jared8783

iTrader: (2)

really?
thats news to me

just kidding
most of us involved in political threads weren't born yesterday and already understand this

heck i cant even go fishing in a pond in my backyard without getting permission from uncle sam

well....i hope u sure dont feel this way
and this statement is partially why i think this country is hopeless
that and the fact that most citizens pay little if any attention to politics


of course screwed up stuff is gonna happen if we do nothing to stop it
that's a no brainer that most seem to ignore

ok so blaen you say supreme court decisions support this
can someone post links to these decisions?
specifically i want to see a time era and then if someone does that i will attempt to see how that lines up with decisions made closer to the origin of the country

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Find any supreme court decision supporting the regulation of something for the health of the citizens over business interests. There are numerous ones. I rolled my eyes after the third or fourth case that repeatedly gave the same decisions.

This is based on, as I said, the federal government's shennanigans declaring cigarette smoke a hazardous "waste" (Not the right word, but whatevs) and a potential carcinogen.

The state claims they have the right to regulate smoke based on the individual right to not be exposed to hazardous "waste" and potential carcinogens, and this individual right trumps property rights. If it goes into law, the only thing that will change it is the Indiana legislature, not any legal challenges. I don't support the law, and I don't like it. But that's the legal reality for this law. And like I said, it's the legislators putting their fingers in their ears screaming "LALALALALA!" in that the individual's "right" is not affected because they don't have to go into the business if they don't want to.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

well of course our government has an excuse to justify it

the question is
how does this line up with the founding fathers?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Well, the founding fathers said the supreme court was the ultimate decider of the legality of a law....

Which is why I changed my stance. I may not like it, and I may think it's a stupid law. But unless the supreme court revises their decision or takes a new case, the fathers would have probably said "Suck it up Nancy". I would imagine they had numerous cases that were decided in the supreme court that they would have violently disagreed with - but they abided by those decisions nonetheless.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

they never said the supreme court were dictators

they translate laws
nothing more

translations dont "update with the times"

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

They also never said the legislators were dictators. The legislators have tools to address shitty supreme court decisions, incidentally. But why don't they use them?

We have direct influence on our legislators. With 41% voter turnouts though, only a minority gets the government they want.

And with that low of a voter turnout, we get the government we deserve.

TNTUBA

iTrader: (1)

I 100% feel this way. I in NO WAY would want to live in a lawless society which is the ONLY 100% free society. And for you to say that a lawless society is the only hope this nation has SCARES the hell out of me. Rules and Order are the keystones of ALL society. And I'm sorry but in a nation of over 350MM people there is NO WAY everyone is going to get their way.

I can end this thread quickly. Don't smoke in public restaurants if it's against the law. If you don't like the law vote out of office the people that made the law and vote in people that will change the law. If you can't vote them out of office apparently a majority of your voting peers did not agree with you and our great nations process of governing has worked yet again.

p.s. If you REALLY think that not smoking in public restaurants is the first step on a slippery slope leading to a police state you should really take some of your debating energy and take some time to educate yourself on US Corporate and business law.

TNTUBA

iTrader: (1)

qft!!!!!!!!

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

being free does not equal a lawless society
i did not say that

and also when did i say that banning smoking in public business was the first step down a slippery slop to a police

you have clearly resorted to placing words in my mouth

you're just being ridiculous

TNTUBA

iTrader: (1)

LOL I'm the one being ridiculous? You have started a 4 page "debate" thread when you don't even have a simple understanding of the laws behind the topic you want to debate. I'm not at all trying to be an ***. I am however encouraging you to at least be familiar with the topic for which you are so willing to fall on a sword.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

the government telling me what adults can and can not do in a privately owned business does not fit my definition of freedom
nor does it any others

i asked a sincere question about the supreme courts actions in such cases over the entire life of our country and if their decisions have perhaps changed over time

i truly do not know the answer to the question

instead of answering that question
you choose to put words in my mouth

i can't respect that

TNTUBA

iTrader: (1)

If you want to debate it is not my job to educate you on the topic you chose. I'm not at all asking for your respect. I am simply encouraging YOU to educate YOURSELF. That is part of the problem with political debate such as this. Far too many people rely on "They said" facts or simply partial truths provided with a slant from their media outlet of choice. Find the REAL truths for youself...and then you will be able to dig deeper and further to the REAL core problems for yourself and not rely on what was said on the news...or what was in a chain email you received.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

lmao tnt
dont be silly
of course i am trying to find answers to my questions
im not just waiting for the guys on miata turbo

i want the input of others as well
others can show me things i did not find
i can show others things i found that they did not find

in addition to research i like to encourage others to research what i am researching then i have others do discuss said topic with

you are directing your posts to me as if i have no common sense


well no **** lol

JasonC SBB

This is not correct. There are at least 3 things which are more important checks or firewalls against gov't (2 are federal) tyranny:

1) State nullification - the States can decide that a Federal Law is unconstitutional and choose not to enforce it within their borders

2) Jury nullification - a jury can decide to let a man free that is technically guilty of violating an unjust law

3) Secession - we know how that turned out....

4) The 2nd Amendment...

JasonC SBB

TNTUBA it is the gov't that is the #1 violator of the law. In the case of the Federal Gov't, the vast majority of its laws are unconstitutional and outside its jurisdiction as per the 10th Amendment.

Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws

Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws

Bureaucrats, special interest groups, and busybodies get their way and impose their will on the rest of us. That's tyranny.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

i still remember why according to my public elementary school that we have gun rights

protection from tyranny

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Smoke commies not cigarettes.

TNTUBA

iTrader: (1)

I assume that you are referring to "Federal gun laws nullification" which has been brought around out of the "10th Amendment Movement." While this legislation has been proposed in several states and passed in a few it has yet to be tested in the courts...but again read Cooper v Aaron. Keep in mind that the Federal Gun Laws Nullification bills currently passed or considered ONLY effect firearms manufactured in the state in question. So unless Smith and Wesson want's to put manufacturing facilities in all 50 states this will end up holding little power IMHO

You can also research how the federal government does, has and always will use federal funding to enforce it's will on the states. If a state makes too much of an issue over this issue they could end up with no federal funding for specific projects such as roads. See the State of SD v Doyle.


As for the over all power of the 10th Amendment. Read US v Sprague and US v Darby.


While at the core I agree with you...I just wanted to point these things out.

JasonC SBB

Right, and the Fed Gov isn't even supposed to be funded by direct taxation of the citizens. It was supposed to be funded mostly by the States.

Right now CA citizens for example, pays the Fed Gov more in direct income tax than the State gets back in funding... and with strings attached. What a f*cking crock of ***** that is.

If the States got together and told the Fed Gov to f*ck off and rescind the 16th Amendment (income tax, which wasn't even properly ratified), they would get their power back.
Note that the 17th Amendment (direct election of senaturds), and the Federal Reserve, were maneuvered into place, by the same group of conspirators (google "colonel house" and the CFR).
All of which centralized power, not to mention the Fed Res ability to fund the Fed Gov with debt.

The Fed Gov as per the Constitution was a creation of the States for taking care of the few matters that are more efficiently taken of by a central authority. They did not mean to cede power to it in general. Again, secession was attempted, and look what happened.

Power always tends to centralize and grow.

The one country that resembles what the Founders wanted in this regard, than the USA does today, is Switzerland. (down to the militia defense) Citizens pay very low taxes to the Federation and much more to the Cantons (states). And law making is very decentralized, even towns have more laws than the Cantons. They did one thing right, which was to totally neuter the Federal gov't. Almost no power, and the head of the Federation isn't voted in, the post round robins among the governors of the Cantons.

TNTUBA

iTrader: (1)

It's past my bed time so I'm only going to deal with one of these tonight. Your claim that the 16th amendment to the constitution was not properly ratified:

Go read:
Miller v US
US v Stahl
USv Foster
Knoblauch v Commissioner
Stearman v Commissioner
and
Socia v Commissioner

This claim about the 16th amendment is one of the most often "quoted as fact" internet lies ever perpetuated.

The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio (which became a state in 1803; see Bowman v. United States, 920 F. Supp. 623 n.1 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (discussing the 1953 joint Congressional resolution that confirmed Ohio’s status as a state retroactive to 1803), and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only three‑fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment. There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.

I'll deal with the rest tomorrow if I can remember.