unconstitutional legislation, so why push the political myth, go
futher and show the fallacy of majority rule legislation. True as
long as the government hints at accepting the doucument as the
founding document the gives it authority we should use that as a tool
but let us use it well. The Constitution may say Congress has the
authority to collect custom duties but it also says Congress must get
permission from the state legislatuer before the federal government
can build anything in that state The constitution does not say
Congress has to collect duties, taxes etc, it says it can if it
follows the other rules of the constitution. One of those other rules
is the right of due process before it can take someone's property, so
if someone ask for a jury the federal government still must prove the
defedent owes the government a tax or fee and that the amount the
government claims the defedent is the just amount owed.--- In
[email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Kiddledee,
>
> A most revealing history of the Constitution you have been
> providing. Trouble is, govt authoritarians could also exploit its
> lack of real authority: "no constitution = no rights = no such
> thing as unconstitutional legislation".
>
> -Mark
>
>
>
> ************
> {American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
> "not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
> case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
> There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
> unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
> its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
> unjust lawsuits.
> See www.fija.org
> [Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
>
> -----------------------------
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> _____
>
> Boyd, nice argument against the substance of Paul's argument. But
>
> that leaves the hysterical portion of his argument - the one that
> all
> statists fall back on when they find themselves in a
> contradictory
> mass of tangled logic. "The Constitution says government can levy
>
> tariffs so love it or leave it." This is the second argument we
> have
> been having with Paul. Nothing logical about it, but it's a
> particular version of the fall back position for all (United
> State of
> Americans, at least) who can't otherwise defend their assault of
> liberty.
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
