Posts by Holden

    You're right, it's a poor analogy. The only thing that Trump shares with Jimmy Carter is that pretty much all Americans believe that Trump is a failure. We just disagree on where he failed.

    75 Million Americans disagreed with you. That's pretty close to pretty much all Americans according to your definition.

    As long as you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.

    You should say that again in a sinister German accent and see if you still agree with it.


    Reinhard-Heydrich.jpg

    "As long as you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about."

    I've finished reading Cohen's book now. He mentions this process whereby the POTUS can pardon himself... I'm not sure how that works, but...

    Quote

    ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1


    The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.


    Not much limitation here, but only for federal offenses and not too counter impeachment.


    As far as Cohen's book, it's written by someone who was legally proven to be a liar, so... take it for what it's worth: Look out for confirmation bias.

    Your STRENUOUS objection is overruled.

    I do not care.


    What I do care about (slightly) is that you do not understand what the apportionment language in the constitution means.


    In Article 1 section 2 Clause 3 says "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers"


    This means that direct taxes need to be collected so that the average direct tax per capita of a richer state could be no higher than the average direct tax per capita of a poorer state.


    However the 16th allows income tax to be excluded from the apportionment standard of Art 1 and we get this:


    BB11rCr4.img?h=720&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f If income tax were limited by the apportionment language in Art 1, we would all be limited so that every state's average was equal.


    So, contrary to your assertion, Amendment 16 has nothing to do with government spending, only government revenue.


    If you respond with "your appeal is denied" or some similar bullshit phrase, I will assume that you cannot argue this on the merits and this concept is beyond your comprehension.

    Your appeal on your denial of application is denied.



    Income taxes had been collected previous to the 16th amendment.

    You brought up the 16th, not me. I was discussion your misconception that apportionment in taxation was linked somehow to apportionment in spending.


    Apportionment in the 16th means the division of taxation, not spending. It refers to Article I which also provides that a “direct” tax must be apportioned among the states on the basis of population.


    Try not to lose focus here and form a cute comeback an actually try to understand that article 1 says TAXES must be COLLECTED apportioned among the states.


    The 16th says that income taxes need not come under the apportionment rules of article 1 but does not say anything about spending that tax money.


    I do not apply for your approval, nor If you were to grant it I will not accept it as until you understand the constitutional provision above, your approval would be worthless.

    The Taxing Clause in Article I, Section 8, grants Congress the broad “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,” but Article I also provides (twice) that a “direct” tax must be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. This means that if a tax is a “direct” tax, a state with one-tenth of the national population must bear one-tenth of the total liability. It doesn’t matter whether one state has lots of whatever is being taxed (such as valuable land) and another state has very little—the states have to bear the burden according to population. That requirement makes direct taxation cumbersome, and often impossible.

    While not true, it's very constitutional. What most people don't understand is that the 16th Amendment didn't change how income taxes could be collected. But how they can spend it.


    They can spend it on anything they want.

    Quote

    Amendment XVI


    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.

    The 16th changed how income taxes could be collected because it allowed it in the first place.


    Can you show me the spending language? I can't find it.

    I feel like Elfie's take on the matter emphasizes the supremacy of the written words of the constitution.

    What do you think of the words in the Supremacy Clause?

    Quote

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    "Anything in the constitution or laws of a state" such as... I don't know... a state secession ordinance that would nullify the entire constitution in that state?