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.

 

Holder says court power to review laws 'beyond dispute'

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Of course the Supreme Court's power to review laws is beyond dispute. That's kinda why they are there.


Well that was quick !!

Now how about some money back in OUR pockets !!

Can they do THAT real quick too ??


I found that by working a paying job, you can put money in your own pocket instead of relying on the government to give you money. I know, to some this might seem like nonsense, you know, to actually work for a living. But believe me, it does work.




posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
funny the scotus doesn't fix the tax laws right across the board
and give back the money ill gained in the confusion
to the people who earned it in the first place...

but saddly no...
you still have some more of that money that you worked for in your pocket
and all your monies belong to US

now GIVE IT HERE!



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
funny the scotus doesn't fix the tax laws right across the board
and give back the money ill gained in the confusion
to the people who earned it in the first place...

but saddly no...
you still have some more of that money that you worked for in your pocket
and all your monies belong to US

now GIVE IT HERE!


That's a point most people never consider !

These merry go round displays cost millions.

The hustlers get rich every time.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok

I found that by working a paying job, you can put money in your own pocket instead of relying on the government to give you money. I know, to some this might seem like nonsense, you know, to actually work for a living. But believe me, it does work.


Implying that Liberals, Democrats et al. favor government over employment is a dishonesty the discredits the conservative movement. It is a false premise that erodes thier credibility daily. The whole "socialist" thing is an argument that is failing.

Short of legitimate communists and socialists, which a very, very few in this country, the left overwhelmingly favors a strong economy and employed populace.

working a paying job, you can put money in your own pocket instead of relying on the government

This is a FALSE DICHOTMOMY...a FALSE EITHER/OR CHOICE.

There are very few people that can afford a heart transplant or a regiment of Chemo-Therapy out of thier own earnings.

Willingness to work hard and earn money does not vaccinate you from disease or the huge expenses required to treat those diseases.

Nor does working hard, staying employed, equip you to triage yourself when you are in a car accident, pursue and investigate the perpatrators when you house is burglerized, staying employed does not equip you to extinguish the fire if your home goes up in flames. It does not build roads or install traffic signals.

Healthcare expenses are exponentially out of scale with average earnings. You are no more able to pay for a tripple bypass out of your own earnings than you are able to build the road leading to your driveway.

No one is suggesting government take the place of earnings...only that government do those things we can not do as individuals. Those things that have no correlation to how hard we work....like crime, disease, natural disaster.

It is that premise that has brought people together for millenia...from tribes, to cities, to nations.

Work vs. Government provided....FALSE choice...and a dishonest argument.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Interesting take. This would mean that it is possible that the courts could uphold the law, while at the same time leaving the door open for later challenges as the law goes into effect.

Indeed, that might be the most likely outcome.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Actually, I was being sarcastic. The OP wanted more money from the government via tax breaks and I told him to get a job.

I am neither liberal nor conservative, neither end of the political spectrum in my opinion works very well.

Conservatives are all for judicial review, till it comes to something they support, then all of a sudden these judges become "activist judges" and they don't think they should interfere.

The hypocrisy on both ends is astounding.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Of course the Supreme Court's power to review laws is beyond dispute. That's kinda why they are there.


Well that was quick !!

Now how about some money back in OUR pockets !!

Can they do THAT real quick too ??


I found that by working a paying job, you can put money in your own pocket instead of relying on the government to give you money. I know, to some this might seem like nonsense, you know, to actually work for a living. But believe me, it does work.




Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Actually, I was being sarcastic. The OP wanted more money from the government via tax breaks and I told him to get a job.

I am neither liberal nor conservative, neither end of the political spectrum in my opinion works very well.

Conservatives are all for judicial review, till it comes to something they support, then all of a sudden these judges become "activist judges" and they don't think they should interfere.

The hypocrisy on both ends is astounding.



Actually I have always had a F/T job !!

Nothing in the OP says anything about wanting more money from the government via tax breaks



""Now how about some money back in OUR pockets !! ""

This could be like "create more jobs" ..... full time.

or, it could mean "return the money to the treasury" ..... just as fast as you take it.

I'm sure you assumed it meant Food Stamps, unemployment, etc.

If you don't have a job, you can't get a tax break.

That's the normal reaction anyway.








edit on Apr-06-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Seriously, if you are looking to the federal government to give you more money (no matter how you think they should do this), there's a serious disconnect from reality going on.

You want more money? Get a second job if you have one already. Guess what? More money for you.

Don't wait for the government to solve all your problems for you, fix your money problems yourself. Hey, how about getting a budget going so that you don't have to beg the government for a hand out of some kind?

Or here's a thought, start a business of your own, then you don't have to work for someone else and it's all up to you on how much money you make.

Either way you look at it, whether its tax breaks, job creation, or government hand outs, it all boils down to the same thing, it's not good for the budget, it's not good for the economy, and sorry pal but there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


You completely misunderstood.

I agree with ya.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
funny the scotus doesn't fix the tax laws right across the board
and give back the money ill gained in the confusion
to the people who earned it in the first place...

but saddly no...
you still have some more of that money that you worked for in your pocket
and all your monies belong to US

now GIVE IT HERE!


The SCOTUS cannot fix the tax code. I believe there is a strong legal argument to be made that a tax code that is a five volume set, with millions upon millions of words, a circumlocution of definitions that are maddenly tautological is not an act of legislation that can be understood by the person of average intelligence or better, and if this argument ever made up to the Supreme Court, they might agree and just strike the whole thing down.

Outside of that argument, the so called "Personal Income Tax" is in complete harmony with the 16th Amendment, and the 16th Amendment is in complete harmony with the Constitution. That is to say the 16th Amendment never gave Congress any new power of taxation (Congress all ready had the power to lay and collect taxes on income - from whatever source derived - without apportionment and without regard for any census of enumeration. Nor did the 16th Amendment place any new burden upon the people. Such a tax is an indirect tax, and it is clear that the tax code as written is an indirect tax, in that it is uniform across the several states.

It is not its harmonious nature with the Constitution that is the problem. The problem is us. Since the "income" tax as written can only be Constitutional as an indirect tax, then some specified taxed activity is the subject of the tax. Virtually everyone I know doesn't even bother to ask what the subject of the tax is. People just mindlessly accept the propaganda surrounding this tax and go along, even though many hate doing so.

This is disturbing to me because I feel fairly confident that if a landlord went up to one of his tenets on January 1st and explained to his tenet that he still owed a months rent from the following year, and that tenet showed a receipt of payment for December, but the landlord explained it was not the month of December that was in question, but the thirteenth month where no rent was paid, that tenet would think his landlord insane and fight the "tax".


edit on 6-4-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join