As We Approach 237

By | July 4, 2013

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “As We Approach 237”.

Category: Opinion Politics Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About Frank Salvato

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director for BasicsProject.org a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and education initiative focusing on Constitutional Literacy and the threats of Islamic jihadism and Progressive neo-Marxism. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His organization, BasicsProject.org, partnered in producing the original national symposium series addressing the root causes of radical Islamist terrorism. He is a member of the International Analyst Network and has been a featured guest on al Jazeera's Listening Post and on Russia Today. He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel, and was featured in the documentary, “Ezekiel and the MidEast ‘Piece’ Process: Israel’s Neighbor States.” He is a regular guest on talk radio including on The Captain's America Radio Show, nationally syndicated by the Genesis and Phoenix Broadcasting Networks, catering to the US Armed Forces around the world. Mr. Salvato is also heard weekly on The Roth Show with Dr. Laurie Roth syndicated nationally on the IRN-USA Radio Network. Mr. Salvato has been interviewed on Radio Belgrade One. His opinion-editorials have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times, Accuracy in Media, Human Events, and are syndicated nationally. He is a featured political writer for EducationNews.org, BigGovernment.com and Examiner.com and is occasionally quoted in The Federalist. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. We believe that citizens have a voice - one that should be heard above the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

11 thoughts on “As We Approach 237

  1. Andrew W. Pearson

    Derrell:

    Yes, you are being foolish.

    You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to make up your own facts.

    The facts are that the 16th Amendment, having been properly passed and ratified, according to the process for doing so, set out in the Constitution itself, is as legal and legitimate an amendment as any other, your delusional reasoning to the contrary notwithstanding.

    The 10th Amendment, the purpose of government, the justification behind other amendments, and the abuses of our tax code, all have absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the 16th Amendment.

    Please re-read my previous comment, and then read this one again. If you still don’t understand that the 16th Amendment is just as valid (or “legal”) as any other, I can’t help you, and I won’t waste my time trying.

    1. Derrell Poole

      Andrew,

      Are you kidding me? You asked me a question and I took the trouble to answered it. Now you are trying to help me? And indeed there is a limit to your willingness to help me? You won’t waste any more time on little ol’ misguided me? Do you have trouble seeing past your own ego when you look in the mirror?

      No one invited you to address my statement with a single syllable of your over-educated wisdom. And now you suggest that you cannot “help” me? No one asked you to help me! Don’t blow smoke up my skirt; this was never about helping me. This was nothing more than an opportunity to make yourself look reeeeally smart at my expense! Had you responded with a true discussion of any of the points I offered in the defense of my statement I might have been able to accept your honorable intent and interest to “help” me. Instead, with great craft, you have avoided any serious response to anything I said! I don’t know who you are – and at this point I don’t CARE who you are. You are just one more of the many people I’ve encountered that apparently find it completely inconceivable that they could possible be wrong or simply did not grasp what they were being told! Take your ecclesiastical contempt – your “help” – and g-o- – a-w-a-y!!!

      To anyone else who might read this the 16th Amendment is illegal because it is fundamentally contrary to the Constitution and no political process, correct or otherwise, will shift its moral polarity! Certainly the act of ratifying the 16th amendment was legally executed but the content of the amendment is NOT!

      I am not an expert on the Constitution but I embrace as much of Its values and principles as I am capable of understand; ANYTHING contrary to It is WRONG when it is forced upon me as some law! On the other hand I am Not repeating something that sounded good to me. I arrived at this conclusion by my own cognitive abilities and the contemplation of static facts! Everyday I fight the trap of just believing what others tell me because I believe thinking for myself is one of my best weapons to fight tyranny! These then are the ground of my argument – take it or leave it!

      Nice talking with you Andrew.

  2. Andrew W. Pearson

    Mr. Poole:

    The 16th Amendment was passed by the Sixty-first Congress in 1909, and was ratified by the States, in 1913. Therefore, it is as “legal” a part of the Constitution, as any other amendment. The fact that the original Constitution as adopted in 1787 did not empower the federal government to impose and collect income taxes has no relevance to the legality of the 16th Amendment. The only requirements for legality are that an amendment be passed by Congress, and ratified by the States. According to your convoluted logic, the 10th Amendment (which you so proudly rely upon) is an “illegal” amendment also, since it was not included in the original Constitution as adopted in 1787. The 10th Amendment was not proposed until 1789, and was not ratified by the States, until 1791.

    Prior to 1913, the federal government had no constitutional power to tax income, and that’s why the 1895 bill, to which you refer, was struck down by the Supreme Court.

    You may disagree with the income tax, and you may argue that the 16th Amendment should never have been passed and ratified, and you may even argue that our Founders would not have agreed to it. However, the 16th Amendment was passed, and ratified, according to the constitutional provisions for amending the Constitution, and you only make yourself look foolish, if you claim that the 16th Amendment is an illegal one.

    Personally, I disagree with the federal income tax, too. I’d like to see us adopt The Fair Tax, and rid ourselves of the Internal Revenue Service completely. However, in opposing the income tax, I refuse to make ignorant and unfounded arguments, such as claiming that the 16th Amendment is illegal. I hope you’ll learn to do the same.

  3. Derrell Poole

    Thank you, Frank.

    Thank you from the bottom of my heart…

  4. Andrew W. Pearson

    Mr. Salvato, you said: ” It wasn’t until the 19th Century that the “income tax” would come to be and even then, until the passage of the 19th Amendment, the constitutionality of the income tax was held in question.”

    Surely, you intended to reference “the 16th Amendment,” not the 19th, which provided for women’s suffrage.

    1. Derrell Poole

      I’m always happy to see that I’m not the only human who makes mistakes. I’m a firm believer in making mistakes on purpose so that no one can tell when you do it by accident.

      That’s okay, Frank. We all know which Amendment is the illegal one. Every chance I get I preach that we need to repeal it. There is something called the Fair Tax, which is, in effect, a National Sales tax. I’m sure there are arguments that make sense against it but, the evil genius of those Sewer rats in congress from figuring out a way to do it notwithstanding – seems like it would be much harder for DC to corrupt that into the 666 beast we have today than what is in place now. We need good conservative Constitutionalist legislators to go in and clean out the “We the Lobbyist” government and get back to representing “We the People”.

      1. Andrew W. Pearson

        Mr. Poole…..There’s an “illegal” amendment? Which one is that?

        1. Derrell Poole

          Andrew,

          The 16th Amendment, which gives the Federal Government the “power” to forever collect income taxes from the Citizens. This power is never expressed in the Constitution and according to the 10th Amendment any power not enumerated in THAT document is not a power the Federal Government is entitled to. There is at least one good reason for that; such power gives the Fed the leverage of extortion, or blackmail, over the citizens! In fact, the Amendment in the form of the bill was passed in 1895 (iirc) and struck down by the Supreme Court! The fact that “they” went to the extrodinary effort to then amend the Constitution to make it law and in effect bypass the Constitution, ought to tell you something.

          So, precedence notwithstanding, it is an illegal Amendment which does not protect the Citizens from the Federal Government’s ability to abuse them. And, as you can see, it most certainly does abuse them!

          See how easy the Constitution is to figure out? It is only when lawmakers have ulterior motives that it becomes complex, outdated, and irrelevant….

          1. Andrew W. Pearson

            Mr. Poole:

            The 16th Amendment was passed by the Sixty-first Congress in 1909, and was ratified by the States, in 1913. Therefore, it is as “legal” a part of the Constitution, as any other amendment. The fact that the original Constitution as adopted in 1787 did not empower the federal government to impose and collect income taxes has no relevance to the legality of the 16th Amendment. The only requirements for legality are that an amendment be passed by Congress, and ratified by the States. According to your convoluted logic, the 10th Amendment (which you so proudly rely upon) is an “illegal” amendment also, since it was not included in the original Constitution as adopted in 1787. The 10th Amendment was not proposed until 1789, and was not ratified by the States, until 1791.

            Prior to 1913, the federal government had no constitutional power to tax income, and that’s why the 1895 bill, to which you refer, was struck down by the Supreme Court.

            You may disagree with the income tax, and you may argue that the 16th Amendment should never have been passed and ratified, and you may even argue that our Founders would not have agreed to it. However, the 16th Amendment was passed, and ratified, according to the constitutional provisions for amending the Constitution, and you only make yourself look foolish, if you claim that the 16th Amendment is an illegal one.

            Personally, I disagree with the federal income tax, too. I’d like to see us adopt The Fair Tax, and rid ourselves of the Internal Revenue Service completely. However, in opposing the income tax, I refuse to make ignorant and unfounded arguments, such as claiming that the 16th Amendment is illegal. I hope you’ll learn to do the same.

        2. Derrell Poole

          Andrew. Please. Call me Derrell.

          You would appeal to my emotions to feel shame for what I observe as black and white truth? I don’t care how foolish I look to you – or the whole world. That Amendment is illegal. Take a moment, if you would, and compare it to all of the other active Amendments; correct me if I am wrong but by comparison all of the other Amendments strengthen the rights of the people or, in some way, protects them from an abusive government. As I said before, the 16th Amendment has provided the Federal Government the means to grow itself to the monster it is today and to extort and blackmail its citizens. Pretty convenient to my point are the recent events as live evidence, huh? Take again the 10th Amendment; it was added in the attempt to prevent the Federal government from arbitrarily granting itself powers as yet unforeseen by the Authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; powers that are reserved to the numerous States and or the People by default.

          Perhaps we differ on just what the purpose of government is? These days the belief in the collective insists that the purpose of government is to take care of the people. Is this your position? Our First Principles say that the purpose of government is to protect our individual rights. Tell me, just how does taking our income and growing the Federal Government to the abusive system it is today protecting our individual rights?

          Foolish as I may sound to you, the 16th Amendment is illegal and NOT in the spirit of the Constitution. Ratification does not correct that. Suppose one day the people of the United States decided they wanted to amend the Constitution to make Murder legal. Would that not be an illegal Amendment as defined by the spirit of the Constitution? Would Ratification somehow make Murder okay? Oh, don’t think it so far fetch or out of line to my point. (Darn those foolish statement!) What would an amendment granting the people the “power” to terminate life look like? Perhaps it would look like the protection of women’s “rights” to, say, abortion on demand! Now there’s a Constitutional guaranteed for ya! Tell me, friend, how DO you justify an amendment just because it is the people’s will?

          But of course I’m being foolish. La, la-la, la-la…!

          1. Andrew W. Pearson

            Derrell:

            Yes, you are being foolish.

            You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to make up your own facts.

            The facts are that the 16th Amendment, having been properly passed and ratified, according to the process for doing so, set out in the Constitution itself, is as legal and legitimate an amendment as any other, your delusional reasoning to the contrary notwithstanding.

            The 10th Amendment, the purpose of government, the justification behind other amendments, and the abuses of our tax code, all have absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the 16th Amendment.

            Please re-read my previous comment, and then read this one again. If you still don’t understand that the 16th Amendment is just as valid (or “legal”) as any other, I can’t help you, and I won’t waste my time trying.

Comments are closed.