Neither Republicans or Democrats trusted

[Ken King]

The problem comes to the time limit imposed, if any, and editing. If the ratification took place after time ran out, it was not valid. If the text of the amendment is edited by the state before ratification, then they have ratified a document that none of the other states or the Congress have even seen. It does not matter how trivial the edit is. You know how lawyers can argue over the placement of a comma or the meaning of the word "is".

The court has ruled on the trivial errors also stating that the decision to ratify the amendment even with these faults does not render them invalid. And as to time limits I don't see any attached to this amendment as select others have had done to them.

 

[2ndAmendment]

The court has ruled on the trivial errors also stating that the decision to ratify the amendment even with these faults does not render them invalid. And as to time limits I don't see any attached to this amendment as select others have had done to them.

But have you examined all the edits made by all the states? I have not. Benson says he has and states:

• [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.[/font]

That is not what I would call a trivial edit.

I did not say this amendment had a time limit. I said that would be a problem for the ratification process or that is what I meant if it was not interpreted that way.

 

[Ken King]

But have you examined all the edits made by all the states? I have not. Benson says he has and states:

• [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.[/font]

That is not what I would call a trivial edit.

I did not say this amendment had a time limit. I said that would be a problem for the ratification process or that is what I meant if it was not interpreted that way.

I have not either and I do not intend to, but the court recognized that Knox did review what was sent to him and had the solicitor draw up a list of these deviations and from that derived list determined that ratification had taken place. There has been not one single state challenge to the fact that they were counted as having ratified the amendment, which speaks volumes as to what actually took place, at least for me.

 

[Midnightrider]

I have not either and I do not intend to, but the court recognized that Knox did review what was sent to him and had the solicitor draw up a list of these deviations and from that derived list determined that ratification had taken place. There has been not one single state challenge to the fact that they were counted as having ratified the amendment, which speaks volumes as to what actually took place, at least for me.

I'll second that, if they really didn't want to ratify, their representatives would have been protesting their inclusion in said ratification. Its not like it was a secret ballot.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I have not either and I do not intend to, but the court recognized that Knox did review what was sent to him and had the solicitor draw up a list of these deviations and from that derived list determined that ratification had taken place. There has been not one single state challenge to the fact that they were counted as having ratified the amendment, which speaks volumes as to what actually took place, at least for me.

Agreed that the court and Knox did confirm the ratification. I think that may have been expedient at the time, since the U.S. was hurting from the war debt and needed funds desperately. It is not like Knox or the court were exactly disinterested parties. I also think the states could have raised a red flag, but we do not know, at least I don't, if they were even told about the edits by the other states. I think there is room for question, but the court has disagreed. There are lots of court decisions I don't agree with. :shrug: I still have to pay my taxes. I just think the 16th is not the best way to raise funds.

 

[Ken King]

I just think the 16th is not the best way to raise funds.

I agree that there is probably a better and more balanced way to get everyone to chip in on paying for the Fed like with a consumption tax. But the ploy to say the amendment wasn't properly ratified has been shot down at every instance and I suspect that Benson, et al. is enjoined from selling his "research" kit when the case against him has gone before the court.

 

[Larry Gude]

Taxes are SIMPLE...

...Congress cooks up a budget, the Seante agrees, the Prez signs it.

Then, you divide the total $'s by the number of legal citizens and send them their bill, to be paid in monthly installments.

Corporations pay NO tax. It it can't vote, nor ever will be able to, it pays no tax.

That way, we will have a very, VERY attentive electorate and we will see rapid fiscal restraint and wide consensus for every dime spent.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...Congress cooks up a budget, the Seante agrees, the Prez signs it.

Then, you divide the total $'s by the number of legal citizens and send them their bill, to be paid in monthly installments.

Corporations pay NO tax. It it can't vote, nor ever will be able to, it pays no tax.

That way, we will have a very, VERY attentive electorate and we will see rapid fiscal restraint and wide consensus for every dime spent.

Sounds good in a post, but I doubt that many will be able to pony up the dough.

[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]The Current Outstanding Public Debt is:
[/font] <table border="5" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5"> <tbody><tr><td align="center"><img src="http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif" />
</td></tr> </tbody></table>
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica]The Outstanding Public Debt as of 02 Dec 2005 at 05:56:11 PM GMT was:
$8,110,585,680,121.44
[/font] [font=verdana,arial,helvetica]The estimated population of the United States was 297,866,376
so each citizen's share of this debt was $27,228.94.[/font]

How many people in your family? Five, right? Five times $27,228.94 = $136144.70. Ready to send in your check? Didn't think so.

Oops. Goes up when you reload the page. Better send in your share quickly.

And that would only take care of the current debt.

 

[Larry Gude]

A ha!

but I doubt that many will be able to pony up the dough

You're on to me!

I wanna see just how much is enough when we're all paying our fair share.

I wanna see just how generous people are when they're not giving away someone elses dough.

 

[2ndAmendment]

... But the ploy to say the amendment wasn't properly ratified has been shot down at every instance and I suspect that Benson, et al. is enjoined from selling his "research" kit when the case against him has gone before the court.

Probably, but like I said, the court is not exactly an impartial party.

 

[Ken King]

Probably, but like I said, the court is not exactly an impartial party.

None involved are impartial, but the courts would have surely been compelled to act if any of the the states had spoken up affirming that they had voted against the ratification. But we have seen nothing of the sort which is compelling in and of itself.

 

[vraiblonde]

I for one do not trust the Republicans anymore because of their ass-kissing of Murtha after he basically said the US should surrender in Iraq. Ann Coulter's column this week talks about it - how Bush and all these other candyass wimps called this man a patriot and an honerable veteran. I, personally, think Murtha is a Leftist terrorist appeaser and I wished he'd have been blown up in the Revolutionary War or whatever one he got his Purple Heart in. And the kicker is that he voted AGAINST HIS OWN PROPOSAL!!!!!


So Bush makes points on one hand for telling the Democrats to shut their pie holes and and quit telling lies, but he loses because of his praise for the traitor Murtha.

 

[Larry Gude]

So...

...let me see if I have this straight:

I, personally, think Murtha is a Leftist terrorist appeaser and I wished he'd have been blown up in the Revolutionary War or whatever one he got his Purple Heart in

...you have some reservations about Representative Murtha's intentions, yes?