Ron Paul praises convicted tax evaders

[KenH]

Well, instead of all of us talking about Ron Paul's position on this subject let's listen to Ron Paul speaking for himself on this issue on Neil Cavuto's show on Fox News Channel:

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/013772.html



"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." -Thomas Jefferson

 

[JustChristian]

I don't think Bush is mainstream. Have you seen his poll numbers? :laugh:

Besides, you know better than to equate him with Pelosi :laugh:

That's true. Bush is much, much worse.

 

[carpro]

I am really surprised at the support on BB for convicted criminals who threaten to kill any law enforcement officer who tries to enforce the law.

 

[Rufus_1611]

I am really surprised at the support on BB for convicted criminals who threaten to kill any law enforcement officer who tries to enforce the law.

I am surprised that AP article was so misleading and doesn't match up with what Ron Paul stated in the Cavuto interview. I am also surprised that you post unsourced information and then when you are asked to provide the source and prove the faulty information in it, you ignore the request. I guess there's a few surprises in this thread.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Ron Paul and Civil Disobedience

Here is the video of Ron explaining that anyone who doesn't pay their taxes must do it knowing that they have to bear the consequences and that if you do civil disobedience such as the Browns are doing in challenging the laws, it should be done non-violently.

Remember Ron has no idea who the Browns are, or their history or much else about them except that they're bucking the system and thus far have committed an act of non-violence.

For Katz, the Concord Monitor, AP or any other news outlet to say he is a 'supporter' is patently false.

...........

 

[TomVols]

That's true. Bush is much, much worse.

Well, I disagree, but to each his own.

 

[TomVols]

I am surprised at how Christians are so quick to attack one another just because one Christian doesn't support the candidate of another Christian. :type:

Wait, this is Baptist Board. I'm not so surprised after all.

 

[windcatcher]

...........

Thank you.

We must be on guard about our response to information. No doubt there is much disinformation out 'there': There is much information given with the purpose to inflame or discredit: There are many who might welcome chaos and unrest and serve as agent provacatuers. Whether we like the laws or not, whether we agree with our government or not, whether we agree with the action of others or not: It would serve us well to remember the examples of the early apostles during the times of unrest. Paul and Peter particularly stand out as submissive to authorities in all ways except for compromise of their faith. As our times come nearer to the end, we cannot neglect to encourage one another with our hope, but also be mindful that we encourage no behavior that would justify persecution of Christians.


edited to note: quote function didn't work properly from previous post

 

[carpro]

I am also surprised that you post unsourced information and then when you are asked to provide the source and prove the faulty information in it, you ignore the request. I guess there's a few surprises in this thread.

People who live in glass houses, as you do, shouldn't cast stones.

 

[Rufus_1611]

People who live in glass houses, as you do, shouldn't cast stones.

Who was the source?

 

[carpro]

Who was the source?

Quote:
"[T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but
simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income
taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out
of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.''

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911).
Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916); Stanton v.
Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240
U.S. 115 (1916)
Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1916)
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916)

???????????????????????

 

[tenor]

This may actually be the subject for its own thread, but I think it merits mention in this thread.

There is much discussion of the 16th amendment being "unconstitutional" since it seems to go against an earlier article.

My question for consideration: Being that the Constitution is an amendable document (with a process for this included in the text), Could a later amendment totally void the earlier parts of the document if the process is properly followed?

With this in mind is it possible to be "constitutional" and yet change the "original intent" of the document?

Another question did the "framers" see a concrete, flexible or fluid document? They did make it amendable therefore changeable.

I thoroughly dislike the income tax and favor the Fair Tax.

Tim

 

[Rufus_1611]

Quote:
"[T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but
simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income
taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out
of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.''

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911).
Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916); Stanton v.
Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240
U.S. 115 (1916)
Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1916)
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916)

???????????????????????

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment16/01.html

 

[JGrubbs]

Paul denies report he compared NH tax evaders to Gandhi

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Texas Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul said he did not compare a New Hampshire couple who refuses to pay taxes with Gandhi.

On Fox News Channel today, Paul said he doesn't know much about the case of Ed and Elaine Brown on Plainfield, N.H. but that he, like Ghandi, doesn't believe in violence to protest wrongs and it has appeared that the Browns have chosen another path.

His comments on Fox News were consistent with what he said in an interview with the Globe during his first visit to New Hampshire in the winter.

The Browns are currently holed up in their residence surrounded by US Marshalls. They said they will either die or go free, but say they will not pay their taxes because they believe their are unconstitutional.

The Associated Press put up a report on from rougegovernment.com that quoted Paul as saying the Browns were like Gandhi.

Source: http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/06/paul_denies_rep.html

 

[TomVols]

The constitution can't be unconstitutional in the strictest sense

However, an amendment may indeed alter, circumvent, or modify an earlier provision.

You raise a good point, tenor.

Some argue we should go back to the original wording of the document as originally penned. (They even argue that Senators should not be popularly elected, but they can't decide who the 3/5ths should now be in counting for the House, as prescribed in Art I.2)
Others are not quite so strict, arguing we should go back to the intent of the Framers. Others say let's strictly interpret the Constitution as it stands today, and so on.

 

[Rufus_1611]

The constitution can't be unconstitutional in the strictest sense

However, an amendment may indeed alter, circumvent, or modify an earlier provision.

You raise a good point, tenor.

Some argue we should go back to the original wording of the document as originally penned. (They even argue that Senators should not be popularly elected, but they can't decide who the 3/5ths should now be in counting for the House, as prescribed in Art I.2)
Others are not quite so strict, arguing we should go back to the intent of the Framers. Others say let's strictly interpret the Constitution as it stands today, and so on.

Senators should not be popularly elected. It was a critical difference between the House of Reps and the Senate. The House represented the people via a popular vote and the Senate represented the people via the state selection. If the founders wanted popularly elected senators, then why have a bicameral legislative body? If this was their intent they ought to have just increased the size of a single body.

 

[JGrubbs]

The U.S. Constitution, as originally framed in Article I, Section 3, provided for U.S. Senators to be elected by state legislators. This provided the states direct representation in the legislative branch so as to deter the usurpation of powers that are Constitutionally reserved to the states or to the people.

The Seventeenth Amendment (providing for direct, popular election of U.S. Senators) took away from state governments their Constitutional role of indirect participation in the federal legislative process.

If we are to see a return to the states those powers, programs, and sources of revenue that the federal government has unconstitutionally taken away, then it is also vital that we repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and return to state legislatures the function of electing the U.S. Senate. In so doing, this would return the U.S. Senate to being a body that represents the legislatures of the several states on the federal level and, thus, a tremendously vital part of the designed checks and balances of power that our Constitution originally provided.

 

[carpro]

Who was the source?

http://www.irstaxattorney.com/Frivilous-Tax-Argument/Frivilous_Tax_Argument.html

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106507,00.html

http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar11.html

 

[billwald]

Some years ago I read every page in the IRS tax code book and it does not identify any authorizing statute. The authority is assumed.

 

[TomVols]

JGrubbs and Rufus, who are the 3/5ths now? I'm partially serious. Or do y'all not have a problem with the14th amendment?

Senators were elected by the state legislatures for the same reason they elected the Electoral College: common citizens wouldn't know their 2 senators from the vast areas with no ability for travel or communication. The bicameral legislative branch was and is to provide a check and balance, and giving each state a house with two reps each regardless of population. This was a brokered compromise (I forget the main architect of this idea - it's not one of the popular drafters of the document) to the other proposals among the framers, one of which included a supercongress like you mentioned, Rufus. It wasn't necessarily a way to get the states to be involved in federalism, as you assert, JGrubbs.

I disagree that repeal of 17 is the only way to get the Fed Govt to restore to the states the "powers, programs, and sources of revenue that the federal government has unconstitutionally taken away." In fact, it would likely not change things one iota.

Has anyone else noticed we're WAY off topic