|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Marc Ravalomanana wrote: |
42 of the then-48 states ratified the 16th Amendment. Connecticut, Rhode Island, Utah, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida were the 6 that did not. Alaska and Hawaii weren't states at the time.
Only 36 states needed to ratify the Amendment. |
So US District Court Judge James C Fox didn't know in 2003 what he was talking about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Marc Ravalomanana wrote: |
42 of the then-48 states ratified the 16th Amendment. Connecticut, Rhode Island, Utah, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida were the 6 that did not. Alaska and Hawaii weren't states at the time.
Only 36 states needed to ratify the Amendment. |
So US District Court Judge James C Fox didn't know in 2003 what he was talking about? |
Legal scholars have been known to be wrong from time to time, be they judges or not. I don't think it's particularly different than Mr. Yoo writing up an interpretation of the law that favors the legality of torture.
When it comes down to it, legal scholars have agendas. Their legal claims are hardly immune to influence by those agendas, and they've been known to go as far as to lie.
Most of what I see on a basic google search about it amounts to requests for funds from a Mr. Benson so he can argue in court that it was never properly ratified, rather than any actual proof it was never ratified. I did find this, though:
| Quote: |
| Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states. |
The site then goes on to try to disqualify some of the states that voted to ratify it from the runnings through technicalities, but a vote for ratification is a vote for ratification no matter how you look at it. The States were asked to ratify it, and they did, simple as that. This whole case actually reminds me a lot of the Obama Birther Movement; in each case, a group of individuals is unhappy with a political outcome, and as such attempts to overturn the result through technicalities which they insist invalidate the outcome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Well, visitor's latest post contains quotes, so I assume he didn't take my suggestion about a closing statement. I think understandably, rather than wasting my time reading his angry insults, misrepresentations of reality, confused misunderstandings of my own statements, and lies, I'll sum up my own case and leave it at that. |
There were no insults or anger in my last reply to you - you are making this up out of desperation to try and discredit me after I carefully debunked all your points, for the umpteenth time. You make it easy.
| Quote: |
| The value of our goverment extends beyond what is strictly ennumerated in the Constitution. Pollution and environmental regulations, food and drug safety regulations, automotive safety regulations, infrastructure creation and maintenance, health care, the list goes on. |
The government doesn't do enforce any of these properly, merely makes new taxes to pay for bloated bureaucracy, while handing over most projects to corporate cronies and force us the public to foot the bill (which is always more expensive since competition is left out).
Pollution and environmental regulations are a joke. Only the little people need follow these laws, while big corporations are free to keep polluting. If the government enforces carbon taxes on the public, we will all pay more money for things like gas, electricity, and basically every single thing we use, while the Rockefeller oil companies will continue to earn massive profits from their artificially created scarcity. The overall economy will be crippled, while those at the top keep their control.
FDA is another joke. What benefits do they give you? Allowing big companies like Monsanto to do whatever they want, doing little or nothing to enforce the labeling of many harmful chemicals, cancerous growth hormones or GMOs, while the drug industry puts its own members on the advisory board, pays doctors to get as many patients to use their drugs as possible (kickbacks) and has essentially allowed our nation to become one of drug addicts. Not to mention killer, brain stunting vaccines they are attempting to inject as many women, children and old people with as possible.
| Quote: |
| These are things the majority of people in society want their government to handle, and these are things that are well within the capability of our government to handle. Libertarians might not be happy with this, but that's unfortunately too bad for them. |
You may be correct about the first part (may be correct, but you may not - you still haven't given any evidence whatsoever that the majority of people agree with you, which is very dishonest). But the second part is a does not follow. Clearly the government is NOT capable (except in that imaginary hypothetical dimension of yours) of handling it. This is because the government structure, from the top down, has become rotten to the core, strongly resembling a fascist state, where the line between government and privately owned cartel has become so blurred as to be nearly non-existent. It starts with the Fed, and cascades down into most levels of government.
In most cases, like the FDA, the government agencies actually do more harm to the public than good (by actively enabling the cartels to do as they please and even promoting monopolies), and it would be better simply not to have them.
| Quote: |
| Is there corruption in our government? There certainly is, and it's a problem. Just as one would be stupid to suggest abandoning farming just because a crop turned out poorly due to the farmer being negligent, though, one would be stupid to suggest abandoning government regulation that increases citizen well being just because our crop of elected representatives turned out poorly due to the citizen base being negligent. Citizens being more politically aware, and less willing to believe the lies of heavily biased parties is the only true cure to this problem. Blaming politicans who give in to corruption -- or the industry representatives who successfully buy them -- is pointless; it's addressing the symptom, not the real problem. |
Nice to hear you AGREEING with me finally. This is why a revolution is necessary. Not to abolish government, but to abolish the utterly corrupt, rotten to the core system of government we currently have and replace it with a Constitutional one. One where the government can enforce regulations that are good for all, but don't restrict our freedoms (the old adage about being free to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else).
| Quote: |
| And in closing, yes, income tax is Constitutional. The fact that certain people can't accept that just proves that their Libertarian ideals have nothing to do with the Constitution itself, but rather simply what they want to be the case. |
Still wrong. Your simply saying it doesn't make it so. It was never properly ratified and goes against other amendments. To hear you try and defend income tax is truly disgusting. I've already told you that that tax was created right after the Federal Reserve Act, and that all of it goes to servicing the debt. You get literally, nothing whatseover back in the form of government services. It is all handed to the Fed and the banks that own it.
| Quote: |
They use the Constitution as an attempt to legitimize their hate of government, rather than out of any true affection for that document. |
Who the hell are you to put words in other peoples' mouths and say this? Especially after ranting so long to me about it. What a hypocrite. You are utterly wrong to say this.
| Quote: |
| It's a shame, but as I said, extremists are almost always disingenous and hypocritical. In this case, unfortunately so hypocritical an disingenous that even I -- who am pretty resilient in such matters -- just can't stomache it anymore. Constant, petty verbal attacks, accusations of logical fallacy based on a total misunderstanding of what logical fallacies are, smug stupidity, it's like being in the audience of one of Glen Beck's broadcasts. I don't want that rubbish for a reason. |
You are an extremist. You defend the government in the face of all evidence that it is harmful to us all.
| Quote: |
If anyone else cares to discuss this topic, I'm more than interested. |
You're only interested i hearing your own voice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marc Ravalomanana
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Marc Ravalomanana wrote: |
42 of the then-48 states ratified the 16th Amendment. Connecticut, Rhode Island, Utah, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida were the 6 that did not. Alaska and Hawaii weren't states at the time.
Only 36 states needed to ratify the Amendment. |
So US District Court Judge James C Fox didn't know in 2003 what he was talking about? |
I contradict a guy supposedly quoting a judge. Therefore, I must be saying the judge doesn't know what he is talking about?
False dilemma. There are other possibilities.
Here's one: you do not know what Judge Fox was talking about, evidenced by your misquote.
And another: Judge Fox wasn't sure what he was talking about. He was speaking off the cuff, from memory, about something he thought he had read somewhere before, about an issue unrelated to the case. Which is hardly binding legal opinion.
Read the transcript in question and draw your own conclusions (see top of page).
Your argument seems to be little more than a mere dropping of Judge Fox's name and credentials. This would seem to be a naked appeal to authority. Which is fair enough in legal matters, but you might want to find some binding case law to back your view. Your quote simply has no authority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Marc Ravalomanana wrote: |
42 of the then-48 states ratified the 16th Amendment. Connecticut, Rhode Island, Utah, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida were the 6 that did not. Alaska and Hawaii weren't states at the time.
Only 36 states needed to ratify the Amendment. |
So US District Court Judge James C Fox didn't know in 2003 what he was talking about? |
Legal scholars have been known to be wrong from time to time, be they judges or not. I don't think it's particularly different than Mr. Yoo writing up an interpretation of the law that favors the legality of torture.
When it comes down to it, legal scholars have agendas. Their legal claims are hardly immune to influence by those agendas, and they've been known to go as far as to lie.
Most of what I see on a basic google search about it amounts to requests for funds from a Mr. Benson so he can argue in court that it was never properly ratified, rather than any actual proof it was never ratified. I did find this, though:
| Quote: |
| Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states. |
The site then goes on to try to disqualify some of the states that voted to ratify it from the runnings through technicalities, but a vote for ratification is a vote for ratification no matter how you look at it. The States were asked to ratify it, and they did, simple as that. This whole case actually reminds me a lot of the Obama Birther Movement; in each case, a group of individuals is unhappy with a political outcome, and as such attempts to overturn the result through technicalities which they insist invalidate the outcome. |
Your simply saying it doesn't make it so. What you brush off as technicalities are actually legal requirements of each state, many of which were not adhered to during ratification. Here's the basic argument:
http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm
Unless you can debunk that argument, your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. I take it you're no lawyer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Marc Ravalomanana wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Marc Ravalomanana wrote: |
42 of the then-48 states ratified the 16th Amendment. Connecticut, Rhode Island, Utah, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida were the 6 that did not. Alaska and Hawaii weren't states at the time.
Only 36 states needed to ratify the Amendment. |
So US District Court Judge James C Fox didn't know in 2003 what he was talking about? |
I contradict a guy supposedly quoting a judge. Therefore, I must be saying the judge doesn't know what he is talking about?
False dilemma. There are other possibilities.
Here's one: you do not know what Judge Fox was talking about, evidenced by your misquote. |
Do you consider substituting "the 16th Amendment" for "that" when that is clearly what he is talking about to be a "misquote?"
Anyway, I admit that I could have phrased my question a bit more carefully.
| Quote: |
And another: Judge Fox wasn't sure what he was talking about. He was speaking off the cuff, from memory, about something he thought he had read somewhere before, about an issue unrelated to the case. Which is hardly binding legal opinion.
Read the transcript in question and draw your own conclusions (see top of page).
Your argument seems to be little more than a mere dropping of Judge Fox's name and credentials. This would seem to be a naked appeal to authority. Which is fair enough in legal matters, but you might want to find some binding case law to back your view. Your quote simply has no authority. |
Fair enough, but it certainly has more authority than Joe Blow saying it off the cuff. Furthermore, Sullivan agrees with Judge Fox, and Fox himself reiterated it himself when he says:
| Quote: |
| I think I am correct when I say that the ratification never really occurred. |
I don't myself know of any case law where it was held that ratification never properly occurred, but I am neither a lawyer nor have I ever researched it in depth.
Do you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marc Ravalomanana
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Do you consider substituting "the 16th Amendment" for "that" when that is clearly what he is talking about to be a "misquote?" |
That on its own is innocuous, but it's hardly the only alteration made to the quote, is it? What you have is essentially a paraphrase, surrounded by quotation marks. (EDIT: OK, not in quote marks, but "quoted" nonetheless).
| Quote: |
| Fair enough, but it certainly has more authority than Joe Blow saying it off the cuff. |
Then the same authority applies to his next comment, no?
| Judge Fox wrote: |
| And nonetheless, I think it's fair to say that it is part of the Constitution of the United States, and I don't think any court would ever -- would set it aside. |
| bacasper wrote: |
I don't myself know of any case law where it was held that ratification never properly occurred, but I am neither a lawyer nor have I ever researched it in depth.
Do you? |
No. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| And in closing, yes, income tax is Constitutional. |
| Kuros wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Anyway, you really can't blame me for calling you out on your BS... I haven't been misrepresenting you. It's just that your claims are mostly bunk (as I've shown)... |
All you've shown is that you are out of touch with reality, don't even fully grasp the contents of the Constititution you love so much (which is why you think income tax is unconstitutional), and further lack a grasp of what a number of English terms mean. In this thread, we'll add a new term to the list of terms you don't understand: logical fallacy. See below! |
You're dead wrong about it being Constitutional. I don't know how else to put it other than that... If you're correct, then what is the law? If you can quote the law (based on the Constitution) for me, then I'll admit I was wrong. But I know you can't (because I've checked it, I know I'm right for a FACT) so, I'm just letting you know you are mistaken. There is nothing more I can add. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
| The People wrote: |
| The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. |
|
For a Constitutional amendment to take effect, it has to be properly ratified. Instead of Wikipedia, let's look to see what a credible, high-ranking legal scholar has to say:
| US District Court Judge James C Fox in 2003 wrote: |
| If you examine [the 16th Amendment] carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment. |
|
I quoted wiki but its in the Constitution, bacasper.
James Fox is full of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Marc Ravalomanana wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Do you consider substituting "the 16th Amendment" for "that" when that is clearly what he is talking about to be a "misquote?" |
That on its own is innocuous, but it's hardly the only alteration made to the quote, is it? What you have is essentially a paraphrase, surrounded by quotation marks. (EDIT: OK, not in quote marks, but "quoted" nonetheless).
| Quote: |
| Fair enough, but it certainly has more authority than Joe Blow saying it off the cuff. |
Then the same authority applies to his next comment, no?
| Judge Fox wrote: |
| And nonetheless, I think it's fair to say that it is part of the Constitution of the United States, and I don't think any court would ever -- would set it aside. |
|
Sorry if you feel I took the quote out of context, but it was an exact quote (except for "[the 16th Amendment]").
I don't buy that second part of his argument that you cite, the idea that doing something long enough (even if wrong) makes it Constitutional. Lots of case law stood for a long time until new case law overturned it (one famous example being Plessy v. Ferguson (1898) until Brown v. Board of Education (1954)). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| I don't buy that second part of his argument that you cite, the idea that doing something long enough (even if wrong) makes it Constitutional. |
That's true; merely doing something long enough in no way ensures its constitutionality. What makes something constitutional is whether or not it's in accordance with the Constitution. Given the 16th Amendment is part of the Constitution, and the fact that it was ratified by the requisite number of states*, it is of course in accordance with the Constitution.
*Yes, it was ratified by the requisite number of states. Even dissenters admit to this; the web sites upon which they complain of the unjustness of this Amendment all admit that a sufficient number of states voted for ratification. This is why these people try to disqualify the votes of various states through technicalities; they know enough states voted for it to make it legitimate, so they need to find some way to make those votes not count. Just like the Obama Birthers, they strongly disagree with a political outcome and seek to change it through trivial technicalities. Just like the Obama Birthers, they still don't understand that the real world doesn't work that way, and that nothing will come of their efforts. And thank goodness for that; the majority should not be enslaved to the inane whims of an angry ultra-Conservative minority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| I don't buy that second part of his argument that you cite, the idea that doing something long enough (even if wrong) makes it Constitutional. |
That's true; merely doing something long enough in no way ensures its constitutionality. What makes something constitutional is whether or not it's in accordance with the Constitution. Given the 16th Amendment is part of the Constitution, and the fact that it was ratified by the requisite number of states*, it is of course in accordance with the Constitution.
*Yes, it was ratified by the requisite number of states. Even dissenters admit to this; the web sites upon which they complain of the unjustness of this Amendment all admit that a sufficient number of states voted for ratification. This is why these people try to disqualify the votes of various states through technicalities; they know enough states voted for it to make it legitimate, so they need to find some way to make those votes not count. Just like the Obama Birthers, they strongly disagree with a political outcome and seek to change it through trivial technicalities. Just like the Obama Birthers, they still don't understand that the real world doesn't work that way, and that nothing will come of their efforts. And thank goodness for that; the majority should not be enslaved to the inane whims of an angry ultra-Conservative minority. |
This is not a rebuttal. Unless you take the time to address the meat of the issue, and very whether the actual claims are true or not (which you haven't at all), then you have no facts to base your argument on.
Your writing off the improper ratifications by various states as "technicalities" is just plain dishonest. It is not debating. You haven't even checked into the claims, this is quite obvious from your posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saw6436
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Daejeon, ROK
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Government that can do FOR you, can also do TO you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| saw6436 wrote: |
| Government that can do FOR you, can also do TO you. |
The same can be said of parents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| saw6436 wrote: |
| Government that can do FOR you, can also do TO you. |
The same can be said of parents. |
Oh, is that why the age of emancipation is also the age when youths can vote? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| We're not children... we don't need the government to "look after us". Everyone being dependent on the government is the worst thing I can imagine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
