Section 256. Generally. Section 256. Generally.
http://thepressurecooker.com/files/DeFacto.pdfLink to the law regarding usurpation and the law being null and void as if it never existed. A possible base for Nullification.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Maybe this will draw some comments?Section 256. Generally.The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute,whether federal [29] or state, [30] though having the formand name of law, is in reality no law, [31] but is wholly void,[32] and ineffective for any purpose; [33] sinceunconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, andnot merely from the date of the decision so branding it, [34]an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is asinoperative as if it had never been passed. [31] Such a statuteleaves the question that it purports to settle just as it wouldbe had the statute not been enacted. [36] No repeal of suchan enactment is necessary. [37]Since an unconstitutional law is void, the generalprinciples follow that it imposes no duties, [38] confers norights, [39] creates no office, [40] bestows no power orauthority on anyone, [41] affords no protection, [42] andjustifies no acts performed under it. [43] A contract whichrests on an unconstitutional statute creates no obligation tobe impaired by subsequent legislation. [44]Where in the 16th is it authorizing the government to use a progressive tax rate to tax individuals unequally or to re distribute wealth? Does the above mean the different tax rates were always unconstitutional as if they never existed at - can all citizens get all their money back?
- Permalink Reply by on
- If I were King for a day... oops I mean't President I would fight for one specific law. All federal taxes must be paid in cash and in person. Of course I'm not being serious...When I was a kid I paid something like $500 in property tax on my very first car after getting my first real job. For some reason I paid it in cash and to this day I remember thinking about how many hours I had to work to get that money. Yeah a vivid memory of counting out all those twenty dollar bills one at a time and handing them over. It really made an impression.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I'd like to move on from this great debate we had as to the definition of Natural Born Citizen, but since Lock brought up the fallacy argument, I'd like to address what I think is a fallacy in your position, and then hear your reply.We are both, in essence, arguing two sides of the same argument for like reasons; We want to repeal or amend the 14th, neither of us want to see an anchor baby as POTUS. But if I accept your position as the correct one, then what is my argument against the 14th? However, you have as much agreed that my position is what the legal community accepts today as fact, I believe my argument to be sound. If you (and Birther's) accept my position as the correct one, then we can join forces to show the non-legal community the unintended consequences of the wording in the first clause. We can unite, and in unity we will be stronger. However Birther's (and maybe you, I don't know) are dead set against this because of enmity towards the President. I can certainly understand their dissatisfaction, I share it, but removing this President through extraneous interpretations of the Natural Born Citizenship clause is not going to happen. (not ever)I used the phrase "the Johnny Cochran of his day" to define Adams not because I thought Johnny had the legal prowess of Adams, but because Adams had the intuitive instincts of Johnny. Con Attorneys write great briefs, exploratory reviews, decisions, and thesis's, trial lawyers think fast on their feet and understand the audience they are playing to. Adams possessed both of these skills, which is why you and I (grudgingly) have respect for the man's work. Birther's have misjudged their audience and for all intended purposes, much of their argument falls on deaf ears. The President might be unpopular for his leadership abilities but he remains a popular and likable personality. You will find little or no support for removing this President, and in fact, it will work against our stated goals.The Casey Anthony trial is a great case to examine because the public at large is coming to understand that the decision was the correct one. (BTW I think she killed her kid) The evidence presented against her was almost all circumstantial, to get a guilty verdict would have required the jury to employ inductive reasoning, not deductive. The bigger travesty of justice would have occurred if this woman was convicted on circumstantial evidence alone. This is what I meant when I accused you of a reductio ad absurdum, it is proof through contradiction. You are arguing against changing the 14th because you believe it contains language specific enough to disqualify anchor babies when it doesn't.So come around to my position and we can work together, because if I accept yours, I can't argue against the 14th. In this case it is important that we disagree with the wording of the 14th for the same reason, or we will be locked into a logical fallacy.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The only thing in contention seems to be our differing interpretations of 14A. Again I see that as a non-issue because as I have already stated that while I believe 14A, accurately interpreted, is not a problem reinterpreting 14A is not going to happen so the only option is repeal.Nathan: You said it better than I did. I agree. Thanks.
- Permalink Reply by on
- HEY OUT THERE -The birth issue is not the most important issue with the 14th - come on guys it has gutted the powers of the States and the people and yo are all upset over the citizen issue. Get real - IMHO
- Permalink Reply by on
- True, Lock. However it is a component of the issue. No one has been advocating pursuit of that particular aspect of it; just discussing/debating it. We all agree 14A needs to be repealed, yes? Then were good to go.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I unintentionally failed to respond to one of your first questions. Namely: But if I accept your position as the correct one, then what is my argument against the 14th?
I think someone of your obvious learning could make a winning argument, sir. [but I'm not suggesting you or anyone else do so; only that I think it is possible]
I take it you did not see this comment I posted earlier?:
14A if looked at closely and in context with historical events, sections 1981, 1981a & 1982 of Title 42 USC, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Enforcement Act, and the Freedman's Bureau Act, has never caused me any problem. Certain agenda driven rulings are my only problem with it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I wish I had your confidence in my abilities, but truth be told, I believe in the words I have written here in this thread. We need to trash the 14th because the founders left the door open for an anchor baby to become POTUS. I see no way to argue the reverse with any real passion, it's just not true. (IMO)
- Permalink Reply by on
- JURIES CAN NULLIFY LAWS - THEY DO IT IN ABOUT 70% OF THE IRS FRAUD CLAIMS. The Constitution as all lawyer know permits a Jury of peers trail for all amount over $ 20. or any criminal case.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Those aren't laws they're nullifying, they're regulations or directives.
No comments:
Post a Comment