Why do you show your stupidity in an internet forum?
Lower case A in America?
Crawl back under your rock loser.
Why do republicans hate amerca?!?!
I never said it wasn't. I just said that it is unconstitutional in that it violates the very premise of our democratic system of representation. The concept of population based proportional representation from the many states is directly linked to population based proportional taxation from the many states as a matter of basic, fundamental, philosophy underpinning the constitution.Doesn't matter. It was ratified legally.
I just said that it is unconstitutional
And no amount of arguing incorrect beliefs will make THIS a truth.
The 16th amendment was ratified via the RULES set forth within the constitution ITSELF thus making it a part of the constitution. By definition it is NOT unconstitutional.
The framers excluded only three subjects from amendment (the importation of slaves and apportionment of direct taxes, which expired in 1808, and equal state representation in the Senate).
An amendment to the Constitution therefore cannot logically be unconstitutional.
The Sixteenth Amendment had one purpose: to eliminate the apportionment rule when the source of the income being taxed turns what looks like an indirect tax into a direct tax. That’s why the Amendment says: “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.”
Ever since, the courts have emphasized that the Amendment gave the federal government no new power to tax. All it did was remove from consideration the source of income being taxed and thereby eliminate a restriction on Congress’s taxing power.
The income-tax law passed in 1913 under the newly ratified Amendment was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1916 in the Brushaber case. Here the Court embraced the broadest possible interpretation of the federal taxing power—a power that, the Court said, predates the Sixteenth Amendment. The Court said: “That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises’ is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned. . . . And it has also never been questioned from the foundation . . . that there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes. . . .” The Court went on to acknowledge: “the conceded complete and all-embracing taxing power”; “the complete and perfect delegation of the power to tax”; “the complete and all-embracing authority to tax”; and “the plenary power [to tax].” That was just in one paragraph. Later in the opinion we find this: “[T]he all-embracing taxing authority possessed by Congress, including necessarily therein the power to impose income taxes. . . .”
In the succeeding years, no Supreme Court has contradicted the holding in Brushaber.
Please not that it is according with, not according to. as in accord with or in discord with; not as in according to or in violation of. The body politic is a greater animal than simply the document called the US constitution.
No, but I can and am using the same basis of argumentation that found a lack of right to privacy, lack of Miranda rights and a lack of wall of separation between church and state unconstitutional. There is precedent for my method of argumentation (an appeal to the philosophical underpinnings of the body politic).Except you cannot declare something unconstitutional based on a "feeling"
Really, they work 24/7 to destroy this country. Why do they hate it so much?
What is the country anyway?
Seriously? Isn't it just whatever we vote it to be; with a large enough majority we can change systemic premisses found in the constitution: See income tax.
The country was, at is very founding, in it's very creation, set against income taxes. Then we have the first and only un-constitutional amendment: income tax. I don't say it's unconstitutional because it was illegal, but because it is the only amendment that directly turned something that was originally part of the constitution around 180 degrees.
But that's the great thing about the US; a socialist revolt like that can take place in the face of robber barons and the rule of law and the functioning of government keep going.
So, I disagree with your premise; neither communists working inside the system nor anarchists working within the system are, in fact, trying to destroy the US because as long as they continue to work within the system granted then they are, actually, participating in the country: not destroying it.
Um.
Last time I checked, those of the right are the producers and those on the left want to take from those on the right and redistribute it.
The liberal elite minds come up with the wealth distribution plan to ensure they stay in power. They make excellent money while doing it. They never distribute their own wealth. Meanwhile the idiots enjoying handouts and entitlements vote them into office. The majority of the top 50 richest congressmen are democrats. George Soros made almost $3 billion betting against the sub prime mortgage. But hey the leaders on the left really give a fuck about the people.... sure.
Surely you know why.
Without an underclass or government handouts democrats would cease to exist.
No, but I can and am using the same basis of argumentation that found a lack of right to privacy, lack of Miranda rights and a lack of wall of separation between church and state unconstitutional. There is precedent for my method of argumentation (an appeal to the philosophical underpinnings of the body politic).
liberalism is a mental disorder.
This, in spades. Until you can accept that both parties want the best for the country and its people - but are almost 180 degrees off in their perception of what is best - you'll remain nothing more than a one-dimensional cartoon character. Once you can accept that, then and only then can you argue with any credibility on which path is best. (And hopefully slam both parties when they place themselves and their interests ahead of the country even by their own lights.)It's pretty sad that all it takes for the resident partisan hacks to come out is a one line troll thread that basically amounts to "I don't like the other party." Who needs news when they can riff of nothing?
Until you can accept that both parties want the best for the country and its people
This, in spades. Until you can accept that both parties want the best for the country and its people - but are almost 180 degrees off in their perception of what is best - you'll remain nothing more than a one-dimensional cartoon character. Once you can accept that, then and only then can you argue with any credibility on which path is best. (And hopefully slam both parties when they place themselves and their interests ahead of the country even by their own lights.)
It's even more stupid to accuse the right of wanting to destroy the country than to so accuse the left since the right basically wants the country to stay as it is, whereas the left wants to transform the country into something barely recognizable. But both sides want what they think is best for the country.
Are you sure the right wants to keep the country as it is? Seems to me they want to turn back the clock, actually, e.g. disbanding or radically altering entitlements which have been in place for 50-80 years. Or dump the progressive income tax (90 years+) for a flat tax.
Otherwise, I agree with you. True ideologues of both persuasions want what they think is best for the country. Then there are those who are not true ideologues but only pretend to be. They are all about their egos and little else. Those people exist on both sides as well.
It's funny - many on the right seem unable to look at what the right DOES, but just because the word 'conservative' implies not wanting to change things, they base their opinion of the political group on the definition of the word, not the actual policies. It's like claiming the Nazi party was socialist because the word was in the name.
How can you talk to people who are that irrational about the facts?
Any discussion of this has to note the difference between the FOLLOWERS who are fed propaganda, and the agenda of the LEADERS who are serving the rich and corporations' interests.
In that form of democracy, voters are suckers to con with big budget marketing.