Those *dangerous* Korean War relics

How about 9/12, when we couldn't fly and all had to start
wearing name badges with pictures? TFR that aren't
temporary?

Income tax even though the 16th Amendment was not properly
ratified?

Eminent domain as approved by the SCOUS to take your
business or home because it is worth more tax money to the
government if somebody else owns it for a while?

Campaign finance reform that doesn't allow free speech 60
days before an election?

Zero tolerance at school so your kid is suspended because he
has a 1" solid plastic gun with the GI Joe doll?


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in message
| k.net...
|
| "Gary Drescher" wrote in
message
| news |
| That's very progressive of you, Steven. But it doesn't
quite jibe with
| your earlier post today, in which you listed the Civil
War as the first
| point at which the US "ceased to be a free
country"--which would only be
| possible if it had been a free country *until* then.
|
| I didn't say the Civil War was the first point at which
the US "ceased to
| be a free country".
|
| It was the first point you listed when you were asked to
explain your remark
| that the US had "ceased to be a free country".
|
| When did the US cease to be a free country, in your
opinion?
|
| --Gary
|
|

Jim Macklin wrote:
How about 9/12, when we couldn't fly and all had to start
wearing name badges with pictures? TFR that aren't
temporary?

Income tax even though the 16th Amendment was not properly
ratified?

You mean like the way the Bill of Rights was not properly
ratified?


Eminent domain as approved by the SCOUS to take your
business or home because it is worth more tax money to the
government if somebody else owns it for a while?

Eminent domain has been (ab)used for that purpose
since before the Constitution was adopted. I've been
opposed to the practice since first becoming aware of
in the early 1970s. But I am not so dishonest as to
argue that it is unConstitutional, or something new.
Indeed, I am astonished that a case disputed centuries
old settled law got to the USSC

It is pretty hard to see how an arugment can be made that
a prohibiton of confiscation of property WITHOUT just compensation
does not implicitly permit confiscation WITH just compensation.


Campaign finance reform that doesn't allow free speech 60
days before an election?

THAT is unconstitutional no matter what the Damn Republican-
dominated Federal Courts say.

"The Congress shall make no law" doesn' tleave much
weasel room.

--

FF

wrote in message
oups.com...

You mean like the way the Bill of Rights was not properly
ratified?


In what way was the Bill of Rights not properly ratified?



Eminent domain has been (ab)used for that purpose
since before the Constitution was adopted. I've been
opposed to the practice since first becoming aware of
in the early 1970s. But I am not so dishonest as to
argue that it is unConstitutional, or something new.
Indeed, I am astonished that a case disputed centuries
old settled law got to the USSC

It is pretty hard to see how an arugment can be made that
a prohibiton of confiscation of property WITHOUT just compensation
does not implicitly permit confiscation WITH just compensation.


"Just compensation" is not enough. The Fifth Amendment says private
property shall not be taken FOR PUBLIC USE without just compensation.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

You mean like the way the Bill of Rights was not properly
ratified?


In what way was the Bill of Rights not properly ratified?


The "Sixteenth amendment was not properly ratified" argument
mostly revolves around differences in punctuation and wording
betweenthe extant written records of the Congress and various
state legislatures. There are also allegations that some states
the US Secretary of State credted with ratification , have no record
of having ratified the 16th amendment and/or other irregularities.
at the state level, including a failure of the governor to sign the
bill for one or more states.

Have I got that right?

I dscount the 'no evidence argument' as I have no idea how good
the record keeping was. The absence of an extant record does
not prove the measure did not pass and you would suppose that
if a particular state did not pass it, some legislators would have
raised the issue. There are no records of THAT, either, are there?
Not so much as a persoanl diary entry

The 'governor failed to sign argument' is specious because the
Constitution of the United States of America (CUSA) specifies
that amendments are to be ratified by the state legislatures with
no mention of the state governors.
The individual States cannot impose additional requirements for
amending he Constitution any more than they can change
the term of office or impose additional eligibility requiirements
for their Senators and Congresmen.

So this leaves us with the inconsistant wording and punctuation
argument, right?

In the case of the Sixteenth amenment, those inconsistencies
were so trivial as to not allow for any inconsistency in
interpretation,
indeed, we have no way of telling how precisely the words spoken
on the floor of those legislative bodies agreed with the words recorded
and enterred into the records by the clerks. It is a safe bet that
pretty much all legislation of that era, and all previous amendments
as well as the various copies of the original Constitution had similar
inconsistencies particularly when you consider that the promulgation
and acceptance of unifrom standards for English spelling, punctuation
and grammar in legal and academic circles post-date the Constitution
itself.

However, even accepting that, the Bill of Rights was exceptional.

The Bill of Rights passed by the Congress and submitted to the
States for ratification was not a bill of ten amendments, it was
one (1) amendment with twelve (12) articles. That amendment
was never ratified by the requisite number of states. Some
states ratified a shorter version, with only ten articles. That
shorter version was accepted and became part of the CUSA.

That Bill of Rights, with ten articles was not passed by the
Congress, and then ratified requisite number of states.
The alleged errors that supposedly invalidate the passage of the
SIxteenth Amendment pale by comparison.

The people who argue the sixteenth amendment was invalid,
(and I note that you are not he person who introduced that
notion into this thread) by and large, refuse to discuss this
as they are not honest people.

Later when more amendments passed the enumeration was
changed so that the ten articles of the first amendment became
the first ten amendments. That change was also made without
ratification by the states, and although it plainly has no bearing
on the validity of those or subsequent amendments that change
still looms large when compared with the arguments advanced
against the validity of the sixteenth amendment.

--

FF

wrote in message
ps.com...

The "Sixteenth amendment was not properly ratified" argument
mostly revolves around differences in punctuation and wording
betweenthe extant written records of the Congress and various
state legislatures. There are also allegations that some states
the US Secretary of State credted with ratification , have no record
of having ratified the 16th amendment and/or other irregularities.
at the state level, including a failure of the governor to sign the
bill for one or more states.

Have I got that right?

I dscount the 'no evidence argument' as I have no idea how good
the record keeping was. The absence of an extant record does
not prove the measure did not pass and you would suppose that
if a particular state did not pass it, some legislators would have
raised the issue. There are no records of THAT, either, are there?
Not so much as a persoanl diary entry

The 'governor failed to sign argument' is specious because the
Constitution of the United States of America (CUSA) specifies
that amendments are to be ratified by the state legislatures with
no mention of the state governors.
The individual States cannot impose additional requirements for
amending he Constitution any more than they can change
the term of office or impose additional eligibility requiirements
for their Senators and Congresmen.

So this leaves us with the inconsistant wording and punctuation
argument, right?

In the case of the Sixteenth amenment, those inconsistencies
were so trivial as to not allow for any inconsistency in
interpretation,
indeed, we have no way of telling how precisely the words spoken
on the floor of those legislative bodies agreed with the words recorded
and enterred into the records by the clerks. It is a safe bet that
pretty much all legislation of that era, and all previous amendments
as well as the various copies of the original Constitution had similar
inconsistencies particularly when you consider that the promulgation
and acceptance of unifrom standards for English spelling, punctuation
and grammar in legal and academic circles post-date the Constitution
itself.


The Sixteenth Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights.



However, even accepting that, the Bill of Rights was exceptional.

The Bill of Rights passed by the Congress and submitted to the
States for ratification was not a bill of ten amendments, it was
one (1) amendment with twelve (12) articles. That amendment
was never ratified by the requisite number of states. Some
states ratified a shorter version, with only ten articles. That
shorter version was accepted and became part of the CUSA.

That Bill of Rights, with ten articles was not passed by the
Congress, and then ratified requisite number of states.
The alleged errors that supposedly invalidate the passage of the
SIxteenth Amendment pale by comparison.

The people who argue the sixteenth amendment was invalid,
(and I note that you are not he person who introduced that
notion into this thread) by and large, refuse to discuss this
as they are not honest people.

Later when more amendments passed the enumeration was
changed so that the ten articles of the first amendment became
the first ten amendments. That change was also made without
ratification by the states, and although it plainly has no bearing
on the validity of those or subsequent amendments that change
still looms large when compared with the arguments advanced
against the validity of the sixteenth amendment.


Twelve articles of amendment were sent to the states, ten were ratified in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...

The "Sixteenth amendment was not properly ratified" argument
mostly revolves around differences in punctuation and wording
...

In the case of the Sixteenth amenment, those inconsistencies
were so trivial as to not allow for any inconsistency in
interpretation,
indeed, we have no way of telling how precisely the words spoken
on the floor of those legislative bodies agreed...

The Sixteenth Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights.

Nor is it part of the Magna Carta. So?

As you wil recall, my point is that if one accepts the "Sixteenth
Amendment was not properly ratified" argument then consistency
demands that you also accept that the Bill of Rights was not
properly ratified.




However, even accepting that, the Bill of Rights was exceptional.

The Bill of Rights passed by the Congress and submitted to the
States for ratification was not a bill of ten amendments, it was
one (1) amendment with twelve (12) articles. That amendment
was never ratified by the requisite number of states. Some
states ratified a shorter version, with only ten articles. That
shorter version was accepted and became part of the CUSA.

That Bill of Rights, with ten articles was not passed by the
Congress, and then ratified requisite number of states.
The alleged errors that supposedly invalidate the passage of the
SIxteenth Amendment pale by comparison.

The people who argue the sixteenth amendment was invalid,
(and I note that you are not he person who introduced that
notion into this thread) by and large, refuse to discuss this
as they are not honest people.

Later when more amendments passed the enumeration was
changed so that the ten articles of the first amendment became
the first ten amendments. That change was also made without
ratification by the states, and although it plainly has no bearing
on the validity of those or subsequent amendments that change
still looms large when compared with the arguments advanced
against the validity of the sixteenth amendment.


Twelve articles of amendment were sent to the states, ten were ratified in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

Not quite true, the twelve articlees were all part of ONE amendment.
They were not passed separatly and sent to the states as separate
amendments.

--

FF

wrote in message
oups.com...

Nor is it part of the Magna Carta. So?


So your response does not answer the question.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

...

Eminent domain has been (ab)used for that purpose
since before the Constitution was adopted. I've been
opposed to the practice since first becoming aware of
in the early 1970s. But I am not so dishonest as to
argue that it is unConstitutional, or something new.
Indeed, I am astonished that a case disputed centuries
old settled law got to the USSC

It is pretty hard to see how an arugment can be made that
a prohibiton of confiscation of property WITHOUT just compensation
does not implicitly permit confiscation WITH just compensation.


"Just compensation" is not enough. The Fifth Amendment says private
property shall not be taken FOR PUBLIC USE without just compensation.

That's a good point. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the
confiscation of property for tranfer of ownership to another private
party. Indeed, if that is distinct from confiscation for public use
then it doesn't even require just compensation for forced private
party to private party transactions.

Historically property that was not being developed, what we now call
'greenspace' was often condemned, and confiscated then sold (perhaps
typically at public auction, but certainly not always ) to developers.
While the legal argument was that this was done for the pubic good,
to increase the tax base or employment the real reason usually was
that some infuential developer wante dthe property bur the owner didn't

want to sell, at least not for what the developer was willing to pay.

Right or wrong (personally, I deplore the practice and would
like to see it outlawed) it has been going on for as long as there
has been formal ownership of real estate. If it was the intent
of the founding fathers to outlaw the practice they should
have been more specific. I wish they had.

--

FF

wrote in message
ps.com...

That's a good point. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the
confiscation of property for tranfer of ownership to another private
party.


The federal government does not have the powers that are not denied it by
the Constitution, it has only the powers given by the Constitution.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "Steven P. McNicoll"
|
| That's very progressive of you, Steven. But it doesn't
quite jibe with
| your earlier post today, in which you listed the Civil
War as the first
| point at which the US "ceased to be a free
country"--which would only be
| possible if it had been a free country *until* then.
|
| I didn't say the Civil War was the first point at which
the US "ceased to
| be a free country".
|
| It was the first point you listed when you were asked to
explain your remark
| that the US had "ceased to be a free country".
|
| When did the US cease to be a free country, in your
opinion?

The first military draft in 1864.