This election is far too important.... because the Supreme Court!

SC380 said:
Supreme court justices and federal judges have always had lifetime appointments. Presidents and most representatives have traditionally been wealthy people who didn't need salaries. Term limits weren't put on the president until Roosevelt...so there was nothing limiting the length of time anyone could occupy these positions (beyond their means or the will of the voters) or find a way to make a career of it until fairly recently. We all know that Pelosi didn't make her millions from her salary while in office. They may have only had to meet in Washington once per year at one time but it would be naive to think they weren't spending a good portion of the rest of the year campaigning and meeting with constituents (hint: making money).

To clarify, if they meant for congress in particular to have limited activity in any form, and even if they wrote long letters/diatribes to each other stating that opinion, they didn't put any effective limits into the constitution...so we get what we have here today.
Click to expand...

They didn’t put effective limits on many things. We have all agreed it wasn’t anywhere in writing. Just that there was no structure put in place to imply it was a lifelong career or it wasn’t. Which is why many today, like myself, feel term limits being out into place by law should be a priority so we don’t have 80 year olds in office who have been in politics for 60 years with no real experience other than politics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SC380 said:
I can't take it up with the founders and they aren't the ones here misinterpreting my posts anyway. You didn't answer my questions but if I remember correctly there are no term limits in the constitution so I am not sure if I follow your interpretation that "it" wasn't supposed to be a career. What is "it"?
Click to expand...
The "not a career" was already answered by others. The other questions were answered as well. If the federal government has not directly been given the power to do something in the Constitution, then they shouldn't be doing it. I understand that isn't the current reality, but that doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.
 
DrSideways said:
We tried to use the "system" as best we could. Short of shooting the F'ers. Now I am on another freaking list..... You may still be screwed as the debt will trump everything else. Unless they mint those two magical coins the eliminate it. Chin up though....
Click to expand...
Chin is always up, and I said most not all.
 
ChickenHawk said:
If the federal government has not directly been given the power to do something in the Constitution, then they shouldn't be doing it. I understand that isn't the current reality, but that doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

It's not about 'current reality' but something that the government have been doing for two hundred years.
Go back to Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase - the Constitution doesnt say he can, but no one is complaining now about having all this land.
 
Is this leagal? said:

Here's a start. You should look up A tax honesty primer... Google it.
Click to expand...

No disrespect, but can you give me the cliff-notes version please?
Im trying to multitask and dont have time for a 25 minute video in the next few days.

I'll say this - if you think the 16th is unconstitutional - what makes it less constitutional than any of the others, including the 1st and 2nd?
I use the 16th since you mentioned income tax
 
HMP said:
No disrespect, but can you give me the cliff-notes version please?
Im trying to multitask and dont have time for a 25 minute video in the next few days.

I'll say this - if you think the 16th is unconstitutional - what makes it less constitutional than any of the others, including the 1st and 2nd?
I use the 16th since you mentioned income tax
Click to expand...
I'm sorry sir, I got a little ahead of myself It's legal. This is a little excerpt taken from David Zunigas A tax honesty primer.

"Phil Hart's book outlining the history of Congress' IRS scam explains it. The 16th Amendment was passed in 1913, yet it took a generation for most Americans to be snookered into believing it was their civic duty to fund a RICO scam. "
It's ultimately up to us to research the tax code, but what I've read so far is most hard working Americans are not required to pay Income tax. He states it's legal, but most don't even realize they do not have to pay. Which it all makes sence to me now when Hilary stated "Trump has never fild a return" or something to that effect, then he goes on to state " it's because I'm smart" it's up to us to do our due diligence, to see if We fall under what the tax code states is "taxable income". I'm still learning this, and I believe I may have gotten a little overzealous, in my prior statements. You should find the time to watch the video. I think you may find it interesting. As for A tax honesty primer, it's very lengthy, but well worth the read as well. As I said, I'm still learning to.
 
HMP said:
I'll say this - if you think the 16th is unconstitutional - what makes it less constitutional than any of the others, including the 1st and 2nd?
I use the 16th since you mentioned income tax
Click to expand...

Disregarding the "tax scam" conspiracy theories and other silliness, some people argue that the 16th Amendment is invalid because it was not properly ratified.
 
Last edited:
B00ger said:
They didn’t put effective limits on many things. We have all agreed it wasn’t anywhere in writing. Just that there was no structure put in place to imply it was a lifelong career or it wasn’t. Which is why many today, like myself, feel term limits being out into place by law should be a priority so we don’t have 80 year olds in office who have been in politics for 60 years with no real experience other than politics.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
ChickenHawk said:
The "not a career" was already answered by others. The other questions were answered as well. If the federal government has not directly been given the power to do something in the Constitution, then they shouldn't be doing it. I understand that isn't the current reality, but that doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with term limits but other than that I think we agree philosophically and you both make good points. It would be nice to go back and point out all of the abuse loopholes in the Constitution.
 
B00ger said:
They didn’t put effective limits on many things. We have all agreed it wasn’t anywhere in writing. Just that there was no structure put in place to imply it was a lifelong career or it wasn’t. Which is why many today, like myself, feel term limits being out into place by law should be a priority so we don’t have 80 year olds in office who have been in politics for 60 years with no real experience other than politics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
My dad has been saying the same thing as you "term limits". I agree as well. That's part of the AmericaAgain.net mission. In short, equal representation, bring Congress home, and term limits... Just to name a few.
 
SC380 said:
I have yet to see anyone successfully argue they don't have to pay taxes.
Click to expand...
David M Zuniga makes it poignantly clear (in his a tax honesty primer) that he hasn't paid income taxes in 23 years. Taxes, yes. Income taxes, no. It's very interesting, and written in enough detail, links to supreme court rulings, and a whole long list of other very valuable information that'll keep you busy for a while. I strongly believe this man is no "tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist". He knows the Law, very well. An architectural engineer, 63 or 64 years old. To be able to make a claim as he does, takes some brass b@!!$. All the while saying, "I tell the IRS to pound sand".
 
Last edited:
I think if you are going to run for another office IE president then you need to resign from your current office because you cant do the job when you are on the campaign trail there should be a law that if yo miss so many sessions/ votes you get removed from congress
 
noway2 said:
It may not cost him votes. His actions on the 2nd have been abysmal. Yes, there is the argument the alternative would be worse, but if we're going to have a democrat we might as well vote democrat.
Click to expand...

False argument, Democrat wouldn’t have any other pluses like the economy, attacking the media, etc.

Trump isn’t perfect but I’m not giving up on him yet.
 
If we had term limits who then has virtually all the power and control?

Those same sleazy lifetime Federal Government employees that helped rub the spy ring against Trump.

That’ll be great! ;)

Term limits by themselves solve nothing because the apparatus will just be run by unelected people.
 
CZfool68 said:
If we had term limits who then has virtually all the power and control?

Those same sleazy lifetime Federal Government employees that helped rub the spy ring against Trump.

That’ll be great! ;)

Term limits by themselves solve nothing because the apparatus will just be run by unelected people.
Click to expand...
So not much would change? :D
 
HMP said:
It's not about 'current reality' but something that the government have been doing for two hundred years.
Go back to Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase - the Constitution doesnt say he can, but no one is complaining now about having all this land.
Click to expand...
I know. It's a discussion about intent, which is why I pointed out the reality of it. Like I said before, just because it's done doesn't make it unconstitutional. We are clearly far from where we were meant to be u less you're someone who subscribes to the "living document" side of the discourse.
 
Last edited:
gc70 said:
If you don't like the ratification process for the 16th Amendment, how do you feel about the 14h Amendment and its "incorporation" offshoots?
Click to expand...

I am actually unfamiliar with this issue. Thanks for introducing me to it. I will have to get back to you on it. I like it when people bring up things about which I am ignorant. Any links would be helpful

gc70 said:
States that voted against the 14th Amendment were placed under military government until their unrecognized state legislatures approved the 14th Amendment, after which their legislatures were recognized by the federal government. Yeah, actions taken under duress are null and void.
Click to expand...

again, thank you for pointing me to this issue. I will look at it.
 
CZfool68 said:
If we had term limits who then has virtually all the power and control?

Those same sleazy lifetime Federal Government employees that helped rub the spy ring against Trump.

That’ll be great! ;)

Term limits by themselves solve nothing because the apparatus will just be run by unelected people.
Click to expand...
Yes, but this assumes a revolving Congress would continue to ignore the 10th amendment.....
 
Oneofsix said:
ahahahahahaa! I love the new name....
Click to expand...

B00ger likes it too, but it is like making fun of the dumb kid in school who doesn't really understand that you are mocking him, so he laughs anyway.... so I will probably change it back, soon
 
Last edited:
Mr Chess Pigeon said:
B00ger likes it too, but it is like making fun of the dumb kid in school who doesn't really understand that you are mocking him, so he laughs anyway.... so I will probably change it back, soon
Click to expand...

No, I fully understand your weak attempt at humor. The truth is, the name is extremely fitting and stands as a wonderful testament to how much time I get to spend rent free in that wasteland of insanity you call a mind.
 
Railsplitter said:
Ever the optimist aren't ya?

The Trump Administration Is Becoming Strangely Anti-Gun
https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/13/hammond-trump-anti-gun/
Click to expand...
Dude, to him it doesnt matter as long as the R is beside his name. We're talking about the same guy that was encouraging members to further their support for a politician even after it came out he'd committed voter fraud... And he said he saw no issue with it as long as it kept a D out.
 
I've been hearing that same tired, old song my entire voting life. "You have to vote for the same 2 parties that have been screwing you all along or you're throwing away your vote!" How's that worked out for us the last 45 years?

Terry
 
Mr Chess Pigeon said:
I am actually unfamiliar with this issue. Thanks for introducing me to it. I will have to get back to you on it. I like it when people bring up things about which I am ignorant. Any links would be helpful

again, thank you for pointing me to this issue. I will look at it.
Click to expand...

I try to avoid walls of text in forum posts, so see your PM.
 
B00ger said:
They didn’t put effective limits on many things. We have all agreed it wasn’t anywhere in writing. Just that there was no structure put in place to imply it was a lifelong career or it wasn’t. Which is why many today, like myself, feel term limits being out into place by law should be a priority so we don’t have 80 year olds in office who have been in politics for 60 years with no real experience other than politics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's because they expected We, the People to do it with our votes.

But we've long since abdicated our place at the head of these United States because we are no longer interested in Liberty, much less doing any work to preserve it.
 
SPM said:
That's because they expected We, the People to do it with our votes.

But we've long since abdicated our place at the head of these United States because we are no longer interested in Liberty, much less doing any work to preserve it.
Click to expand...
I'm trying, but I feel it falls on deaf ears sometimes.
TacticalCivics.com
 
MadMan4Ever said:
I try to be optimistic, I have a woman and a child I want to see grow up and not in a socialist world. I try to be optimistic even when it’s bleak.

I do agree that Trump has made some serious missteps with the 2A and I pray I get the chance to reach him & correct it.
Click to expand...

I gotta say I find the phrase I have a woman really odd. Sounds like property. Is that phrase a southern thing?
 
CZfool68 said:
I gotta say I find the phrase I have a woman really odd. Sounds like property. Is that phrase a southern thing?
Click to expand...

Not really...I’ve heard folks from all over the country say the same thing.

Saying “I have a woman”, “I got a woman” or “my woman” is not about “property”; it’s about possession (she’s mine/I’m hers) and commitment. If you look at the context @MadMan4Ever used, it’s pretty clear “I have a woman/child” is not meant to suggest “property” or “ownership”, but possessions he cares a helluva lot about.

Couple musical examples...

“I live back in the woods, you see,
MY woman and the kids and the dogs and me”

Hank



“I got a woman” / “I got a little woman”

Robert Plant

Now, he was so committed to this gal and loved her so much, that in the evening, when the sun was sinking low and everybody was with the one they love, his ass was out...walking the town and he kept searching all around, looking for his street corner girl...

Even though she:

- wanted to ball all day
- wouldn’t be true
- stayed drunk all the time


That’s love, right there.
 
Last edited:
wsfiredude said:
Not really...I’ve heard folks from all over the country say the same thing.

Saying “I have a woman”, “I got a woman” or “my woman” is not about “property”; it’s about possession (she’s mine/I’m hers) and commitment. If you look at the context @MadMan4Ever used, it’s pretty clear “I have a woman/child” is not meant to suggest “property” or “ownership”, but possessions he cares a helluva lot about.

Couple musical examples...

“I live back in the woods, you see,
MY woman and the kids and the dogs and me”

Hank



“I got a woman” / “I got a little woman”

Robert Plant

Now, he was so committed to this gal and loved her so much, that in the evening, when the sun was sinking low and everybody was with the one they love, his ass was out...walking the town and he kept searching all around, looking for his street corner girl...

Even though she:

- wanted to ball all day
- wouldn’t be true
- stayed drunk all the time


That’s love, right there.
Click to expand...


Well I take her to self defense classes, am gifting her a gunsafe so the 7-year old doesn’t get into it, and have bought her jewelry. I love her dearly.

We are both property to each other. The kind you love and treasure. The kind that spends effort, money and time to preserve... the best kind of “property”. ;)
 
Question for all you "We have to vote Trump" guys: What would Trump have to do to lose your vote? Anything? This is a serious question.

Terry
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
specops56 said:
Question for all you "We have to vote Trump" guys: What would Trump have to do to lose your vote? Anything? This is a serious question.

Terry
Click to expand...

He officially lost mine on March 26th. If that's the kinda stuff the "biggest supporter of 2A" president pulls, what does he do when he has won a second term and needs not worry about voter backlash?
 
Last edited:
specops56 said:
Question for all you "We have to vote Trump" guys: What would Trump have to do to lose your vote? Anything? This is a serious question.

Terry
Click to expand...

I voted for him...

Not because I think he’s a good dude and not because I thought he’d be a good President, but because I had a hunch a Trump victory would cause upheaval...and the chaos that followed would cause the “masks to come off”, be they R or D. When true colors were shown and folks saw these slimy, corrupt jackasses (yeah...including Trump) for what they really were, I figured it may cause people to “wake up”, start thinking independently and stop playing the, “My dude’s better than your dude because he’s a R or D”...because really, there ain’t a whole helluva lot of difference.

Folks were too comfortable...the boat needed rocking.
 
Last edited:
specops56 said:
Question for all you "We have to vote Trump" guys: What would Trump have to do to lose your vote? Anything? This is a serious question.

Terry
Click to expand...

Very simple answer is that he would have to run against someone I like less than I like him. That would include anyone who would be likely to infringe on more of my rights that Donald has. I would be voting to deny that other candidate the win.

Other than the 2A issues so often discussed here, Donald has done some very good things that needed to be done and has tried to do other things but has been held back by both sides of the aisle and by courts. Anybody who can make the commie/liberal/globalist/maggots foam at the mouth and scream as loud as they do should get another 4 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom