independance.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.