Don't sign your IRS 1040 this year

[KG4JYD]

Did you know that signing your IRS 1040 form is voluntary?

On the form it says that you sign under penalty of perjury that your tax information is accurate.

Guess what... if you are convicted of a crime later, your IRS 1040 form can AND WILL be used against you.


HOWEVER if you read:


4th Amendment:
"No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"


So therefore, you do not have to sign the form because it will be used against you later in court.


If more and more Americans realized this and had the guts to go through with it, the IRS wouldn't be able to collect much tax.

[W1GUH]

Nice try, but it'll get you nowhere. They might not even notice that it's not signed, and if there are any irregularities in it, you're in just as much trouble as if you had signed it. Get off it. You can't win with the IRS, best thing to do is co-exist with it peacefully.

Years ago a law against frivolous returns was passed in response to another kind of "taxpayer revolt."

You want to mess with the IRS? Go right ahead...won't do a diddly bit of good.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 20 2008,21:08)]They might not even notice that it's not signed, and if there are any irregularities in it, you're in just as much trouble as if you had signed it.
How so? Please explain...





(and for the recordI am not suggesting anyone "cheat" or "falsify" what's written on a federal document)

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 19 2008,22:10)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 20 2008,21:08)]They might not even notice that it's not signed, and if there are any irregularities in it, you're in just as much trouble as if you had signed it.
How so? Please explain...





(and for the recordI am not suggesting anyone "cheat" or "falsify" what's written on a federal document)
Then why not sign it?

[N2RJ]

I e-file anyway.

[W1GUH]

What happens if you don't file is, eventually, the IRS figures out your tax for you, and if you still ignore them, they take it. Yes, they have ways.

I would imagine that if you file and don't sign the return, they send it back and ask you to sign it, that is, if they do anything at all and don't just process it as if you signed it. If you don't send it back, see the above paragraph. If you do "surrender" and sign it, but it's after April 15 (likely unless you file way early), you'll pay a penalty for late filing, unless you're getting a refund, in which case, why do want to delay your refund? Especially since you didn't falsify anything.

What, exactly, is your point?

[KE6SHJ]

Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Jan. 19 2008,22:32)]I e-file anyway.
Ditto. XYL estimates a nice return this year!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[N4AUD]

Quote[/b] (ke6shj @ Jan. 21 2008,00:40)]Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Jan. 19 2008,22:32)]I e-file anyway.
Ditto. XYL estimates a nice return this year!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Yep, me too. I've been e-filing for years and for me it's the only way to go.

[W0MT]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 20 2008,21:03)]Did you know that signing your IRS 1040 form is voluntary?

On the form it says that you sign under penalty of perjury that your tax information is accurate.

Guess what... if you are convicted of a crime later, your IRS 1040 form can AND WILL be used against you.


HOWEVER if you read:


4th Amendment:
"No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"


So therefore, you do not have to sign the form because it will be used against you later in court.


If more and more Americans realized this and had the guts to go through with it, the IRS wouldn't be able to collect much tax.
Please enlighten us oh wise one. Where did you get your legal education? Was it from an ad in the back of National Enquirer? Did you take the "Regular 6 Week Course" or was it the "Advanced Full 8 Week Special?" Maybe you signed up for the Nigerian University Law School. In any case, you had better save up your Coco Puffs box tops to take another of those courses because it is obvious that you didn't learn much the first time around.

[k2vhw]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 20 2008,21:10)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 20 2008,21:08)]They might not even notice that it's not signed, and if there are any irregularities in it, you're in just as much trouble as if you had signed it.
How so? Please explain...





(and for the recordI am not suggesting anyone "cheat" or "falsify" what's written on a federal document)
Merely the act of filing a false or inaccurate tax return makes you liable for tax fraud (if it is intentional).
In either case, you'll pay a hefty price for either errors or worse, tax fraud! Signed or not signed!
In the eyes of the law...........if you act illegally, vis-a-vis, submit a false statement.......bingo! Your cooked!

[KD4LEI]

This reminds me of the "barracks lawyers" offering advice for guys facing Article 15 action or a possible Court Martial. The advice actually made matters worse...

My "Spidey Sense" tells me something is amiss with that posting and it's welcoming trouble.

[W2ILP]

You have to sign the form.

You sign to attest to the fact that you know the tax rules and have followed them to the best of your ability, in order to pay any tax that you owe to the US government. If you can't read or do the math you can get someone to do your taxes or write an "X" for you. If you pay someone to figure out your tax you must get that preparer to sign the form as well, because the preparer is responsible for errors that he or she should have corrected from the information available to him or her.

As a ham you know that you had to sign the application for your ham license. You also had to sign the license itself. These signatures attest to the fact that you have read the laws and regulations of FCC Part 97., are familiar with RF safety requirements, etc.

In my opinion having the rights and privileges of being a US citizen is far more important than having the right and privilege to operate ham equipment. I can't see why anyone would refuse to sign...especially if he or she is going to pay anyway.

If you are receiving Social Security or expect to do so in your future...some day you may be expected to sign for it. It is therefore a good idea to let the government expect that you can and will.

w2ilp (ID Legal Papers)...with your signature....It is your responsibility to do so.

[k2vhw]

Quote[/b] (KD4LEI @ Jan. 20 2008,22:16)]This reminds me of the "barracks lawyers" offering advice for guys facing Article 15 action or a possible Court Martial. #The advice actually made matters worse...

My "Spidey Sense" tells me something is amiss with that posting and it's welcoming trouble.
Right!
Better believe it, that if not signing the return would work, many many would be doing it and succeeding. Then, the 'loopholes' would get plugged pretty damned fast!
You simply aren't dealing with a bunch of fools at the IRS.
My advice is......just get all your financial records in order and find a tax accountant/return file helper that knows all the legal deductibles to pay your accurate taxes.
Pappy always said.........two things are certain "Death and taxes". If you don't pay your taxes......you'll wish you were dead! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KD4LEI]

Quote[/b] (k2vhw @ Jan. 20 2008,16:32)]Quote[/b] (KD4LEI @ Jan. 20 2008,22:16)]This reminds me of the "barracks lawyers" offering advice for guys facing Article 15 action or a possible Court Martial. #The advice actually made matters worse...

My "Spidey Sense" tells me something is amiss with that posting and it's welcoming trouble.
Right!
Better believe it, that if not signing the return would work, many many would be doing it and succeeding. Then, the 'loopholes' would get plugged pretty damned fast!
You simply aren't dealing with a bunch of fools at the IRS.
My advice is......just get all your financial records in order and find a tax accountant/return file helper that knows all the legal deductibles to pay your accurate taxes.
Pappy always said.........two things are certain "Death and taxes". #If you don't pay your taxes......you'll wish you were dead! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
I leave that work to my XYL... She handles all this stuff and so far so good.

She didn't work different positions at a couple of banks for nothing.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 20 2008,22:25)]You have to sign the form.

I can't see why anyone would refuse to sign...especially if he or she is going to pay anyway.
No you don't have to sign the form. Signing the form means that you have sworn that the information on that form is true.

If you are ever caught up in legal trouble in the future, that form will be used against you.

Since the Constitution says the government cannot force one to testify against oneself, then they cannot make you sign it.

[W2ILP]

I knew a guy who refused to file a 1040 or pay any tax during the Vietnam war. He said that he refused to sign because he thought that the war was illegal. He then spent some time in a federal penitentiary. I dunno if it was mostly for dodging the draft or for refusing to file and pay tax. Perhaps it was for both....but either one could have made the government pay attention to him for the other.

w2ilp (I Logically Pay)

[KD4LEI]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 20 2008,16:47)]Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 20 2008,22:25)]You have to sign the form.

I can't see why anyone would refuse to sign...especially if he or she is going to pay anyway.
No you don't have to sign the form. Signing the form means that you have sworn that the information on that form is true.

If you are ever caught up in legal trouble in the future, that form will be used against you.

Since the Constitution says the government cannot force one to testify against oneself, then they cannot make you sign it.
A good prosecuting attorney would have a hayday with the person who did such an act as you suggest. The defense would have to provide proof the intentions were nothing other than intentional.

It's not worth the trouble my friend.

[W2ILP]

kg4jyd

If you don't pay your proper tax the form can be used against you even if you don't sign it. IRS inspectors will send the form back to you if they notice that the signature is missing. They will not further process it unless it is returned with your signature. It is just like a check that has no signature on it. It becomes worthless until signed. Late processing can result in a penalty.

You can plead the Fifth Amendment after you are charged with a crime in a court of law...but not before. You can not avoid signing checks or forms because you expect to plead the fifth before being charged for not signing them. Such a paradox or catch 22 does not legally exist.

w2ilp (Impossible Legal Paradox?) Yes...You are not the first to think up such ideas but the existing laws have been written to legally avoid such paradoxes. You may not be able to incriminate yourself but a missing signature can make an IRS tax inspector incriminate you by the fact that a document shows that your signature is missing. The IRS can then figure out your tax for you and you can pay a high late penalty for neglecting to pen your John Handcock.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 20 2008,21:03)]Did you know that signing your IRS 1040 form is voluntary?

On the form it says that you sign under penalty of perjury that your tax information is accurate.

Guess what... if you are convicted of a crime later, your IRS 1040 form can AND WILL be used against you.


HOWEVER if you read:


4th Amendment:
"No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"


So therefore, you do not have to sign the form because it will be used against you later in court.


If more and more Americans realized this and had the guts to go through with it, the IRS wouldn't be able to collect much tax.
This is what I'm talking about. These Ron Paul people don't know a thing about the constitution, just jump on a soap box and proclaim things that they're wrong about, can't get the info straight, and don't get the amendments right.

And they wonder why we don't support RP.

Joe

[m0dcd]

Over this side of the water, your employer does all the tax for you, and it gets deducted from your pay. Only if you are self employed do you have to do your own tax.

However those folk at Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs are adept at sending data round in the post on CDs which then get lost!

Swings and roundabouts really.

[N5NPO]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 20 2008,21:03)]Did you know that signing your IRS 1040 form is voluntary?

On the form it says that you sign under penalty of perjury that your tax information is accurate.

Guess what... if you are convicted of a crime later, your IRS 1040 form can AND WILL be used against you.


HOWEVER if you read:


4th Amendment:
"No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"


So therefore, you do not have to sign the form because it will be used against you later in court.


If more and more Americans realized this and had the guts to go through with it, the IRS wouldn't be able to collect much tax.
True, but.... Try NOT volunteering.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 21 2008,00:03)]HOWEVER if you read:


4th Amendment:
"No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"


So therefore, you do not have to sign the form because it will be used against you later in court.
So much for the 'jailhouse lawyer.'

It is the FIFTH Amendment, not the 4th, that guarantees the right against self-incrimination.

You just failed the bar, Sluggo.

[n2nh]

Help me.

[K3XR]

The Ronettes need to stick to the "oldies" and give up their pursuit of becoming black helicopter lawyers.

[WB8MKV]

Very dumb advice......

[KA8DKT]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 21 2008,00:03)]Did you know that signing your IRS 1040 form is voluntary?

On the form it says that you sign under penalty of perjury that your tax information is accurate.

Guess what... if you are convicted of a crime later, your IRS 1040 form can AND WILL be used against you.


HOWEVER if you read:


4th Amendment:
"No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"


So therefore, you do not have to sign the form because it will be used against you later in court.


If more and more Americans realized this and had the guts to go through with it, the IRS wouldn't be able to collect much tax.(My emphasis)

Well, you are certainly welcome to be the test case. #I'm sure you have the courage of your conviction and the fortitude to do it and follow through.

We will be following it closely.

By the way the Amendment that deals with self-incrimination is the Fifth, not the Fourth.

-gary

[KB9YCO]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 20 2008,22:03)]Did you know that signing your IRS 1040 form is voluntary?

On the form it says that you sign under penalty of perjury that your tax information is accurate.

Guess what... if you are convicted of a crime later, your IRS 1040 form can AND WILL be used against you.


HOWEVER if you read:


4th Amendment:
"No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"


So therefore, you do not have to sign the form because it will be used against you later in court.


If more and more Americans realized this and had the guts to go through with it, the IRS wouldn't be able to collect much tax.
And what do you think would happen if most Americans went through with this master plan? Especially in an economy that is already tanking, sounds like a bad plan. I'm not exactly in agreement with the government at all times, certainly not on all taxes, but as has been wisely pointed out in this thread you just can't fight the IRS. Until there are fundamental changes in the system of taxation itself we just have to grin and bear it.
Also, what makes you think that modern laws have any bearing on the Constitution or Bill Of Rights anyway? I can't even count how many laws directly contradict our "guaranteed" rights these days. And please don't tell me that Ron Paul will change all that. Even if he got elected, which he won't, he would still have to fight the other branches of the government (many of which are paid via the treasury) to get any of these changes to happen.
Best of luck with the not signing deal, let us know where it gets you in a few more months.

[NL7W]

Asking for an audit, methinks.

[kg6amw]

Landru never signs his return.

[KD6NIG]

Go ahead and don't sign it. Especially if you're due a refund. I'm sure they won't mind holding onto it and using it for one of Hillary's new spending plans once she is elected.

You can do whatever you like, just like your insane love for Ron Paul. Doesn't mean we all have to take your "advice". Practice what you preach, and lets see what happens!

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 21 2008,05:57)]It is the FIFTH Amendment, not the 4th, that guarantees the right against self-incrimination.
You are correct. I knew that, but it was a typo on my part.

[K1VSK]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 21 2008,09:25)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 21 2008,05:57)]It is the FIFTH Amendment, not the 4th, that guarantees the right against self-incrimination.
You are correct. I knew that, but it was a typo on my part.
another symptom of the brain not being properly connected to the typing fingers used to post this rediculous idea. From where did you obtain your education on U.S. tax law?

[W0MT]

If you fail to sign your income tax return, it is not considered a valid return. The IRS can then prepare a return for you using all of your reported income from W-2s and 1099s. They give you a standard deduction and personal exemption. If you owe according to the return they prepared, they can and do go after you for the tax due. The also assess a failure to file penalty (5% per month up to 25%), a failure to pay penalty (0.5% per month until paid in full), and interest (7% per year).

If you are owed a refund, according to the tax refund they prepared for you, they do nothing. If you fail to file a valid return within three years, you can no long get your refund.

In all the years I practiced as a tax attorney, I never once saw anyone prosecuted for perjury for signing and filing a tax return that understated income or overstated deductions. I saw many who ended up paying tax debts that were 3 and 4 times the original amount due because they failed to file a valid tax return on time.

If you want to take the advice of Bozos like KG4JYD on this site who have no legal training and think they know the law, you do so at your own peril.

[K8ERV]

Can someone explain why I have to sign a receipt for a credit card purchase in a store, but not at a gas pump?

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

[W0MT]

Quote[/b] (K8ERV @ Jan. 21 2008,11:49)]Can someone explain why I have to sign a receipt for a credit card purchase in a store, but not at a gas pump?

TOM K8ERV #Montrose Colo
Tom,

I do not know for sure but I believe that the credit card companies charge the seller a different percentage depending upon the exchange with the buyer. If the seller actually has the credit card in-hand there is one rate. If the seller does not have the card but gets the billing address and the security number from the card there is another rate. If the amount of the transaction is below some threshold not having the buyer sign doesn't make a difference. If the transaction is greater than some threshold there is another rate. And I think all of the rates are normally negotiable between the credit card company and the seller. The bigger the seller (like some of the oil companies) the lower the rate. Someone else may have more information about this than I.

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 20 2008,21:03)]Did you know that signing your IRS 1040 form is voluntary?
Sure it is...just like paying the tax is "voluntary." #The gummint has been keeping up this polite fiction for years in the hopes that we won't figure out what's really going on.

Well, guess what? #Everyone with half a functioning brain (that doesn't include Ron Paul supporters, apparently) figured out long ago that it is mandatory and collected essentially at gunpoint (threat of force).

The Fifth Amendment argument you refer to is older than you are. #Remember my post in the other thread about Irwin Schiff, the grand old man of the tax protest movement? #He has espoused arguments such as you are making for at least the last 30 years, and probably before that, both in public and in private. #He is also presently serving a 13-year sentence for tax evasion.

The gummint just loves people like you who push the Fifth Amendment argument vis-a-vis tax returns, because they get a lot of good publicity from prosecuting you.

FWIW, yes, from a purely academic standpoint I agree that the way the income tax is assessed and collected results in wholesale violations of constitutional provisions. #But, as I said in that other thread, flawless arguments don't mean a damn thing when you're going up against The System.

Know why you can do more time for tax evasion than for, say, armed robbery? #Because the armed robber isn't threatening The System by sticking up a 7-11, but the tax resister/protestor IS threatening The System, and The System must survive...by any means necessary.

You don't like it. #I don't like it. #Most people don't like it. #But whether or not we like it doesn't change reality. #Reality doesn't give a damn about your feelings, or anyone else's. #It is what it is.

But, if you really believe you're right, feel free to follow your conscience...right into federal prison.

[N3ATS]

This may be all fine and good JYD, except the IRS doesn't play by the rules.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 21 2008,16:52)]I agree that the way the income tax is assessed and collected results in wholesale violations of constitutional provisions.
Good. Glad to see you agree.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 21 2008,18:21)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 21 2008,16:52)]I agree that the way the income tax is assessed and collected results in wholesale violations of constitutional provisions.
Good. Glad to see you agree.
I agree as well OM, but I have co-workers who paid fines and penalties for years for trying to evade the illegal taxes. Just pay up, shut up, and pretend to be a good little subject. There are many perfectly legal dodges built into the system, and I advise using all of them that you can.

[kc4ylv]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Jan. 21 2008,12:42)]This may be all fine and good JYD, except the IRS doesn't play by the rules.
Care to document or support your argument with any "rules" that the IRS doesn't play by?

guys the irs is a sham and an illegal anarcho-fascist-communist organization, don't send your precious bullion to this band of jackbooted thugs

[kc2orw]

The more Ron Paul supporters they put in jail the better off we all are

[KC9IUX]

The IRS does what it wants, legality be damned.

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/94/sirsyf5.jpg

[KC9IUX]

Quote[/b] ]The more Ron Paul supporters they put in jail the better off we all are


That is sick, do you yearn for a Great Purge, also?

[W0MT]

Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Jan. 21 2008,18:42)]This may be all fine and good JYD, except the IRS doesn't play by the rules.
And what rules do you think the IRS does not play by?

[W0MT]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 21 2008,19:21)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 21 2008,16:52)]I agree that the way the income tax is assessed and collected results in wholesale violations of constitutional provisions.
Good. Glad to see you agree.
Will one of you legal geniuses help those of us who are uninformed and tell us how the way income tax is assessed and collected in any way violates the Constitution?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 20 2008,22:47)]Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 20 2008,22:25)]You have to sign the form.

I can't see why anyone would refuse to sign...especially if he or she is going to pay anyway.
No you don't have to sign the form. Signing the form means that you have sworn that the information on that form is true.

If you are ever caught up in legal trouble in the future, that form will be used against you.

Since the Constitution says the government cannot force one to testify against oneself, then they cannot make you sign it.
Let me ask you a question and give me a sincere answer. Do you really think all these "constitutional ideas" of yours are new ideas ? I've heard all these "revolt against the evil government in the name of the constitution" ideas for decades, since I was a little kid, and it's never worked or gotten anyone anywhere. And my parents and grandparents heard these same old tired ideas long before that. And it never worked then either. And when it comes down to a court caseguess what... The court has determined time and time again that the IRS is constitutional and the revolter has to pay.

Trust me on this one. You're not onto some new revolutionary idea. It's all "been there...done that" and it has never worked.

It will make a lot of trouble for you though.

So,let us all know how your tax revolt turns out. While you turn in your unconstitutional radio license.

[KC9IUX]

Quote[/b] ]Will one of you legal geniuses help those of us who are uninformed and tell us how the way income tax is assessed and collected in any way violates the Constitution?


I'm not a "legal genius" , as you deride those who disagree with you, but the income tax is not apportioned.

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (W0MT @ Jan. 21 2008,20:25)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 21 2008,19:21)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 21 2008,16:52)]I agree that the way the income tax is assessed and collected results in wholesale violations of constitutional provisions.
Good. Glad to see you agree.
Will one of you legal geniuses help those of us who are uninformed and tell us how the way income tax is assessed and collected in any way violates the Constitution?
I didn't say that the income tax itself is unconstitutional; it most certainly is constitutional (16th Amendment). #What I said was that the way it is assessed and collected (that is, administered by the IRS) violates several other constitutional principles.

In the purely academic sense, JYD is right that being required to self-assess and sign under penalty of perjury is violative of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against forced self-incrimination. #There is also the routine violation of the Fourth Amendment ("...secure in their papers, houses, and effects...") and a few others, such as denial of due process by the Tax Court where a defendant is presumed guilty until proven innocent. #Yes, yes, I know, Tax Court isn't part of the IRS but it makes little practical difference to you if you are a defendant.

IIRC, one former IRS official said, at a Congressional hearing into taxpayer abuses by the agency, "If we had to worry about people's rights we couldn't do our job."

But this is all academic. #The federal courts routinely dismiss such arguments in criminal tax cases. #The Supreme Court routinely dismisses appeals of cases based on these arguments as frivolous and the Tax Court certainly won't listen to such arguments. #It doesn't matter whether the arguments are right or wrong in the abstract; the courts have already determined that these arguments are wrong and will not entertain them.

So, putting it bluntly, you're SOL if you try to use these arguments in the real world. #And that's the problem with the Ron Paul supporters who are trying to resurrect these tired arguments. #They don't live in the real world.

Like I said previously, we might not like the way it is but whether or not we like it doesn't change the fact that the IRS does essentially what it wants with impunity and Ron Paul couldn't change that if he was elected President. #It would take some major acts of Congress #to rein in the IRS and the entire tax system, and does anyone really think they're going to do that any time soon?

[W0MT]

Quote[/b] (KC9IUX @ Jan. 21 2008,21:08)]Quote[/b] ]Will one of you legal geniuses help those of us who are uninformed and tell us how the way income tax is assessed and collected in any way violates the Constitution?


I'm not a "legal genius" , as you deride those who disagree with you, but the income tax is not apportioned.
I suggest that you read the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. It says, "The Congress shall have the 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." What part of "without apportionment" do you not understand?

[kc2orw]

Ed and Elaine up in NH vowed to go down shooting before they gave in and payed their taxes, they were just multi millionaire sycophants. They bragged all over the media they had guns and a fifty caliber no one was going to take them alive, nosiree...
All the police had to do was shut off their internet, telephone, water, electricity, for a month, they caved in and took their punishment.

So much for phonies and their live free and die shooting, in the end they all cry for mommy...

[KC9IUX]

Quote[/b] ]I suggest that you read the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. It says, "The Congress shall have the 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." What part of "without apportionment" do you not understand?



Do you understand the part that the Supreme Court struck down?

[KC9IUX]

What about employers being forced to be tax collectors?

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (KC9IUX @ Jan. 21 2008,22:10)]Quote[/b] ]I suggest that you read the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. It says, "The Congress shall have the 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." What part of "without apportionment" do you not understand?



Do you understand the part that the Supreme Court struck down?
"The part that the Supreme Court struck down?" #Part of what? #How can part of the constitution be unconstitutional?

[N7RJD]

Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Jan. 21 2008,00:32)]By the way the Amendment that deals with self-incrimination is the Fifth, not the Fourth.
So, Ron Paul has read the constitution which is such a sticking point for his supporters yet they haven't bothered to follow suit. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[N7RJD]

Quote[/b] (K8ERV @ Jan. 21 2008,04:49)]Can someone explain why I have to sign a receipt for a credit card purchase in a store, but not at a gas pump?

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo
It's for your convenience and the convenience of whomever may have stolen your credit card. Gotta keep things easy for the crooks ya know.

[W0MT]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 21 2008,21:15)]Quote[/b] (W0MT @ Jan. 21 2008,20:25)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 21 2008,19:21)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 21 2008,16:52)]I agree that the way the income tax is assessed and collected results in wholesale violations of constitutional provisions.
Good. Glad to see you agree.
Will one of you legal geniuses help those of us who are uninformed and tell us how the way income tax is assessed and collected in any way violates the Constitution?
I didn't say that the income tax itself is unconstitutional; it most certainly is constitutional (16th Amendment). #What I said was that the way it is assessed and collected (that is, administered by the IRS) violates several other constitutional principles.

In the purely academic sense, JYD is right that being required to self-assess and sign under penalty of perjury is violative of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against forced self-incrimination. #There is also the routine violation of the Fourth Amendment ("...secure in their papers, houses, and effects...") and a few others, such as denial of due process by the Tax Court where a defendant is presumed guilty until proven innocent. #Yes, yes, I know, Tax Court isn't part of the IRS but it makes little practical difference to you if you are a defendant.

IIRC, one former IRS official said, at a Congressional hearing into taxpayer abuses by the agency, "If we had to worry about people's rights we couldn't do our job."

But this is all academic. #The federal courts routinely dismiss such arguments in criminal tax cases. #The Supreme Court routinely dismisses appeals of cases based on these arguments as frivolous and the Tax Court certainly won't listen to such arguments. #It doesn't matter whether the arguments are right or wrong in the abstract; the courts have already determined that these arguments are wrong and will not entertain them.

So, putting it bluntly, you're SOL if you try to use these arguments in the real world. #And that's the problem with the Ron Paul supporters who are trying to resurrect these tired arguments. #They don't live in the real world.

Like I said previously, we might not like the way it is but whether or not we like it doesn't change the fact that the IRS does essentially what it wants with impunity and Ron Paul couldn't change that if he was elected President. #It would take some major acts of Congress #to rein in the IRS and the entire tax system, and does anyone really think they're going to do that any time soon?
The 5th Amendment to the Constitution says in part, "[N]or shall any person . . . be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Simply stated, filing an income tax return is NOT a criminal case. You can be compelled to testify in a civil case even when it is against your best interest. You can be compelled to disclose your income to file an income tax return. You can be compelled to truthfully answer questions posed to you in a criminal case when you are not the accused. You may think that you do not have due process in tax court but do you really understand what it means to have due process? And in a word, you do have due process in tax court.

In one sense, you cannot be forced to sign your tax return. Previously I outlined that consequences of such folly. In virtually all instances of failing to sign a tax return, the amount of tax and penalties due is greater than if the return is signed.

There have been other attempts by tax protesters to make claims that income tax is unconstitutional. Refusing to sign a tax return is just one such claim. The schemes that get devised under the guise that income tax is unconstitutional have been repeatedly over-ruled by the courts. Unfortunately, there are always the gullible who listen to this crap and think they too don’t have to pay income tax. They try these stupid ideas and end up in serious trouble with the IRS. Some manage to spend time in the iron motel for their actions.

[N7RJD]

Quote[/b] (W0MT @ Jan. 21 2008,08:51)]Quote[/b] (K8ERV @ Jan. 21 2008,11:49)]Can someone explain why I have to sign a receipt for a credit card purchase in a store, but not at a gas pump?

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo
Tom,

I do not know for sure but I believe that the credit card companies charge the seller a different percentage depending upon the exchange with the buyer. If the seller actually has the credit card in-hand there is one rate. If the seller does not have the card but gets the billing address and the security number from the card there is another rate. If the amount of the transaction is below some threshold not having the buyer sign doesn't make a difference. If the transaction is greater than some threshold there is another rate. And I think all of the rates are normally negotiable between the credit card company and the seller. The bigger the seller (like some of the oil companies) the lower the rate. Someone else may have more information about this than I.
You are absolutely correct however there is actually a lot more to this. There are many "resellers" of credit authorizing services. Your larger companies get most of their breaks by dealing directly with the card companies (basically buying wholesale) where the majority of your smaller businesses are paying "retail" for the authorizing service.

There is also a difference in fees paid on credit than on debit transactions. The retailer pays a higher fee on credit as they are less secure where a smaller fee is charged for debit where the customer has to enter their PIN # which helps to secure the transaction leaving the bank at less risk.

Also most reward programs offered by credit/debit cards will either pay more or only pay on credit transactions. This seems backward as you would think they would pay for your putting them at less risk but the fact is the extra fee they collect on credit transactions is very profitable with a small portion of it being needed to deal with fraud type issues.

In short, it's no more and no less a scam than anything else in the world of finance.

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (W0MT @ Jan. 21 2008,22:25)]The 5th Amendment to the Constitution says in part, "[N]or shall any person . . . be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Simply stated, filing an income tax return is NOT a criminal case. You can be compelled to testify in a civil case even when it is against your best interest. You can be compelled to disclose your income to file an income tax return. You can be compelled to truthfully answer questions posed to you in a criminal case when you are not the accused.
Agreed. #The filing of an income tax return is, in itself, not the same as testifying against oneself in a criminal case. #The problem is that the signed return itself can be used against you in a criminal proceeding if the government files charges against you. #This, I'm sure, is an outgrowth of the principle that it is illegal to lie to the government. #So, if that's the case, shouldn't the Miranda warning be printed on Form 1040?

BTW - how come it is illegal for a taxpayer to lie to the IRS, but it isn't illegal for the IRS to lie to the taxpayer? #(Rhetorical question, obviously).

Quote[/b] ]You may think that you do not have due process in tax court but do you really understand what it means to have due process? And in a word, you do have due process in tax court.

Yes, you do. #The problem many people have is that they want the same level of due process that they would have in other courts, i.e., a state or federal criminal proceeding. #Obviously the level of due process isn't the same, such as the presumption of guilt ("We say you owe $xxx. #Now, prove you don't!"). #But due process in any venue, as you know, is what the courts say it is and they make the rules.

Quote[/b] ]In one sense, you cannot be forced to sign your tax return. Previously I outlined that consequences of such folly. In virtually all instances of failing to sign a tax return, the amount of tax and penalties due is greater than if the return is signed.

True. #That's where the "voluntary" part comes in (as in, "you're required to volunteer under penalty of law"). #Oh, sure, you can choose to not volunteer but the downside isn't worth it.

Quote[/b] ]Unfortunately, there are always the gullible who listen to this crap and think they too don’t have to pay income tax. They try these stupid ideas and end up in serious trouble with the IRS. Some manage to spend time in the iron motel for their actions.

I worked with one such individual about 25 years ago. #He spent 18 months in the federal pen for willful failure to file and tax evasion.

Threads such as these are valuable in exposing these so-called "constitutional" arguments as worthless in the real world and in so doing hopefully dissuade anyone who might be thinking of heading down this one-way street to Leavenworth.

Hey, I'm on your side. #Don't group me with the Ron Paul shills.

[KC9IUX]

Quote[/b] ]"The part that the Supreme Court struck down?" Part of what? How can part of the constitution be unconstitutional?


The income tax was tried more than once.

It was also struck down.

The 16th amendment is dubious, at best.

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/ratification.asp

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (KC9IUX @ Jan. 21 2008,22:50)]Quote[/b] ]"The part that the Supreme Court struck down?" #Part of what? #How can part of the constitution be unconstitutional?


The income tax was tried more than once.

It was also struck down.

The 16th amendment is dubious, at best.

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/ratification.asp
Yeah, yeah. #These arguments are older than both of us and, while they might make sense in the abstract, they mean absolutely nothing in the real world.

I first heard these arguments in the early 70s from Wayne Green, W2NSD, El Supremo of 73 Magazine. #Wayne was charged with tax fraud in 1973 or 1974 and wrote many a long editorial in which he recounted all these arguments. #He was convicted at the district court level but it was overturned on appeal. #Still, the costs of defending himself nearly bankrupted him and the magazine.

The reason for the 16th Amendment was to legalize an unapportioned tax on income. #Prior to this, an unapportioned tax was unconstitutional. #The Supreme Court did not strike down any income tax after the ratification of the 16th Amendment because, obviously, such a tax was now constitutional.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 21 2008,21:01)]The court has determined time and time again that the IRS is constitutional and the revolter has to pay.
Did I ever say the IRS was unconstitutional? Please quote me

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (KC9IUX @ Jan. 21 2008,22:50)]http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/ratification.asp
I have those books but have yet to read them. After the election is over perhaps I can get back to my waist high stack of books that I need to absorb.

Then I can make better arguments on QRZ http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (K8ERV @ Jan. 21 2008,10:49)]Can someone explain why I have to sign a receipt for a credit card purchase in a store, but not at a gas pump?

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo
Tradition.

When the rules on credit sales were relaxed, stores, for the most part, never changed their old policies to match the rules, but obviously automated systems did.

Friend of mine runs an art supply store and never bothers to ask for a signature.

[KC9IUX]

Quote[/b] ] Still, the costs of defending himself nearly bankrupted him and the magazine.



Don't you find that sad?

An innocent person paying that cost?

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 21 2008,21:15)]In the purely academic sense, JYD is right that being required to self-assess and sign under penalty of perjury is violative of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against forced self-incrimination.

Thank you for another voice of reason!

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 21 2008,21:15)]But this is all academic. The federal courts routinely dismiss such arguments in criminal tax cases. The Supreme Court routinely dismisses appeals of cases based on these arguments as frivolous and the Tax Court certainly won't listen to such arguments.And they are wrong. Getting a liberty minded President in office such as Dr. Ron Paul to appoint liberty minded judges to office is a critical step in getting this nonsense stopped.


Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 21 2008,21:15)]So, putting it bluntly, you're SOL if you try to use these arguments in the real world. And that's the problem with the Ron Paul supporters who are trying to resurrect these tired arguments. They don't live in the real world.

Like I said previously, we might not like the way it is but whether or not we like it doesn't change the fact that the IRS does essentially what it wants with impunity and Ron Paul couldn't change that if he was elected President. Wrong. Ron would be able to appoint whomever he wants to offices within the IRS.

Also it would not be real hard for Ron Paul to pardon all past and future persons convicted by the IRS. All he would have to do is to utter those words.

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 21 2008,23:38)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 21 2008,21:15)]In the purely academic sense, JYD is right that being required to self-assess and sign under penalty of perjury is violative of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against forced self-incrimination.

Thank you for another voice of reason! #
Read what I said: "In the purely academic sense..."

This means "in theory." #Reality, however, is quite different.

Quote[/b] ]And they [courts] are wrong. Getting a liberty minded President in office such as Dr. Ron Paul to appoint liberty minded judges to office is a critical step in getting this nonsense stopped.

That you think they are wrong means nothing. #Remember Justice Brandeis: "The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means." #And Brandeis was NOT wrong about that.

Don't forget that Ron Paul, if he were President, might be able to appoint anyone he wants but the Senate has to confirm his appointments. #I doubt seriously that the Senate is going to confirm a constitutional fundamentalist judge.

Like I said in another thread, you Paul people are going about this all wrong. #Forget about the Presidency, at least for now; concentrate on getting some senators and representatives elected who share your views. #Control of Congress, not the Presidency, is what would make the real difference.

Quote[/b] ]Also it would not be real hard for Ron Paul to pardon all past and future persons convicted by the IRS. All he would have to do is to utter those words.

It isn't as simple as you think. #First of all, you can't pardon someone for something he might do in the future. #A pardon only covers things done up to the moment the pardon is signed. #And "uttering those words" isn't how it gets done.

For someone who denounces monarchists you sure do sound like one in your blind-faith defenses of Ron Paul. #You impute too many powers and abilities to the office of the president that simply don't exist. #The Founders created a governmental system of checks and balances for a good reason.

[AC4BB]

If,You don't sign you may make the audit of the week program for many years too.

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 21 2008,05:47)]Since the Constitution says the government cannot force one to testify against oneself, then they cannot make you sign it.
Remember, the Constitution is just a goddam piece of paper. Our great leader told us so.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 22 2008,01:01)]That you think they are wrong means nothing. Remember Justice Brandeis: "The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means." And Brandeis was NOT wrong about that.
Incorrect. Interpreting the Constitution is something the Court just made up, again under Marshall. Please cite in the Constitution where the Court is told to interpret its meaning?

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 22 2008,10:17)]Interpreting the Constitution is something the Court just made up, again under Marshall. Please cite in the Constitution where the Court is told to interpret its meaning?
Please cite in the Constitution where the Court is prohibited from interpreting its meaning.

Again - the Constitution sets forth the foundation principles of the government and as such is, of necessity, somewhat broad in scope. #The Founders were smart enough to realize that times change and there would be situations in the future that they did not conceive of.

Remember that all this started with Moses' Top Ten. #How do you apply the principles of the Ten Commandments without interpreting meaning and God's intent? #For example, "Thou shalt not steal" is a broad, non-specific principle. #What constitutes stealing? #Does taxation count? #Even the Bible tells us to "Render unto Caesar...," indicating that the concept of taxation is OK. #But does that mean ALL taxation is OK? #What if the level of taxation is overly burdensome to the populace? #What is "overly burdensome?" #How much taxation is enough? #Is it OK to use taxation to finance things like wars? #Etc...

You cannot answer such questions without interpreting the intent of the commandment. #The Commandments are broad principles; we are left to fill in the specifics through interpretation and it's those interpretations that are the source of disagreement.

You Paul types interpret the Constitution one way and the real world interprets it another way. #I would say that you're slightly outnumbered.

[W0MT]

I’ll try one more time to explain why the 5th Amendment has no application to signing a tax return. Signing a tax return is a CIVIL matter. The 5th amendment only applies to CRIMINAL cases. I recommend to those who do not believe this to go read the literal words of the 5th Amendment as that is exactly what is says.

As an analogy, assume someone commits a crime and the criminal case is completed. Now that person may be subject to a CIVIL suit for damages for the same act. In the CRIMINAL case the perpetrator cannot be forced to testify because of the 5th Amendment. In the CIVIL trial, the perpetrator can be forced to testify and testify under the threat of perjury. If the perpetrator lies, he or she can be prosecuted for perjury. The same applies to witnesses who did not commit any crime; they can be force to testify and if they lie, they too can be prosecuted for perjury. The 5th Amendment does not protect someone from testifying in a CIVIL case.

When you sign a tax return (remember this is a CIVIL matter) and you lie on it, then you can be prosecuted for perjury although I never have heard of this happening.

As a separate issue, Tax Court is a CIVIL court. Any time a taxpayer appears in Tax Court as a defendant, there is a set process that is followed. First, the plaintiff presents a case. For the IRS it is normally pretty simple, The tax code says XYZ, the taxpayer did not do XYZ, end of plaintiffs case in chief. Now it is up to the taxpayer to present a case showing that the taxpayer either did in fact do XYZ or that XYZ is not the law or XYZ is the law but it should not be. In other words in a CIVIL case, once the plaintiff proves its case, then it is up to the defendant to prove its case. This is true in every CIVIL court in this country and not just Tax Court. And just like any CIVIL court in this country, the outcome is never criminal confinement. A defendant in a CIVIL court is never found guilty but may have a judgement go for the plaintiff.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 22 2008,11:26)]Please cite in the Constitution where the Court is prohibited from interpreting its meaning.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 22 2008,11:26)]The Founders were smart enough to realize that times change and there would be situations in the future that they did not conceive of.Which is exactly why they made it amendable.

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 22 2008,11:26)]Remember that all this started with Moses' Top Ten. How do you apply the principles of the Ten Commandments without interpreting meaning and God's intent? Sorry, but the 10 Commandments are obsolete. They are good rules to live by, but they have no bearing or effect at all (unless you are Jewish).

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 22 2008,11:26)]You cannot answer such questions without interpreting the intent of the commandment.Wrong.

"Original intent" is a fallacy.

What we should seek out is the "original meaning of the words at the time they were written". Anything else will result in debatable conclusions.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 22 2008,15:10)]Anything else will result in debatable conclusions.
And, though you don't grasp it, that is the entire beauty of the US Constitution. The Framers gave us a fundamental law that is eminiently debatable -- ergo, ever flexible to meet changing times and needs. The genius of the US Constitution is that it is an argument without end. Brandeis understood that concept very well. He also knew that the final referee is the Supreme Court.

As to your ineffectual and half-informed rants against John Marshall and Marbury versus Madison, that landmark ruling established a trail of precedent that is now 205 years old. I doubt your disgruntled and deceptive baby doc from Texas could offer any workable program to change that even were he to win the brass ring -- which he most definitely will not.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 22 2008,12:22)]that landmark ruling established a trail of precedent that is now 205 years old. I doubt [Ron Paul] from Texas could offer any workable program to change that
Do you not understand the ability of a President to appoint judges?

[kc2orw]

The sooner Ron Paul supporters go to jail the better.

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 22 2008,12:42)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 22 2008,12:22)]that landmark ruling established a trail of precedent that is now 205 years old. I doubt [Ron Paul] from Texas could offer any workable program to change that
Do you not understand the ability of a President to appoint judges?
We understand that just fine. #What YOU don't understand is that the President's judicial appointments are subject to approval by the Senate. #If the President appoints someone unqualified (by Senate standards) or who is simply disliked by a majority of Senators, the appointment doesn't get confirmed. #For additional information, Google "Robert Bork."

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 22 2008,12:10)][Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 22 2008,11:26)]Remember that all this started with Moses' Top Ten. #How do you apply the principles of the Ten Commandments without interpreting meaning and God's intent? Sorry, but the 10 Commandments are obsolete. They are good rules to live by, but they have no bearing or effect at all (unless you are Jewish).
If Ron Paul really believes that, he just alienated the majority of people who might have supported him.

Following that logic, if the Ten Commandments is "obsolete," then isn't the Constitution "obsolete," too? #If so, then why rely on an obsolete piece of paper, even if it is the foundation of your entire belief system?

[al2i]

The Constitution is written in plain English by and for "We the People", and that is why it pretended to be so devilishly complex to anyone who doesn't agree with its protection of individual liberty.

http://www.davemcgraw.com/Images/RP/paulrights.jpg

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 22 2008,14:06)][quote=KG4JYD,Jan. 22 2008,12:10][[quote=K5FH,Jan. 22
If Ron Paul really believes that, he just alienated the majority of people who might have supported him.

Following that logic, if the Ten Commandments is "obsolete," then isn't the Constitution "obsolete," too? If so, then why rely on an obsolete piece of paper, even if it is the foundation of your entire belief system?
Ron Paul didn't say that. I did.

And the Constitution hasn't been replaced by anything whereas the 10 Commandments has.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 22 2008,14:06)]The Constitution is written in plain English by and for "We the People", and that is why it pretended to be so devilishly complex to anyone who doesn't agree with its protection of individual liberty.
Actually the Constitution wasnt written by "We the People" regardless of what it says. It was written by the States.

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 22 2008,16:29)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 22 2008,14:06)][quote=KG4JYD,Jan. 22 2008,12:10][[quote=K5FH,Jan. 22
If Ron Paul really believes that, he just alienated the majority of people who might have supported him.

Following that logic, if the Ten Commandments is "obsolete," then isn't the Constitution "obsolete," too? #If so, then why rely on an obsolete piece of paper, even if it is the foundation of your entire belief system?
Ron Paul didn't say that. I did.
And in so doing destroyed whatever minimal credibility you might have had.

Quote[/b] ]And the Constitution hasn't been replaced by anything whereas the 10 Commandments has.

Okay, I'll bite: just what replaced the Ten Commandments?

This ought to be really good.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 22 2008,16:37)]Okay, I'll bite: just what replaced the Ten Commandments?

This ought to be really good.
Jesus Christ: "I give you a new commandment.... love one another"


Unless of course you are Jewish...

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 22 2008,21:49)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 22 2008,16:37)]Okay, I'll bite: just what replaced the Ten Commandments?

This ought to be really good.
Jesus Christ: "I give you a new commandment.... love one another"
Jesus saying, "I give you a new commandment" is not the same as Him saying, "I give you a new commandment that replaces the other ten." #What He is saying is, "I give you an additional commandment." #Nowhere did Jesus say that the Ten Commandments were no longer valid.

The entire text reads, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." #(John 13:34, King James Version)

Quote[/b] ]Unless of course you are Jewish...

Jesus was himself a Jew, don't forget. #And he was celebrating the Feast of the Passover when he said it (John 13:1). #

It would seem that your interpretation of the New Testament is on par with your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 22 2008,13:06)]The Constitution is written in plain English by and for "We the People", and that is why it pretended to be so devilishly complex to anyone who doesn't agree with its protection of individual liberty.
Sure it is. I recommend The National Archives Essay (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_history.html) on the constitutional convention, where it is written

Quote[/b] ]Most of the delegates had studied law, had served in colonial or state legislatures, or had been in the Congress. Well versed in philosophical theories of government advanced by such philosophers as James Harrington, John Locke, and Montesquieu, profiting from experience gained in state politics, the delegates composed an exceptional body, one that left a remarkably learned record of debate.

The constitution is written in the language of law, by men who were experienced in the creation and interpretation of laws, and who did not write "plain English" any more than a mathematician writing a proof writes "plain English".

The law is now and was then a practice shrouded in long tradition and precise technical jargon.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 22 2008,15:37)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 22 2008,14:06)]The Constitution is written in plain English by and for "We the People", and that is why it pretended to be so devilishly complex to anyone who doesn't agree with its protection of individual liberty.
Actually the Constitution wasnt written by "We the People" regardless of what it says. It was written by the States.
gotta love it when Ron Paul supporters cat fight.

But no, Matt, it wasn't written "by the states".

It was written by the Constitutional Convention attendees, and modified during the ratification process to include the bill of rights.

[wv6z]

Trust him, he knows, he was there. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[W0MT]

One note about this thread; it is highly entertaining. I seldom encounter
individuals who are (1) as ignorant about the Constitution and (2) as
willing to display their ignorance as I have here. And they don't limit their
ignorance to matters of law alone, it extends to politics and religion as well.
KG4JYD, my hat if off to you. You have brought many laughs to me and I am
sure to other who have read you posts.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (W0MT @ Jan. 23 2008,10:10)]One note about this thread; it is highly entertaining. I seldom encounter
individuals who are (1) as ignorant about the Constitution and (2) as
willing to display their ignorance as I have here. And they don't limit their
ignorance to matters of law alone, it extends to politics and religion as well.
KG4JYD, my hat if off to you. You have brought many laughs to me and I am
sure to other who have read you posts.
Forgive him, for he mistakes Ron's friend as Ron and then spouts off. Lew Rockwell has done more to discredit the liberty message than anyone this side of Murray Rothbard.

As far as Paul getting attacked, he is getting attacked by Objectivists for not being controlling enough and by anarchists for being too controlling. It is taking some time for the various groups to realize that Ron Paul is what he says: The Champion of the Constitution.

Statements about what he means by that can be looked up on his issues page (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/) -- not a Lew Rockwell anarchism blog.

And FWIW, Ron Paul signs his IRS form 1040. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 22 2008,19:37)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 22 2008,14:06)]The Constitution is written in plain English by and for "We the People", and that is why it pretended to be so devilishly complex to anyone who doesn't agree with its protection of individual liberty.
Actually the Constitution wasnt written by "We the People" regardless of what it says. It was written by the States.
Sorry, Matt, but wrong again. It is hard to imagine anyone being so wrong about so many aspects of history and Constitutional law and development as you seem consistently to manage.

The first draft of the US Constitution, dated August 6, 1787, began with the following preamble:

Quote[/b] ]We the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticutt, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our posterity.

So you see, Matt, "we the people" is precisely correct, and you, as usual, are precisely wrong. The delegates to the Convention recognized that the concept of organizing a government based upon states, and not upon people, had proven itself an abject failure in the Confederation, and they were both wise enough and determined enough to correct that failure by moving sovereignty from the State to its ultimate foundation: The people themselves, which is the font of all sovereignty.

It is one thing to be wrong, even consistently and obdurately wrong, but at some point awareness of error must blossom.

Learned Hand, one of the all-time great justices wrote a decision in which he reversed a previous decision of his own. He commented, "it is better that wisdom come late, than never at all."

We await the dawning of that lesson for you.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 23 2008,10:38)]We await the dawning of that lesson for you.
Perhaps Ron Paul could show Matt where to sign his 1040! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[W0MT]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 23 2008,11:38)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 22 2008,19:37)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 22 2008,14:06)]The Constitution is written in plain English by and for "We the People", and that is why it pretended to be so devilishly complex to anyone who doesn't agree with its protection of individual liberty.
Actually the Constitution wasnt written by "We the People" regardless of what it says. It was written by the States.
Sorry, Matt, but wrong again. It is hard to imagine anyone being so wrong about so many aspects of history and Constitutional law and development as you seem consistently to manage.

The first draft of the US Constitution, dated August 6, 1787, began with the following preamble:

Quote[/b] ]We the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticutt, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our posterity.

So you see, Matt, "we the people" is precisely correct, and you, as usual, are precisely wrong. The delegates to the Convention recognized that the concept of organizing a government based upon states, and not upon people, had proven itself an abject failure in the Confederation, and they were both wise enough and determined enough to correct that failure by moving sovereignty from the State to its ultimate foundation: The people themselves, which is the font of all sovereignty.

It is one thing to be wrong, even consistently and obdurately wrong, but at some point awareness of error must blossom.

Learned Hand, one of the all-time great justices wrote a decision in which he reversed a previous decision of his own. He commented, "it is better that wisdom come late, than never at all."

We await the dawning of that lesson for you.
I think the argument about who wrote the Constitution, the states or the people, is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin--in other words, pointless. While there were several who wrote bits and pieces of the document, historians credit James Madison as the principal author. James Madison was neither "the states" or "the people." He was one man from Virginia.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (W0MT @ Jan. 23 2008,12:09)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 23 2008,11:38)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 22 2008,19:37)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 22 2008,14:06)]The Constitution is written in plain English by and for "We the People", and that is why it pretended to be so devilishly complex to anyone who doesn't agree with its protection of individual liberty.
Actually the Constitution wasnt written by "We the People" regardless of what it says. It was written by the States.
Sorry, Matt, but wrong again. It is hard to imagine anyone being so wrong about so many aspects of history and Constitutional law and development as you seem consistently to manage.

The first draft of the US Constitution, dated August 6, 1787, began with the following preamble:

Quote[/b] ]We the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticutt, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our posterity.

So you see, Matt, "we the people" is precisely correct, and you, as usual, are precisely wrong. The delegates to the Convention recognized that the concept of organizing a government based upon states, and not upon people, had proven itself an abject failure in the Confederation, and they were both wise enough and determined enough to correct that failure by moving sovereignty from the State to its ultimate foundation: The people themselves, which is the font of all sovereignty.

It is one thing to be wrong, even consistently and obdurately wrong, but at some point awareness of error must blossom.

Learned Hand, one of the all-time great justices wrote a decision in which he reversed a previous decision of his own. He commented, "it is better that wisdom come late, than never at all."

We await the dawning of that lesson for you.
I think the argument about who wrote the Constitution, the states or the people, is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin--in other words, pointless. While there were several who wrote bits and pieces of the document, historians credit James Madison as the principal author. James Madison was neither "the states" or "the people." He was one man from Virginia.
Rarely have I seen the two words "by and" cause such a ruckus, but I think W0MV just kicked some collective backside. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[K3XR]

"claims, such as those presented....are wholly without merit". #Do you have the $2,000. plus bucs to pay the penalty and costs??

http://www.romingerlegal.com/fifthcircuit/opinions/91-2973.0.wpd.html

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 22 2008,22:42)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 22 2008,21:49)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 22 2008,16:37)]Okay, I'll bite: just what replaced the Ten Commandments?

This ought to be really good.
Jesus Christ: "I give you a new commandment.... love one another"
Jesus saying, "I give you a new commandment" is not the same as Him saying, "I give you a new commandment that replaces the other ten." What He is saying is, "I give you an additional commandment." Nowhere did Jesus say that the Ten Commandments were no longer valid.

The entire text reads, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." (John 13:34, King James Version)
You don't seem to understand the concept of "love replaces the law"

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 22 2008,22:48)]It was written by the Constitutional Convention attendees, and modified during the ratification process to include the bill of rights.
And who sent the attendees to the convention? The State governments!

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 23 2008,11:38)]So you see, Matt, "we the people" is precisely correct, and you, as usual, are precisely wrong. The delegates to the Convention recognized that the concept of organizing a government based upon states, and not upon people, had proven itself an abject failure in the Confederation, and they were both wise enough and determined enough to correct that failure by moving sovereignty from the State to its ultimate foundation: The people themselves, which is the font of all sovereignty.
And who appointed those delegates? The State governments. Who ratified the Constitution? The State governments.


THE STATES CREATED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

[W0MT]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Jan. 23 2008,14:47)]"claims, such as those presented....are wholly without merit". #Do you have the $2,000. plus bucs to pay the penalty and costs??

http://www.romingerlegal.com/fifthcircuit/opinions/91-2973.0.wpd.html
In the opinion I counted the word "frivolous" 17 times and the word "specious" once. Do you suppose that the Fifth Circuit was trying to send a message?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 22 2008,22:46)]
Quote[/b] ]
The constitution is written in the language of law, by men who were experienced in the creation and interpretation of laws, and who did not write "plain English" any more than a mathematician writing a proof writes "plain English".

The law is now and was then a practice shrouded in long tradition and precise technical jargon.


True when we consider that the constitution in both it's writing and interpretation is/was not based upon some new idea but rather on a centuries old paradigm of law that predates the new world bymany centuries.

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 23 2008,14:48)]You don't seem to understand the concept of "love replaces the law"
What is a "commandment?" # It is a form of law. #If God hadn't intended us to take the Ten Commandments seriously, wouldn't He have said, for example, "It would be good if thou did not steal" instead of, "Thou shalt not steal?" #That's why they're called the Ten COMMANDMENTS and not the Ten SUGGESTIONS.

Jesus wasn't replacing anything, he was expanding the interpretation of the existing law (the Ten Commandments).

But I would love to be there when you try to tell a Federal judge that "love replaces the law" when he asks you why you didn't sign Form 1040.

You're grasping at straws, Matt. #Friendly suggestion: when you find yourself in a deep hole, shouldn't the first thing you do be to stop digging?

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (W0MT @ Jan. 23 2008,13:09)]I think the argument about who wrote the Constitution, the states or the people, is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin--in other words, pointless.
That's kind of shallow, don't you think?

Do you not care about your world? About your life? About the rules that govern your family? About the society of which you are a member? About the ideals that are locked into a document that keep the government from taking your individual freedom?

[w6vps]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 20 2008,22:47)]Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 20 2008,22:25)]You have to sign the form.

I can't see why anyone would refuse to sign...especially if he or she is going to pay anyway.
No you don't have to sign the form. Signing the form means that you have sworn that the information on that form is true.

If you are ever caught up in legal trouble in the future, that form will be used against you.

Since the Constitution says the government cannot force one to testify against oneself, then they cannot make you sign it.
Ok friend...don't sign your tax form.

Me..I'll err on the side of caution and sign mine.
Remember...the feds have more teeth than you've got a$$.
You decide. You roll the dice...you take the chance.

Paul/W6VPS

[KC9JIQ]

If Ron Paul is elected President, you can assure you will not have to sign a 1040, or even file for a tax return!

[W0MT]

Quote[/b] (KC9JIQ @ Jan. 23 2008,16:08)]If Ron Paul is elected President, you can assure you will not have to sign a 1040, or even file for a tax return!
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride!

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (W0MT @ Jan. 23 2008,12:09)]I think the argument about who wrote the Constitution, the states or the people, is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin--in other words, pointless. While there were several who wrote bits and pieces of the document, historians credit James Madison as the principal author. James Madison was neither "the states" or "the people." He was one man from Virginia.
Oh, indeed.

It's just fun to string Matt along as far as possible before pointing out to him that "The State" is something he doesn't, as a libertarian, believe in. . .

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (W0MT @ Jan. 23 2008,19:20)]Quote[/b] (KC9JIQ @ Jan. 23 2008,16:08)]If Ron Paul is elected President, you can assure you will not have to sign a 1040, or even file for a tax return!
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride!
Ah, that was one of my dear departed Irish mother's favorite aphorisms. The other was as apt, but considerably less gentile: "Wish in one hand and **** in the other, and see which gets filled first!"

TU for the memory.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 23 2008,18:29)]before pointing out to him that "The State" is something he doesn't, as a libertarian, believe in. . .
You are confusing libertarianism and anarchy

[K8ERV]

Geeze, iffen you guys worked for half the time you have wasted discussing this, you could afford to just pay the cottin pikken tax!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (K8ERV @ Jan. 23 2008,19:32)]Geeze, iffen you guys worked for half the time you have wasted discussing this, you could afford to just pay the cottin pikken tax!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

TOM K8ERV Montrose Colo
We are talking principle, not practicality.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 23 2008,17:34)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 23 2008,18:29)]before pointing out to him that "The State" is something he doesn't, as a libertarian, believe in. . .
You are confusing libertarianism and anarchy
Um, no. but thanks for playing.

Let me paraphrase you from the MLK thread "groups don't have rights, people do". If groups don't have rights, then 'state' can't send anyone to do anything, because it would have no right to do so...

[W0MT]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 23 2008,15:48)]Quote[/b] (W0MT @ Jan. 23 2008,13:09)]I think the argument about who wrote the Constitution, the states or the people, is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin--in other words, pointless.
That's kind of shallow, don't you think?

Do you not care about your world? About your life? About the rules that govern your family? About the society of which you are a member? About the ideals that are locked into a document that keep the government from taking your individual freedom?
What I find as shallow is someone without a clue as to what the Constitution says and what it means broadcasting his stupid ideas as the gospel. Your posts remind me of a moron with a loudspeaker. You might not be right but at least you are loud. And at least I know who wrote the Constitution. You apparently do not. I know what the 5th Amendment says and means. You apparently do not. But none of this has prevented you from entertaining the rest of us with your stupid proclamations. Keep up the good work!

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 23 2008,20:28)]Let me paraphrase you from the MLK thread "groups don't have rights, people do". If groups don't have rights, then 'state' can't send anyone to do anything, because it would have no right to do so...
You have failed to think this through.

The federal government for example has no rights. It only has powers that are delegated to it.

States don't have rights per say, they only have powers delegated to it by their people. However in our federal form of government, the States are sovereign because THEY created the federal government.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (W0MT @ Jan. 23 2008,20:33)]And at least I know who wrote the Constitution. You apparently do not.
The States wrote the Constitution regardless of the first 3 words.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 24 2008,13:02)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 23 2008,20:28)]Let me paraphrase you from the MLK thread "groups don't have rights, people do". If groups don't have rights, then 'state' can't send anyone to do anything, because it would have no right to do so...
You have failed to think this through.

The federal government for example has no rights. It only has powers that are delegated to it.

States don't have rights per say, they only have powers delegated to it by their people. However in our federal form of government, the States are sovereign because THEY created the federal government.
You missed the day they discussed transitive properties in high school algebra, didn't you Matt?

[W0MT]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 24 2008,14:02)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Jan. 23 2008,20:28)]Let me paraphrase you from the MLK thread "groups don't have rights, people do". #If groups don't have rights, then 'state' can't send anyone to do anything, because it would have no right to do so...
You have failed to think this through.

The federal government for example has no rights. It only has powers that are delegated to it.

States don't have rights per say, they only have powers delegated to it by their people. However in our federal form of government, the States are sovereign because THEY created the federal government.
Every time you post it brings laughter to us all. Not only are your ideas wacko, you aren't even smart enough to express yourself intellegently. For example, please explain the meaning of "per say." Does it mean "for every time someone speaks?" Or perhaps it is the writing of someone without much intelligence trying to say "pro se?" Please let us know. And keep up the good work!

[K7DJH]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 20 2008,22:47)]Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 20 2008,22:25)]You have to sign the form.

I can't see why anyone would refuse to sign...especially if he or she is going to pay anyway.
No you don't have to sign the form. Signing the form means that you have sworn that the information on that form is true.

If you are ever caught up in legal trouble in the future, that form will be used against you.

Since the Constitution says the government cannot force one to testify against oneself, then they cannot make you sign it.
I'm sorrry but you're wrong on this one. #If you were correct it wouldn't matter if you sign it or not, it couldn't be used against you in court.

Unfortunately for your thesis, the Supreme Court, which has the sole right to be the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation disagrees with you. #Personal papers, signed documents and any other documentary evidence does not constitute self-incrimination and can be used against you in a court of law. #There is literally tons of case law that supports this all the way up to the Supreme Court.

It sounds like you've been spending too much time on some sagebrush rebellion websites!

[KC9JIQ]

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ Jan. 21 2008,19:32)]The more Ron Paul supporters they put in jail the better off we all are
The sad thing is your half right...

...if Ron Paul is not elected, you can guarantee further erosions of your freedoms.

Habeas corpus, where art thou?

BTW this thread is really loaded with many veiwpoints, the best QRZ thread in a while. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (K7DJH @ Jan. 24 2008,15:17)]Unfortunately for your thesis, the Supreme Court, which has the sole right to be the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation disagrees with you. Personal papers, signed documents and any other documentary evidence does not constitute self-incrimination and can be used against you in a court of law. There is literally tons of case law that supports this all the way up to the Supreme Court.
And the courts were wrong.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 24 2008,21:00)]Quote[/b] (K7DJH @ Jan. 24 2008,15:17)]Unfortunately for your thesis, the Supreme Court, which has the sole right to be the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation disagrees with you. #Personal papers, signed documents and any other documentary evidence does not constitute self-incrimination and can be used against you in a court of law. #There is literally tons of case law that supports this all the way up to the Supreme Court.
And the courts were wrong.
According to you the courts were wrong. Unfortunately your opinion will not be taken seriously by those who are knowledgeable with respect to constitutional law and whom are qualified to make such decisions. You can argue that "the courts are wrong" all you like, but until you can bring a case to court and prove you are right your statement ("the courts are wrong") is nary a spit in the wind.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (KC9JIQ @ Jan. 24 2008,16:20)]BTW this thread is really loaded with many veiwpoints, the best QRZ thread in a while. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Thanks. It's good to feel appreciated http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 24 2008,21:07)]Quote[/b] (KC9JIQ @ Jan. 24 2008,16:20)]BTW this thread is really loaded with many veiwpoints, the best QRZ thread in a while. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Thanks. It's good to feel appreciated #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Ron Paul will abolish feeling appreciated. Where in the constitution does it say you should feel appreciated ?

[N7RJD]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 24 2008,14:36)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 24 2008,21:07)]Quote[/b] (KC9JIQ @ Jan. 24 2008,16:20)]BTW this thread is really loaded with many veiwpoints, the best QRZ thread in a while. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Thanks. It's good to feel appreciated http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Ron Paul will abolish feeling appreciated. Where in the constitution does it say you should feel appreciated ?
Page 16, paragraph 4, line....oh nevermind, I just lost it again.

[W0MT]

Quote[/b] (n7rjd @ Jan. 24 2008,21:40)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 24 2008,14:36)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 24 2008,21:07)]Quote[/b] (KC9JIQ @ Jan. 24 2008,16:20)]BTW this thread is really loaded with many veiwpoints, the best QRZ thread in a while. *http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Thanks. It's good to feel appreciated *http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Ron Paul will abolish feeling appreciated. Where in the constitution does it say you should feel appreciated ?
Page 16, paragraph 4, line....oh nevermind, I just lost it again.
Ron Paul is going to solve world hunger, cure hemorrhoids, stop all crime, find a cure for acne, fix my leaking toilet, and solve the heartbreak of psoriasis. He’s coming to your town real soon and he sure is swell! If the Constitution doesn't say these real neat things, he’s gonna fix that too!

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 24 2008,20:07)]Quote[/b] (KC9JIQ @ Jan. 24 2008,16:20)]BTW this thread is really loaded with many veiwpoints, the best QRZ thread in a while. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Thanks. It's good to feel appreciated http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Your bombastic statements that assert falsehoods as fact are not really appreciated, as you have tied your name irrevocably to Ron Paul's name with your bombastic and untrue statements about Ron Paul.

Ron Paul signs his tax return. Ron Paul will not privatize the highways. Ron Paul will not abolish the Post Office. Ron Paul will not make the value of Pi exactly equal to 22/7. Sheesh!

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 25 2008,06:36)]Your bombastic statements that assert falsehoods as fact are not really appreciated...
Just one of RP's typical supporters, David, whether or not you find joy in admitting it. Internet blogs are filled to overflowing with such idiocy and childish prattle, and that is the hard core of Paul support.

None of it is giving your candidate any more credibility than are some of the whacky things he has asserted on his own.

Do you wonder why, in a field as open and confused as is the current Republican arena, that your candidate cannot manage to fly, creep, crawl or slither above the single digits?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 25 2008,04:20)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 25 2008,06:36)]Your bombastic statements that assert falsehoods as fact are not really appreciated...
Just one of RP's typical supporters, David, whether or not you find joy in admitting it. Internet blogs are filled to overflowing with such idiocy and childish prattle, and that is the hard core of Paul support.

None of it is giving your candidate any more credibility than are some of the whacky things he has asserted on his own.

Do you wonder why, in a field as open and confused as is the current Republican arena, that your candidate cannot manage to fly, creep, crawl or slither above the single digits?
For the same reason Kucinich, Nader, or any other candidate without big money and the mass media behind him cannot get anywhere. They wouldn't even let Kuchinich, Nader, or Paul into many of the debates. The American people will go for the candidates that the media pushes in front of them. This is not meant as an endorsement of Paul, Kuchinich, or Nader. It is just plain ol' reality observation and common sense.

[KG4JYD]

Why don't people see what Ron has to say for himself?


http://ronpaullibrary.org/

http://www.youtube.com/ronpaul2008dotcom

[K1VSK]

Why don't people see what Ron has to say for himself?


http://ronpaullibrary.org/

http://www.youtube.com/ronpaul2008dotcom

Because no one should bother to take your suggestion seriously after initiating such a frivilous post in the first place.

[KG4JYD]

Because no one should bother to take your suggestion seriously after initiating such a frivilous post in the first place.Don't decide who to vote for because you dont like someone personally. Look at the candidates' policies.

[K1VSK]

Don't decide who to vote for because you dont like someone personally. Look at the candidates' policies.

Thanks for stating the obvious.

[KG4JYD]

Thanks for stating the obvious.
Unfortunately most people don't follow that advice :(

[K1VSK]

Unfortunately most people don't follow that advice :(

by the way, speaking about following obvious advice, where did you obtain your legal training and practice in tax law?

[W4INF]

Sigh... When the new forums went into service, this is ONE thread that could have stood to have gotten lost! :D

I like the new forum!

[n2nh]

What Would Ron Paul Do? Is this more of his 'advice'?

[KG4JYD]

What Would Ron Paul Do? Is this more of his 'advice'?No not at all. But in all reality if Congress didn't play ball he would probably appoint people to the IRS that would basically do nothing, tell his prosecutors not to go after those in violation of IRS regs, and also would probably pardon everyone ever found guilty of breaking IRS regs.

[K3XR]

Snipes gets off easy, could do three years in the big house.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080201/snipes_tax_trial.html?.v=1&printer=1

[n2ize]

No not at all. But in all reality if Congress didn't play ball he would probably appoint people to the IRS that would basically do nothing, tell his prosecutors not to go after those in violation of IRS regs, and also would probably pardon everyone ever found guilty of breaking IRS regs.

Really ? Which multinational corporation and/or which billionare is he going to start with first ?

[W2ILP]

It is often difficult to punish organized crime bosses. That is because witnesses and fellow criminals are often afraid to squeal on them. There are two ways that the Feds are able to hold such criminals.

1) If they have been found to own unlicensed weapons.

2) If they have failed to pay income tax on their illegal profits (from drug selling, gambling, prostitute pimping, etc.) or have filed frivolous tax returns (such as FAILING TO SIGN THEIR 1040)

Be careful... because you better not have been guilty of any other crime if you try not signing your tax form.

w2ilp (Intensive Line Penner) I take no risks even though I obey all laws. You never can tell...Someone might think that I look guilty of doing something worse than forgetting to sign.