Re: Further costs of war

[lcs Mixmaster Remailer <mix@anon.lcs.mit.edu>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert Hettinga wrote:
>Of course, all the pseudoconstitutionalist claptrap about the 16th being
>unconstitutional is, of course, that. The constitution's what the Supreme
>Court says it is, unfortunately.

I don't agree with you on this one, Bob.

The fact is that the 16th was never properly ratified.  It slid through the 
cracks, contrary to the procedure for ratifying amendments as outlined in 
the Constitution.  The reason there was no public outcry was because the 
initial tax was 1% on anyone earning more than $4,000 a year (roughly 
$80,000 in today's money).  Besides, I seriously doubt many people rushed
down to the Treasury to cough up their 1% either.

This deceptive non-ratification is clearly documented by Bill Benson in his 
book "The Law That Never Was" <http://www.trustclarks.com/theman.html>.  
Although his book has been in print for several years, I have yet to hear of 
anyone who has refuted his claims.

The "pseudoconstitutionalist claptrap" that should be pointed out is 
your claim that "the constitution's what the Supreme Court says it is."  
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court judicial 
power "...to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this 
Constitution..."

The words "under this Constitution" imply that the Supreme Court must work 
by the letter of the law as outlined in the Constitution.  How can the 
Supreme Court pass a decision involving the 16th when the amendment was 
never ratified as outlined in Section V?  These are the kind of shenanigans
one would expect from a banana republic tribunal, not the Supreme Court.

>Doesn't mean the damn thing shouldn't be repealed, though there's fat
>chance of that. 

Why bother to repeal what never existed?  When enough people learn what 
really happened, and when they couple it with the fact that most of their 
tax money is wasted and could be better "redistributed" according to their
own individual judgement, the house of cards will collapse.

>                 Oh well. Fortunately, we can fight back with digital bearer
>settlement. Someday. Soon, I hope.

I hope so, too.  But I don't advocate waiting until that day to fight back.
We can start now by learning the facts and then passing on that knowledge.
Consider it to be the creation of a ready and willing market for digital
bearer certificates.

Nerthus

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNHowuBa1d3zm4nqOEQKtwwCg6gUxAKS4LcDpSG1h6g6Bfm9JmVcAn0Cn
+lvOs1E10vZ5oXWl/GcHqKaW
=wg93
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----