Colnstitution Party is the lawlessness Party

[raderag]

Here are two examples from their current platform (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php):


There is substantial evidence that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. When elected, we will act to cease collection of direct Federal personal income taxes. We also support ratification of the Liberty Amendment which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, and provide that "Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts."


In addition, Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. Therefore, although a Supreme Court opinion is binding on the parties to the controversy as to the particulars of the case, it is not a political rule for the nation.

The CP completely fails to recognize the legal traditions of the west, and would be an affront to the rule of law.

[Tallen]

Brett, this is a straw man. Repealling the 16th Amendment and dismantling the current federal tax system is not lawlessness. In fact, it is a return to the Constitution. Would you consider the founding fathers lawless?

Also, it has been the traditional value of the republican party that the Supreme Court is not a polotical rule for the nation. That in recent years has been abandoned by them, especially in the G. W. Bush political agenda.

[Tallen]

From the Constitution Party's Platform:

"Federal involvement in state and local criminal justice processes should be limited to that which is Constitutionally permitted." :clap:

[raderag]

Brett, this is a straw man. Repealling the 16th Amendment and dismantling the current federal tax system is not lawlessness. In fact, it is a return to the Constitution. Would you consider the founding fathers lawless?

Also, it has been the traditional value of the republican party that the Supreme Court is not a polotical rule for the nation. That in recent years has been abandoned by them, especially in the G. W. Bush political agenda.

Ted, read carefully. They don't think they need to repeal it. They would just ignore it.

[Tallen]

Ted, read carefully. They don't think they need to repeal it. They would just ignore it.

Here's what Baldwin says about that,

"The only way to fix this economic mess that the international bankers have created is to return America to sound money principles, as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution. This means dismantling the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service, overturning the 16th Amendment and the personal income tax, and returning the American monetary system to hard assets: gold and silver. Anything short of this will only delay and worsen the inevitable collapse that has already begun." No Amnesty for Wall Street, Charles Baldwin

"As President, I would seek to overturn the 16th Amendment, eliminate the Internal Revenue Service, and disband the Federal Reserve. I would lead the charge to return America to sound money principles. I would seek to reduce federal spending to constitutional levels by eliminating those same federal departments that Newt Gingrich promised to eliminate in his Contract with America back in 1994 (and then failed to do). I would seek to eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, etc. I would demand that Congress pass a balanced budget and that we stop deficit spending." Thank you Dr. Ron Paul, Charles Baldwin

The amendment, even though it has some controversy around it, would have to be overturned (repealed) by the process that the Constitution provides for such things. No one would be able to ignore such a thing and think it would just go away. The amendment would have to be overturned, just as the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th.

Now let's address the straw man in your post, that is that they are a "party of lawlessness". That is not the case, when in fact, they are the party that wants law returned to it's proper authorities and the Federal courts to be used as mandated in the Constitution. It is the party's that have promoted the roles that are no longer under the Constitution which are the ones being lawless. For instance, using the courts to determine the political ideals of the nation and making law is lawless according to the Constitution.

BTW, it was the Democratic party (led by William Jennings Bryan) that proposed the income tax in their platform in 1908. They were the ones that pushed the 16th amendment along with the Socialist Labor Party and the Populist Party. And it has been the position of some of the Republican candidates, such as Ron Paul, that wants to overturn this amendment. Are they also a party of lawlessness?

Consider the following, HERE (http://political-resources.com/taxes/16thamendment/default.htm).

[raderag]

Here's what Baldwin says about that,

"The only way to fix this economic mess that the international bankers have created is to return America to sound money principles, as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution. This means dismantling the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service, overturning the 16th Amendment and the personal income tax, and returning the American monetary system to hard assets: gold and silver. Anything short of this will only delay and worsen the inevitable collapse that has already begun." No Amnesty for Wall Street, Charles Baldwin

"As President, I would seek to overturn the 16th Amendment, eliminate the Internal Revenue Service, and disband the Federal Reserve. I would lead the charge to return America to sound money principles. I would seek to reduce federal spending to constitutional levels by eliminating those same federal departments that Newt Gingrich promised to eliminate in his Contract with America back in 1994 (and then failed to do). I would seek to eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, etc. I would demand that Congress pass a balanced budget and that we stop deficit spending." Thank you Dr. Ron Paul, Charles Baldwin

The amendment, even though it has some controversy around it, would have to be overturned (repealed) by the process that the Constitution provides for such things. No one would be able to ignore such a thing and think it would just go away. The amendment would have to be overturned, just as the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th.

Now let's address the straw man in your post, that is that they are a "party of lawlessness". That is not the case, when in fact, they are the party that wants law returned to it's proper authorities and the Federal courts to be used as mandated in the Constitution. It is the party's that have promoted the roles that are no longer under the Constitution which are the ones being lawless. For instance, using the courts to determine the political ideals of the nation and making law is lawless according to the Constitution.

BTW, it was the Democratic party (led by William Jennings Bryan) that proposed the income tax in their platform in 1908. They were the ones that pushed the 16th amendment along with the Socialist Labor Party and the Populist Party. And it has been the position of some of the Republican candidates, such as Ron Paul, that wants to overturn this amendment. Are they also a party of lawlessness?

Consider the following, HERE (http://political-resources.com/taxes/16thamendment/default.htm).

Hey Ted,

Perhaps this candidate says we should overturn it, and that is certainly an improvement over the platform, but I would think he wouldn't associate himself with a party that has such a bizarre view on the constitution. There are no real problems with the 16th's ratification. Do the research.

Its not a straw man as their platform says


There is substantial evidence that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. When elected, we will act to cease collection of direct Federal personal income taxes. We also support ratification of the Liberty Amendment which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, and provide that "Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts."

As I said, they also don't think that Marbury Vs Madison is a binding decision, so they would ignore it.

Ron Paul? Not a big fan of his either, but overturning an amendment and ignoring it are two different things.

[Tallen]

When elected, we will act to cease collection of direct Federal personal income taxes. We also support ratification of the Liberty Amendment which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, and provide that "Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts.

"Acting" to cease collection of income taxes and "repealing" the 16th Amendment are not acts of lawlessness.


As I said, they also don't think that Marbury Vs Madison is a binding decision, so they would ignore it.

Marbury vs Madison is not an amendment to the Constitution, it is a controversial court case. It has been since 1801. It is a legal precedent to challenge court decisions to further the legal process. People do this in various ways. You are not making a case for your statement that the Constitution Party "is the lawless party". Here is the party's platform HERE (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php), can you show me where they state they would ignore this decision in it. Thanks.


A couple of questions.

Do you support all that is in the platform of the candidates you support?

Do you support a Presidential declared "preemptive war" on foreign soil?

Do you think that the Supreme Court is a political rule over the nation?

[bartalonis]

I will be voting for Chuck Baldwin come this November for many reasons.

BTW, There is a lot of evidence that the 16th Amendment was not ratified properly. From memory which sometimes fails me, the ratification required 36 out of 48 states to vote for the 16th. Supposedly 38 voted yes. The problem is that there are very strict requirements for the procedure that the states must follow. The wording of the amendment cannot be changed in the slightest degree - not even a puctuation mark. Each chamber of the legislative body must be voting on the exact text as written by Congress. If the technicalities are not followed exactly then the state's vote is not to be accepted. There are other technicalities that must be followed. In a number of states the procedure was not followed and was conducted in a sloppy manner throughout. One state even changed the whole meaning of the amendment so that it was inverted. Philander (good name) Knox who was the secretary in the government that declared the amendment ratified was due to leave office in a few days. I have all sorts of questions in my mind about it from what I have read.

BTW, don't get me wrong. I pay my taxes because I don't want to live out my last few years in a prison cell and the Bible says that we are to pay our taxes so I hope that these tax movements will get to the bottom of it. If the 16th Amendment was not ratified properly then it is not part of the constitution. If it was then it is a part of the constitution. However, even if it was ratified properly there are other questions about the interpretation of the 16th amendment that should be looked into. The We The People Foundation, http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org, along with others have raised a lot of questions about this and have asked the government to sit down with them and explain the law to them and why they are wrong but the government has refused to do so. Now why won't the federal government and the IRS just simply sit down with these people and explain why their research is wrong?

However, one thing is for sure the Federal Reserve (not federal and there are no reserves) is an unconstitutional institution and it has destroyed our financial system with fiat currency that is based entirely on debt. To complicate things further fractional reserve banking furthers this process.

The CP is also against the federal reserve and wants it abolished. This is another reason why I will be voting for the CP. Now we have given even more power to the FED. In essence they will become envolved with every institution in our financial system. They are the foxes who are in charge of the henhouse. Very soon, now, we will know what hyperinflation is all about. 97% of every dollar comes into being just because it was borrowed. A federal reserve note is simply an IOU. Our debt can never be paid off. If we pay our debt down dollars are exstinguished. They disappear back into the inwell or computer chip from which they came. When dollars are extinguished (contraction of money) our economy recedes. No wonder Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson warned us that if we ever adopted this system it would eventually destroy us. Every nation that has adopted fiat money has seen it's money become worthless.

God bless,

bartalonis

[Tallen]

I agree Charles, especially with the idea that about fiat money. Not only were we warned about the dangers, but we are seeing it happen right before our eyes.

Today on the news some politicians are proposing more debt to stimulate the economy and more taxes to help pay for it. Just what we don't need. It's like borrowing money from the loan shark who is after you to pay your debt.

These folks are like drunken crazy men. They have no sensibility or reason-ability and look stupid when they talk. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_11_10.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSYYYYYYYYUS)





http://www.smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb095&pp=ZSYYYYYYYYUS (http://smiley.smileycentral.com/download/index.jhtml?partner=ZSzeb095_ZSYYYYYYYYUS&utm_id=7923)

[raderag]

"Acting" to cease collection of income taxes and "repealing" the 16th Amendment are not acts of lawlessness.

Ted, I think you might be misunderstanding their position. I have emailed the CP about this, and extensively spoken to a CP candidate. They are saying that the 16th amendment is not settled law since it was not properly ratified. Therefore, they would not enforce any laws that are permitted by the 16th amendment. I urge you to call or email the CP.



Marbury vs Madison is not an amendment to the Constitution, it is a controversial court case. It has been since 1801. It is a legal precedent to challenge court decisions to further the legal process. People do this in various ways. You are not making a case for your statement that the Constitution Party "is the lawless party". Here is the party's platform HERE, can you show me where they state they would ignore this decision in it. Thanks.
They don’t directly state it, but it is implied in the quote I gave previously. Furthermore, it was confirmed to me by more than one CP party official. Check for yourself if you don’t believe me. It is not merely a controversial court case, but a case where 200 years of our case law is based on. If you understand Western law, it is settled law. To ignore it would be to go against the 1000 years tradition the west has of rule of law. That is what I mean by lawlessness.





A couple of questions.

Do you support all that is in the platform of the candidates you support?

Do you support a Presidential declared "preemptive war" on foreign soil?

Do you think that the Supreme Court is a political rule over the nation?

No, but if the Republican party had as part of its platform, the idea to ignore part of the constitution (i.e. 16th amendment), I would not vote Republican.
Depends. I believe Iraq may have been a just war, but I am not sure. I believe a just war must have a just cause, have a legitimate authority, right intention, probability of success, be a last resort, and be proportional to the wrong. This is Jus Ad bellum as formulated by Augustine. The only question about this war in my mind if there was a right intention. That is what I am not sure about. It meets all other criteria. Furthermore, Iraq was NOT a sovereign country as so many say today. If it were sovereign, why did it sign treaties that said it would not militarize and that it would not fly in most of its own airspace?
Your question is malformed. Marbury V Madison is settled law, and have built a 200 year tradition. While, I may or may not agree with that view, it is the law of the land at this point. The time for the anti-federalist to fight this battle was 200 years ago, and they lost. Also, there are other court cases and judicial precedent that give MvM some credence. Whatever you think, we can’t have a President arbitrate this 200 years later. That is not how law works in Western Civilization, but rather how it works in a banana republic. The language of the constitution was intentionally vague in order that the 18th century governmental crisis be resolved in favor of compromise. They (anti-Federalists and Federalists) basically agreed to fight their battles later. Well, the federalists won this battle as well as many others. What you should realize my friend, is that the CP is not for upholding US law, but rather for a total revolution of our system of Law. In fact, many of these folks would like to see us return to the Articles of Confederacy. They are hard-core radical anti-Federalists.


Not to mention the kinists, KKKs, John Birch type, 911 truthers, etc.

I believe that God has not left us with that confusing of a choice here. The third parties in this country are radicals.

[raderag]

I will be voting for Chuck Baldwin come this November for many reasons.

BTW, There is a lot of evidence that the 16th Amendment was not ratified properly. From memory which sometimes fails me, the ratification required 36 out of 48 states to vote for the 16th. Supposedly 38 voted yes. The problem is that there are very strict requirements for the procedure that the states must follow. The wording of the amendment cannot be changed in the slightest degree - not even a puctuation mark. Each chamber of the legislative body must be voting on the exact text as written by Congress. If the technicalities are not followed exactly then the state's vote is not to be accepted. There are other technicalities that must be followed. In a number of states the procedure was not followed and was conducted in a sloppy manner throughout. One state even changed the whole meaning of the amendment so that it was inverted. Philander (good name) Knox who was the secretary in the government that declared the amendment ratified was due to leave office in a few days. I have all sorts of questions in my mind about it from what I have read.


Yes, this is the charge de-jour, but these are just words. Actually look at the history of it aside from the conspiracy nuts, and you get a different picture. Even if all this were true, a President ignoring what has been settled and accepted law for almost 100 years would by tyranical to say the least.

The numbers where 36/42 (They only needed 32).
Now, if this charges were true, wouldn't there be some protest from the governmental bodies that supposedly didn't ratify them? There is no evidence of this.
As far as all i's being dotted, and t's being crossed; that is not the way the law has ever or will every work.

Its funny how these arguments never appear in any peer reviewed work. It is because they are crackpot theories. But, if for those that believe that Bush was responsible for 911, it isn't much of a reach in logic.

[Tallen]

Ted, I think you might be misunderstanding their position. I have emailed the CP about this, and extensively spoken to a CP candidate. They are saying that the 16th amendment is not settled law since it was not properly ratified. Therefore, they would not enforce any laws that are permitted by the 16th amendment. I urge you to call or email the CP.

They don’t directly state it, but it is implied in the quote I gave previously. Furthermore, it was confirmed to me by more than one CP party official. Check for yourself if you don’t believe me. It is not merely a controversial court case, but a case where 200 years of our case law is based on. If you understand Western law, it is settled law. To ignore it would be to go against the 1000 years tradition the west has of rule of law. That is what I mean by lawlessness.




No, but if the Republican party had as part of its platform, the idea to ignore part of the constitution (i.e. 16th amendment), I would not vote Republican.
Depends. I believe Iraq may have been a just war, but I am not sure. I believe a just war must have a just cause, have a legitimate authority, right intention, probability of success, be a last resort, and be proportional to the wrong. This is Jus Ad bellum as formulated by Augustine. The only question about this war in my mind if there was a right intention. That is what I am not sure about. It meets all other criteria. Furthermore, Iraq was NOT a sovereign country as so many say today. If it were sovereign, why did it sign treaties that said it would not militarize and that it would not fly in most of its own airspace?
Your question is malformed. Marbury V Madison is settled law, and have built a 200 year tradition. While, I may or may not agree with that view, it is the law of the land at this point. The time for the anti-federalist to fight this battle was 200 years ago, and they lost. Also, there are other court cases and judicial precedent that give MvM some credence. Whatever you think, we can’t have a President arbitrate this 200 years later. That is not how law works in Western Civilization, but rather how it works in a banana republic. The language of the constitution was intentionally vague in order that the 18th century governmental crisis be resolved in favor of compromise. They (anti-Federalists and Federalists) basically agreed to fight their battles later. Well, the federalists won this battle as well as many others. What you should realize my friend, is that the CP is not for upholding US law, but rather for a total revolution of our system of Law. In fact, many of these folks would like to see us return to the Articles of Confederacy. They are hard-core radical anti-Federalists.

Not to mention the kinists, KKKs, John Birch type, 911 truthers, etc.

I believe that God has not left us with that confusing of a choice here. The third parties in this country are radicals.

Thanks for your thoughts, Brett. We are not on the same page on this one. I find that your inflammatory remarks are not addressing the conversation, although I think you are sincere. I remember the emails between us when I suggested that McCain was going to be the Republican candidate more than a year and a half ago, I think it was that long ago. And it was with the same conviction that you said you wouldn't vote for him, it was a moral issue then. I wonder what happened? For me the moral issue hasn't changed and I must follow my heart and what I feel the Lord is leading me to do.

As far as radicals, there are radicals in all party's. There are John Birchers and 911 truthers and clan in the Republican party as well. I find that kind of reasoning to argue against a party's platform just not a balanced reasoning.

I'll state once again, the Constitution Party does not intend on "ignoring" the Constitution or any of the amendments. It is just the opposite, as they state in their literature and party platform, they intend to effectively change it and honor it.

Blessings.

[bartalonis]

raderag, I purchased two books written by Bill Benson. They were two large volumes written by I believe Bill Benson if I remember correctly. He went to great links to contact every state involved to obtain records of their legislative debates concerning this amendment and records of submission, etc. Photocopies of all of the documents are contained in those volumes and I have seen them with my own eyes. I believe that 36 states were required out of 48. That would be 3/4. From my post I will think that if you are fair I didn't say that it was a fact but merely said that there is a lot of evidence and that the government should sit down with these people and answer their questions. Would that be a reasonable thing to do? I mean if the government requires us to work for the government for five months out of the twelve to pay taxes and some people come to believe that the laws are not constitutional doesn't that seem reasonable? In this movement there are lawyers, accountants, business people, and even ex-IRS agents. Some of the agents left the IRS because after this group asked them to show them the laws they thought that it was a reasonable question. So they asked their superiors to show them the laws so they could answer their questions. Their superiors did not show them the laws. One of them decided to research the law himself and after 3 months he came to the conclusion that the We the People Foundation came to and became involved with the movement himself. You make lite of this. Why would people risk imprisonment and/or harassment by the IRS to protest this if they don't believe it? Whether they are right or wrong they deserve to be answered. Our founding fathers set up a republic where the government is suppose to be the servant of the people. Or have I got this backwards too?

So far as the Federal Reserve is concerned a little research solves this question completely. There is no conspiracy theory where the FED is concerned - not at all. It is a quasi-governmental system that is regulated by Congress to a very small degree, as well as almost no oversite by the executive branch or the judicial branch. The twelve regional banks are owned by private banking interests. Fractional reserve banking is just exactly what it says. If you have a 10% reserve ratio then you can loan out 9 additional dollars out of each dollar in reserve. This 9 dollars is deposited in checking accounts by computer entry. The banks then charge interest on it and roll it over more than a few times. Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson killed the first two central banks and warned America never to allow another one.

The next time that you read financial articles look for key phrases such as monetizing debt. This is exactly what banks do. They create money out of debt and it is a totally unsound system and eventually it will colapse and is probably about to do so - at least in a few years at most. The debt comes into being the exact time money is loaned. When you sign the dotted line on a loan then your signature is all that is required to create the checking account with the balance or place it into an existing checking account. They then charge interest on it and, of course, hold the land or property as colateral. They charge interest on money they created out of thin air and own the real property till you pay it off.

This is why we owe our national debt to bankers instead of ourselves. Does this not bother you? It bothers me.

If our government operated the system then the government could own all of the banks and lend money out to the American people and the businesses at a low interest or if they did at a higher interest then the interest could pay for the operation of the government and our taxes would be very small. Either way the American people would not be enriching bankers and having our money devalued which gives rise to inflation. The government is the one who has the power to print money and regulate the value thereof. Do you not think that it is just a little bit rediculous that we allow a cabal of bankers to do this and charge interest on the money that is created out of debt and own the property until the debt is paid?

Actually, even if the government operated the system themselves it should still be based on something tangible like gold.

You used the term conspicay 'nuts'.

Tell me, who are the real nuts here? The American people who don't have time to understand their own monetary system or those who say the Federal Reserve should be abolished. BTW, were Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson nuts as well?

bartalonis

[raderag]

Thanks for your thoughts, Brett. We are not on the same page on this one. I find that your inflammatory remarks are not addressing the conversation, although I think you are sincere. I remember the emails between us when I suggested that McCain was going to be the Republican candidate more than a year and a half ago, I think it was that long ago. And it was with the same conviction that you said you wouldn't vote for him, it was a moral issue then. I wonder what happened? For me the moral issue hasn't changed and I must follow my heart and what I feel the Lord is leading me to do.

As far as radicals, there are radicals in all party's. There are John Birchers and 911 truthers and clan in the Republican party as well. I find that kind of reasoning to argue against a party's platform just not a balanced reasoning.

I'll state once again, the Constitution Party does not intend on "ignoring" the Constitution or any of the amendments. It is just the opposite, as they state in their literature and party platform, they intend to effectively change it and honor it.

Blessings.

Ted, sincerity matters not. Hitler was sincere... Speaking of, do you think the problem with that regime was taxes? You should rethink that bit.

As far as the CP goes, you are dead wrong. Their platform says to ignore the 16th via fiat.

[raderag]

Tell me, who are the real nuts here? The American people who don't have time to understand their own monetary system or those who say the Federal Reserve should be abolished. BTW, were Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson nuts as well?

bartalonis


Yes, Thomas Jefferson was the most radically liberal President we have ever had. He was drunk with the doctrines of the French enlightenment, deism and all. However, he served this country well in the time he led. His antifederalist and radical democratic ideas have not withstood the test of time. For example, his support of the French revoltution and condemnation of anyone that would question it (i.e. Edmund Burke).

[Tallen]

As far as the CP goes, you are dead wrong. Their platform says to ignore the 16th via fiat.

Brett, I have linked you to the CP platform and have asked you to show where it states that they would "ignore" the 16th amendment. It states just the opposite. They are willing to "overturn" it, as was stated by their candidate as well.

This is becoming circular, just saying they are wrong, they are extremist, and nuts does not bring anything convincing to the table. And now you have played the Hitler card. :BigB:

Blessings.

[raderag]

Brett, I have linked you to the CP platform and have asked you to show where it states that they would "ignore" the 16th amendment. It states just the opposite. They are willing to "overturn" it, as was stated by their candidate as well.

This is becoming circular, just saying they are wrong, they are extremist, and nuts does not bring anything convincing to the table. And now you have played the Hitler card. :BigB:

Blessings.

Last post for today:


There is substantial evidence that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. When elected, we will act to cease collection of direct Federal personal income taxes. We also support ratification of the Liberty Amendment which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, and provide that "Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts."

That is ignoring the law by fiat. If you think that isn't what they mean, ask them.

[Tallen]

No they won't Brett, they will work to repeal it. That was already stated and they are telling you a platform goal. The President doesn't have authority to stop the income tax, and they would need a majority in Congress to do that. The best they could do is work to repeal the income tax if they were elected. By the time that the party matures and the statements are refined, and if they are elected, then we can start talking about these kinds of statements.

Look past the political rehtoric and be sensible here.