Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discrimination?

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:

Not one word that you typed negates the reality that the Congress has the power of taxation. And that is the issue.

Click to expand...

this is out right stupidity, and a clear effort by you to corrupt the topic.........


WE are NOT discussing the power to tax.....but the manner of who and how taxes are paid........

to refresh your memory........

haymarket said:

You made up the crap about taxes placed on states as IT DOES NOT SAY THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Your own twisted perversion of the Constitution is bad enough but when you have to resort to outright lying - that is way way way over the bounds of decency.

Click to expand...

article 1 section 2 clause 3--Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.


it CLEARLY says it right in the Constitution! Article I, Section 2, clause 3

haymarket said:

And after you do that, explain how a state can pay a tax without any people in that state paying the tax. This I gotta hear.

Click to expand...

read it again...This is from the Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…”. The glossary from the U.S. Treasury Dept’s International Trade Data System http://www.itds.treas.gov/printglossaryfrm.html defines duty as “a tax levied by a government on the import or export of goods,” imposts as “a tax, especially an import duty,” and excise taxes as “taxes on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods, or upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, or upon corporate privileges,” which, they explain, in current usage covers about everything besides income taxes.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:

There is not a single US Supreme COurt decision regarding taxation and the power of the national government that agrees with your interpretation. Not one in over 220 years.

That alone should tell you how extreme your views are when there is absolutely no support in law or in history for your views.

Click to expand...

this is another corruption by you.......anyone who knows the basics of constitutional law knows, their were NO income taxes on the people, until the civil war, then it was repealed, because it was found not to be legal, the progressives on the late 1800's wanted to create an income tax , however the USSC court opinion on the subject was it was unconstitutional, and the progressives pushed for a constitutional, until they got it in 1913

your arguments, are even worst lately, then they normally are!

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

AGENT J said:

did somebody say they did?

Click to expand...

if i don't have to like someone, and deal with someone.......then i can discriminate against them.

for any power to apply FORCE TO ME, and make me deal with someone is unconstitutional......per 13th amendment

when someone is discriminated against,...there is no natural rights violation.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

maquiscat said:

1.)The existence of a law don't not automatically indicate the existence or lack thereof of a right. The law at one point allowed slavery, which was in direct violation of the rights of the blacks of that era. So there is a major difference between "One has the legal ability to do this action" and "One has the right to do this action".


2.) As I noted it's not a right per se' but a natural and logical extension of both the personal property rights as well as freedom of association.
3.) If there was a "freedom from discrimination" it would have to be universal, and include things like hair color, height, weight, clothes style, etc. And indeed such is how it should be for interactions between any given citizen and the government, but not between any two given citizens.



4.) Indeed, I have already taken ernst barkmann to task over this and his wording of his argument. I agree with his principle and what he wants to say, he just keeps undermining himself. The problem comes in that some people want to assign extra rights that would be in direct conflict with actual rights. That is not to say that actual rights don't have conflicts with each other, or at least seem to, but when you take the time to apply the logic, the conflicts really aren't there. I actually do have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Does that right absolve me of any consequences should others get hurt as a direct result of my speech? No. I've caused bodily harm to others thus violating their rights. Even if nobody had so much as twitched when I yelled "fire", thus their rights were not violated, the property owner could then throw me out. My free speech rights are not violated, and indeed he can do nothing to silence me as I am en route off of the property. Even if I refuse to leave he cannot violate (legally) my free speech rights and forcibly silence me.

5.) Likewise with freedom of association, one is free to choose who they will and will not associate with for whatever reason, be it personal or business.

Click to expand...

1.) correct I agree but you simply doubled down on what I said with different verbiage.
2.) and any subjective extension one makes ends at others rights
3.) unless im misunderstanding your wording this is simply 100% false. it most certainly in no way would have to be "universal" on any level what so ever just like all rights arent now. SOme are very specific to what a person is receiving, going throw and where it happens. Now it would have to be equal as far as person to person meeting said criteria but not "universal" thats the wrong word.

4.) I agree with this in general and its also another way to say what i already have rights end at violating others.

5.) again this statement is not true as an absolute, only as a general statement and how one is applying "association"

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:

i1.)f i don't have to like someone, and deal with someone.......then i can discriminate against them.
2.)for any power to apply FORCE TO ME, and make me deal with someone is unconstitutional......per 13th amendment
3.)when someone is discriminated against,...there is no natural rights violation.

Click to expand...

1.) correct unless you violate thier rights/law
2.) another thing nobody is discussing
3.) you are free to have this opinion and think it matters


I will ask you AGAIN
you made the statement "no one has a right to be free, from people not liking you and people not wanting to deal with you."

and i ask "did somebody say they did"?

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:

so your saying that when the constitutional convention was taking place they didn't debate the clauses that were proposed?

Click to expand...

We went through this before. There is no complete record of the proceedings to examine or refer to. It does not exist.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

AGENT J said:

1.) correct unless you violate thier rights/law
2.) another thing nobody is discussing
3.) you are free to have this opinion and think it matters


I will ask you AGAIN
you made the statement "no one has a right to be free, from people not liking you and people not wanting to deal with you."

and i ask "did somebody say they did"?

Click to expand...

J. I think you are missing the point. There is no point of force that is able way to prevent individuals from believing as they will. And there is no way to prevent individuals from perceiving potential discrimination as they will. At issue is the appropriate use of governmental force. Freedom from discrimination as an individual matter is much different than institutional discrimination. The question of this thread is meaningless without that distinction.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:

this is out right stupidity, and a clear effort by you to corrupt the topic.........


WE are NOT discussing the power to tax.....but the manner of who and how taxes are paid........

Click to expand...

Actually the power to tax was the post you responded to from 2139. You lose. :lol::lamo

read it again...This is from the Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…”. The glossary from the U.S. Treasury Dept’s International Trade Data System http://www.itds.treas.gov/printglossaryfrm.html defines duty as “a tax levied by a government on the import or export of goods,” imposts as “a tax, especially an import duty,” and excise taxes as “taxes on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods, or upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, or upon corporate privileges,” which, they explain, in current usage covers about everything besides income taxes.

Click to expand...

Of course a manual on Trade discusses trade related taxes. And this surprises you because????

It is NOT however evidence that only those taxes related to trade are taxes and all others are excluded.

Good point. I also would add that they want it both ways while coming up with pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo to justify and rationalize their hypocrisy. The idea that you could operate the USA, the states and the local communities without compulsory taxes is an idea that makes the Mad Hatter in Wonderland look like Albert Einstein.

Click to expand...

So the issue that you took issue with was indeed compulsory taxation.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ernst barkmann said:

this is another corruption by you.......anyone who knows the basics of constitutional law knows, their were NO income taxes on the people, until the civil war, then it was repealed, because it was found not to be legal, the progressives on the late 1800's wanted to create an income tax , however the USSC court opinion on the subject was it was unconstitutional, and the progressives pushed for a constitutional, until they got it in 1913

your arguments, are even worst lately, then they normally are!

Click to expand...

That is NOT the issue. I posted about the need for taxes to be compulsory and you took issue with that post. Again, you attempt to move the goal posts to a new arena altogether.

The reality is that your own view about taxation and the power of the national government has absolutely not one single Court ruling that supports such extremism. If I am incorrect in this, simply refer to one.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:

You don't think human rights are rights?

Click to expand...

There is no unalienable right or human right, whatever that is, to somebody else's person or property. There should be no right to demand that somebody else provide for us, service us, or give us what they rightfully earned or acquired. A long and bloody war was fought to free the slaves. But some seem it is okay to force some to serve others even yet today. It isn't.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:

That is NOT the issue. I posted about the need for taxes to be compulsory and you took issue with that post. Again, you attempt to move the goal posts to a new arena altogether.

The reality is that your own view about taxation and the power of the national government has absolutely not one single Court ruling that supports such extremism. If I am incorrect in this, simply refer to one.

Click to expand...

the post of his you responded to is accurate historically. The temperance movement was a major driving force for the income tax (to counter the charges that banning alcohol would cost the feds lots of excise taxes) as was power hungry senators who saw the income tax as a way to gain extra-constitutional control of americans. Half of that support still exists

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

TurtleDude said:

the post of his you responded to is accurate historically. The temperance movement was a major driving force for the income tax (to counter the charges that banning alcohol would cost the feds lots of excise taxes) as was power hungry senators who saw the income tax as a way to gain extra-constitutional control of americans. Half of that support still exists

Click to expand...

You are right. The TR Roosevelt administration turned the Constitution on its head when Roosevelt declared that government could do whatever the Constitution did not forbid it to do. Up until then, every President saw the federal government as being restricted to only what the Constitution would allow it to do.

So Roosevelt opened the flood gate and started the snowball rolling. That ban on alcohol and the Sixteenth Amendment were the tip of the iceberg and that is when a permanent political class began to develop. That snowball has been gaining speed, mass and momentum ever since as it increasingly transfers the power from the people to the central government and in the process, steadily erodes protection of our rights, our choices, our options, and our opportunities.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

TurtleDude said:

the post of his you responded to is accurate historically. The temperance movement was a major driving force for the income tax (to counter the charges that banning alcohol would cost the feds lots of excise taxes) as was power hungry senators who saw the income tax as a way to gain extra-constitutional control of americans. Half of that support still exists

Click to expand...

I never took issue with the origins of the income tax. That is not and was not the point. I was replying to the idea that taxes must be compulsory.

my 2139

Good point. I also would add that they want it both ways while coming up with pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo to justify and rationalize their hypocrisy. The idea that you could operate the USA, the states and the local communities without compulsory taxes is an idea that makes the Mad Hatter in Wonderland look like Albert Einstein.

Click to expand...

Barkmann in his immediate following 2140 reproducing my quote

you just called the idea of the founders "the mad hatter's idea

compulsory taxes on the people is stealing any way you slice it!

Click to expand...

I honestly have no idea at all what Barkmann's point is or what it has to do with the issue of compulsory taxation.

Do you?

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

AlbqOwl said:

There is no unalienable right or human right, whatever that is, to somebody else's person or property. There should be no right to demand that somebody else provide for us, service us, or give us what they rightfully earned or acquired. A long and bloody war was fought to free the slaves. But some seem it is okay to force some to serve others even yet today. It isn't.

Click to expand...

Does that include taxation?

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:

Does that include taxation?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. The federal government should be restricted to its constitutionally mandated responsibilities and should collect only enough from the people to fund that. It is destructive, evil, and immoral for the government to forcibly confiscate property from those who earn it and give that money to other people who didn't, most especially when the motive behind that is to increase the power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth of those in government.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

AlbqOwl said:

Absolutely. The federal government should be restricted to its constitutionally mandated responsibilities and should collect only enough from the people to fund that. It is destructive, evil, and immoral for the government to forcibly confiscate property from those who earn it and give that money to other people who didn't, most especially when the motive behind that is to increase the power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth of those in government.

Click to expand...

Can you present to us an example of a first rate world power in the 21st century who operates without a system of compulsory taxation?

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:

Can you present to us an example of a first rate world power in the 21st century who operates without a system of compulsory taxation?

Click to expand...

I think you missed the point. I was not saying there should be no taxation.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

johndylan1 said:

1.)J. I think you are missing the point. There is no point of force that is able way to prevent individuals from believing as they will.
2.) And there is no way to prevent individuals from perceiving potential discrimination as they will. At issue is the appropriate use of governmental force.
3.) Freedom from discrimination as an individual matter is much different than institutional discrimination.
4.)The question of this thread is meaningless without that distinction.

Click to expand...

1.) im definitely missing any perceived point then because who wants to force people from believing g what they want? I certainly dont and no law could ever do that.
2.) again peoples subjective perception of discrimaintion or nondiscrimination is meanignless its defined by rights and law and when in question goes to court to define/clarify.
3.) not on a legal and rights level its not, the only thing that matters in this discussion.
4.) I do agree 100% though much more info is needed for this failed thread as theres no platform to honestly and factually start from. Lots of things have to be made up, or assumed.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

maquiscat said:

You've (and not just you personally) still failed to answer the question posed a couple of times so far. But here let's just put it out again. I'll even rephrase it to make it easier to comprehend. What is the effective difference, in a place where there is only the one doctor (since that seems to be the current example), between a doctor discriminating against (a) particular group(s) of people, a doctor who shuts down instead of allowing the law to tell him/her whom (s)he will and will not conduct business with, and a doctor who dies while still running the business?

Click to expand...

Huh? Dude, you're making zero sense in that paragraph. A doctor who refuses to medically treat someone because of his or her race in a town where he's the only doctor. YOUR opinion - and the opinion of so many on the Right, apparently - are that this is okay, no big deal. There can be no comparison of that kind of situation with the rest of your, um, examples.

Are we free to discriminate? I would have to say that is depending on how you are applying the term. If it is merely in how we view things and our opinions, then you are perfectly right in that such freedom is in no way diminished. However, if it is in action, then the argument could be made that such a freedom has been limited. Now ultimately I see "right to discriminate" as a natural extension of private property rights and freedom of association. But there are those who want what is private property to not be private property for some purposes, and yet still treat it as private property for the purpose of taxes and other issues.

Click to expand...

Businesses that are open to the public are for the most part NOT currently free to discriminate, except for those states which still have anti-gay laws. If the Right had its way, we would all be free to discriminate...which would give legitimacy to racism...and as soon as racists began refusing to serve people because of their color, people of that color would protest and the state would send police to protect the racist's "right" to discriminate...and THAT is the beginning of state-protected racism.

You y'all can't see that is beyond explanation.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:

We went through this before. There is no complete record of the proceedings to examine or refer to. It does not exist.

Click to expand...

really?

lets us take a look at the debate over article 1 section 8 clause 1......which has to do with commerce......trade!!!


Records of the Federal Convention

[1:243; Madison, 15 June]

[New Jersey Plan:] 2. Resd. that in addition to the powers vested in the U. States in Congress, by the present existing articles of Confederation, they be authorized to pass acts for raising a revenue, by levying a duty or duties on all goods or merchandizes of foreign growth or manufacture, imported into any part of the U. States, by Stamps on paper, vellum or parchment, and by a postage on all letters or packages passing through the general post-Office, to be applied to such federal purposes as they shall deem proper & expedient; to make rules & regulations for the collection thereof. . . .

[2:305; Madison, 16 Aug.]

Art: VII. Sect. 1. taken up. ["The Legislature of the United States shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises."]

Mr. L. Martin asked what was meant by the Committee of detail in the expression "duties" and "imposts". If the meaning were the same, the former was unnecessary; if different, the matter ought to be made clear.

Mr Wilson, duties are applicable to many objects to which the word imposts does not relate. The latter are appropriated to commerce; the former extend to a variety of objects, as stamp duties &c.

Mr. Carroll reminded the Convention of the great difference of interests among the States, and doubts the propriety in that point of view of letting a majority be a quorum.

Mr. Mason urged the necessity of connecting with the power of levying taxes duties &c, the prohibition in Sect 4 of art VI that no tax should be laid on exports. He was unwilling to trust to its being done in a future article. He hoped the Northn. States did not mean to deny the Southern this security. It would hereafter be as desirable to the former when the latter should become the most populous. He professed his jealousy for the productions of the Southern or as he called them, the staple States. He moved to insert the following amendment: "provided that no tax duty or imposition, shall be laid by the Legislature of the U. States on articles exported from any State"

Mr Sherman had no objection to the proviso here, other than it would derange the parts of the report as made by the Committee, to take them in such an order.

Mr. Rutlidge. It being of no consequence in what order points are decided, he should vote for the clause as it stood, but on condition that the subsequent part relating to negroes should also be agreed to.

Mr. Governeur Morris considered such a proviso as inadmissible any where. It was so radically objectionable, that it might cost the whole system the support of some members. He contended that it would not in some cases be equitable to tax imports without taxing exports; and that taxes on exports would be often the most easy and proper of the two.

Mr. Madison 1. the power of taxing exports is proper in itself, and as the States cannot with propriety exercise it separately, it ought to be vested in them collectively. 2. it might with particular advantage be exercised with regard to articles in which America was not rivalled in foreign markets, as Tobo. &c. The contract between the French Farmers Genl. and Mr. Morris stipulating that if taxes sd. be laid in America on the export of Tobo, they sd. be paid by the Farmers, shewed that it was understood by them, that the price would be thereby raised in America, and consequently the taxes be paid by the European Consumer. 3. it would be unjust to the States whose produce was exported by their neighbours, to leave it subject to be taxed by the latter. This was a grievance which had already filled N. H. Cont. N. Jery. Del: and N. Carolina with loud complaints, as it related to imports, and they would be equally authorized by taxes by the States on exports. 4. The Southn. States being most in danger and most needing naval protection, could the less complain if the burden should be somewhat heaviest on them. 5. we are not providing for the present moment only, and time will equalize the situation of the States in this matter. He was for these reasons, agst the motion

Mr. Williamson considered the clause proposed agst taxes on exports as reasonable and necessary.

Mr. Elseworth was agst. Taxing exports; but thought the prohibition stood in the most proper place, and was agst. deranging the order reported by the Committee

Mr. Wilson was decidedly agst prohibiting general taxes on exports. He dwelt on the injustice and impolicy of leaving N. Jersey Connecticut &c any longer subject to the exactions of their commercial neighbours.

Mr Gerry thought the legislature could not be trusted with such a power. It might ruin the Country. It might be exercised partially, raising one and depressing another part of it.

Mr Govr Morris. However the legislative power may be formed, it will if disposed be able to ruin the Country--He considered the taxing of exports to be in many cases highly politic. Virginia has found her account in taxing Tobacco. All Countries having peculiar articles tax the exportation of them; as France her wines and brandies. A tax here on lumber, would fall on the W. Indies & punish their restrictions on our trade. The same is true of livestock and in some degree of flour. In case of a dearth in the West Indies, we may extort what we please. Taxes on exports are a necessary source of revenue. For a long time the people of America will not have money to pay direct taxes. Seize and sell their effects and you push them into Revolts--

Mr. Mercer was strenuous against giving Congress power to tax exports. Such taxes were impolitic, as encouraging the raising of articles not meant for exportation. The States had now a right where their situation permitted, to tax both the imports and exports of their uncommercial neighbours. It was enough for them to sacrifice one half of it. It had been said the Southern States had most need of naval protection. The reverse was the case. Were it not for promoting the carrying trade of the Northn States, the Southn States could let their trade go into foreign bottoms, where it would not need our protection. Virginia by taxing her tobacco had given an advantage to that of Maryland.

Mr. Sherman. To examine and compare the States in relation to imports and exports will be opening a boundless field. He thought the matter had been adjusted, and that imports were to be subject, and exports not, to be taxed. He thought it wrong to tax exports except it might be such articles as ought not to be exported. The complexity of the business in America would render an equal tax on exports impracticable. The oppression of the uncommercial States was guarded agst. by the power to regulate trade between the States. As to compelling foreigners, that might be done by regulating trade in general. The Government would not be trusted with such a power. Objections are most likely to be excited by considerations relating to taxes & money. A power to tax exports would shipwreck the whole.

Mr. Carrol was surprised that any objection should be made to an exception of exports from the power of taxation.

It was finally agreed that the question concerning exports shd. lie over for the place in which the exception stood in the report. Maryd. alone voting agst it

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:

We went through this before. There is no complete record of the proceedings to examine or refer to. It does not exist.

Click to expand...

Sect: 1. (art. VII) agreed to: Mr. Gerry alone answering no.

[2:392; Madison, 23 Aug.]

The 1st sect. of art: VII being so amended as to read "The Legislature shall fulfil the engagements and discharge the debts of the U. S, & shall have the power to lay & collect taxes duties imposts & excises", was agreed to

Mr. Butler expressed his dissatisfaction lest it should compel payment as well to the Blood-suckers who had speculated on the distresses of others, as to those who had fought & bled for their country. He would be ready he said tomorrow to vote for a discrimination between those classes of people, and gave notice that he should move for a reconsideration.

[2:412; Madison, 25 Aug.]

The 1st. clause of 1 sect. of art: VII being reconsidered

Col. Mason objected to the term, "shall"--fullfil the engagements & discharge the debts &c as too strong. It may be impossible to comply with it. The Creditors should be kept in the same plight. They will in one respect be necessarily and properly in a better. The Government will be more able to pay them. The use of the term shall will beget speculations and increase the pestilent practice of stockjobbing. There was a great distinction between original creditors & those who purchased fraudulently of the ignorant and distressed. He did not mean to include those who have bought Stock in open market. He was sensible of the difficulty of drawing the line in this case, but He did not wish to preclude the attempt. Even fair purchasers, at 4, 5, 6, 8 for 1 did not stand on the same footing with the first Holders, supposing them not to be blameable. The interest they receive even in paper is equal to their purchase money. What he particularly wished was to leave the door open for buying up the securities, which he thought would be precluded by the term "shall" as requiring nominal payment, & which was not inconsistent with his ideas of public faith. He was afraid also the word "shall," might extend to all the old continental paper.

Mr Langdon wished to do no more than leave the Creditors in statu quo.

Mr. Gerry said that for himself he had no interest in the question being not possessed of more of the securities than would, by the interest, pay his taxes. He would observe however that as the public had received the value of the literal amount, they ought to pay that value to some body. The frauds on the soldiers ought to have been foreseen. These poor & ignorant people could not but part with their securities. There are other creditors who will part with any thing rather than be cheated of the capital of their advances. The interest of the States he observed was different on this point, some having more, others less than their proportion of the paper. Hence the idea of a scale for reducing its value had arisen. If the public faith would admit, of which he was not clear, he would not object to a revision of the debt so far as to compel restitution to the ignorant & distressed, who have been defrauded. As to Stock-jobbers he saw no reason for the censures thrown on them--They keep up the value of the paper. Without them there would be no market.

Mr. Butler said he meant neither to increase nor diminish the security of the Creditors.

Mr. Randolph moved to postpone the clause in favor of the following "All debts contracted & engagements entered into, by or under the authority of Congs. shall be as valid agst the U. States under this constitution as under the Confederation"

Docr Johnson. The debts are debts of the U-- S-- of the great Body of America. Changing the Government cannot change the obligation of the U-- S-- which devolves of course on the New Government. Nothing was in his opinion necessary to be said. If any thing, it should be a mere declaration as moved by Mr. Randolph.

Mr. Govr. Morris, said he never had become a public Creditor that he might urge with more propriety the compliance with public faith. He had always done so and always would, and preferr'd the term "shall" as the most explicit. As to buying up the debt, the term "shall" was not inconsistent with it, if provision be first made for paying the interest: if not, such an expedient was a mere evasion. He was content to say nothing as the New Government would be bound of course--but would prefer the clause with the term "shall", because it would create many friends to the plan.

On Mr. Randolph's Motion

N-- H-- ay-- Mas. ay. Ct ay-- N. J. ay-- Pa. no Del. ay-- Maryd. ay Va. ay-- N. C-- ay-- S. C. ay Geo. ay-- [Ayes-- 10; noes-- 1.]

Mr. Sherman thought it necessary to connect with the clause for laying taxes duties &c an express provision for the object of the old debts &c--and moved to add to the 1st. clause of 1st. sect--of art VII "for the payment of said debts and for the defraying the expences that shall be incurred for the common defence and general welfare".

The proposition, as being unnecessary was disagreed to, Connecticut alone, being in the affirmative.

[2:434; Journal, 28 Aug.]

And all tonnage, duties, imposts, and excises, laid by the "Legislature shall be uniform throughout the United States"

[2:473; Journal, 31 Aug.]

On the question to agree to the following clause of the report

"and all duties, imposts, and excises, laid by the Legislature, shall be uniform throughout the United States"

it passed in the affirmative

[2:493; Journal, 4 Sept.]

The Committee of eleven to whom sundry resolutions &ca were referred on the 31st ultimo, report that in their opinion the following additions and alterations should be made to the report before the Convention--viz

The first clause of the first Sect. of the 7th article to read as follows. "The Legislature shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States."

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

mak2 said:

Government enforced racism is a blemish on the history of a great country. I hope it never returns.

Click to expand...

It's going on today... what the hell do you mean never returns? It's codified.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:

Actually the power to tax was the post you responded to from 2139. You lose. :lol::lamo


.



Of course a manual on Trade discusses trade related taxes. And this surprises you because????

It is NOT however evidence that only those taxes related to trade are taxes and all others are excluded.



So the issue that you took issue with was indeed compulsory taxation.

Click to expand...

YOU have got to the one of the dumbest people on constitutional law.

you are a false and blatant liar!.....

the issue of #2139 had to deal with the subject of compulsory taxes WHEN I MADE A STATEMENT........which i stated was stealing.......it had nothing to do with THE POWER TO TAX....

the founders did not give authority to government to tax the people......because to do that would be stealing property....property is a natural right.

when government taxes from states, it is not stealing per the constitution, because it is authorized by the states when they ratified the constitution.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:

That is NOT the issue. I posted about the need for taxes to be compulsory and you took issue with that post. Again, you attempt to move the goal posts to a new arena altogether.

The reality is that your own view about taxation and the power of the national government has absolutely not one single Court ruling that supports such extremism. If I am incorrect in this, simply refer to one.

Click to expand...

lol........was it not you who said this!!!!!!!!...about the constitution, and then again you turn tail and run back to the supreme court, when you find out your wrong about what the constitution says....AGAIN!

haymarket said:

You made up the crap about taxes placed on states as IT DOES NOT SAY THAT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

.

Click to expand...

which i provide-----------> IT DOES SAY IT IN THE CONSTITUTION!

ARTICLE 1 SECTION 2 CLAUSE 3----Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

COMPULSORY TAXES BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON THE PEOPLE......DID NOT EXIST UNDER THE FOUNDERS.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FOUNDERS GIVES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NO AUTHORITY OVER THE PEOPLE'S LIFE'S, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY.

Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

haymarket said:

I never took issue with the origins of the income tax. That is not and was not the point. I was replying to the idea that taxes must be compulsory.

my 2139



Barkmann in his immediate following 2140 reproducing my quote




I honestly have no idea at all what Barkmann's point is or what it has to do with the issue of compulsory taxation.

Do you?

Click to expand...

i will tell you and everyone else, what you believed........you actually believed the founders gave the federal government power to compulsory tax the people directly......

when you were shown by the constitution itself, that you were wrong....because it states there shall be no capitation, or direct tax on the people,...... and that the states are the ones being taxed.

you had a panic attack, and started you backtrack off of the subject.

AGAIN FOR YOU...........the founders gave the federal government [congress] no authority to directly tax the people......as you recently believed, because of your lack of constitutional knowledge.

AND the constitution gave the federal government [congress ] no authority in the personal life's of the people!




Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.