Meet the next President of the United States

[Tellenta]

Herschel, you fail to resopnd to my post, I'll stop weeping soon but in the mean time could you please explain how your country fails to uphold section ten of article One of it's constition.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Evry member of the millitary has made an oath to defend this constitution, yet breaks it with every dollar they earn and spend, how does this make sense?

Bolded and underlined at a random guess, not a constitutional lawyer of course.

You have a point Feds loopholed it...sprit of the thing?

edit: my point was not really about that article, more about the whole myth of the Constitution, when so much of the document has been ignored.

Costitutional scholars who teach on this stuff getting put on no-fly lists by Bush and the Obama not sorting that shit out is just...wtf.

Well it depends, when we left the gold standard behind was there a constitutional amendment about it? After a quick poke about there was not, hmmm welp.

[Tarminic]

I'm pretty sure that both the word and spirit of that specific section is that the states can't print their own currency. Ohio can't just decide to pay their workers in special Ohio Dollars instead of US Dollars.

The federal government is perfectly allowed to print money, doing so in no way violates any tenant of the constitution.

[Tellenta]

The distinction between the states and the federal government is hardly a fucking loophole.

It is when the framers didn't seems to envisage a federal government of any serious power. The intent was a union of states, not states subserviant to a federal power. Clinging on to this myth of freedom and democracy in a plutocracy that could almost define the word is madness.

Perhaps you missed out on what the framers did with their new country. Also states rights is an interesting argument which has encompassed awesome (not at all) things and I have a natural distaste of anyone making a states rights argument. There is a reason why federal law trumps state law it always has or else why bother with that little civil war thing after all states should be allowed to do whatever they damn well please including slavery, and segregation. So yes the founders did intend that the states be subservient to federal power to argue otherwise just means you missed the damn point of being the United States of America.

edit: also this but the conversation lead elsewhere so I wasn't talking about it.

I'm pretty sure that both the word and spirit of that specific section is that the states can't print their own currency. Ohio can't just decide to pay their workers in special Ohio Dollars instead of US Dollars.

The federal government is perfectly allowed to print money, doing so in no way violates any tenant of the constitution.

[Tiny]

I'm pretty sure that both the word and spirit of that specific section is that the states can't print their own currency. Ohio can't just decide to pay their workers in special Ohio Dollars instead of US Dollars.

The federal government is perfectly allowed to print money, doing so in no way violates any tenant of the constitution.

It's like the bilble, one year it means this, then it means that, the framers can't hold a candle to a modern DC lawyer.

Given that when the constitution was writen there was no fixed central currency, there was just metal, it's pretty fucking unlikely that ther intent was for a federal currency. In historical context what they meant is pretty obvious but lawyers have no problem with ignoring context.

Just look at the Habeas Corpus stuff, then the Patriot acts or the National Defense Authorization Act bill currently moving through the houses..the constitution is kind of old.

If millitary personel where really defending the constitution they'd have too shoot (or maybe just detain) Carl Levin and John McCain.

edit: In case you didn't know all my posts are drunk posts (why whould a sober man post here) so when I drift from one sentence to the next, it's because I'm drifting.

[Lana Torrin]

Just look at the Habeas Corpus stuff, then the Patriot acts or the National Defense Authorization Act bill currently moving through the houses..the constitution is kind of old.

And its holding the US back from being the true superpower it deserves to be.. BURN IT! BURN IT ALL!!!

If millitary personel where really defending the constitution they'd have too shoot (or maybe just detain) Carl Levin and John McCain.

I would have no issue with this. Politicians putting their lives on the line for what they believe in would stop a lot of the shit that is going on.

[Tellenta]

I'm pretty sure that both the word and spirit of that specific section is that the states can't print their own currency. Ohio can't just decide to pay their workers in special Ohio Dollars instead of US Dollars.

The federal government is perfectly allowed to print money, doing so in no way violates any tenant of the constitution.

It's like the bilble, one year it means this, then it means that, the framers can't hold a candle to a modern DC lawyer.

Given that when the constitution was writen there was no fixed central currency, there was just metal, it's pretty fucking unlikely that ther intent was for a federal currency. In historical context what they meant is pretty obvious but lawyers have no problem with ignoring context.

Just look at the Habeas Corpus stuff, then the Patriot acts or the National Defense Authorization Act bill currently moving through the houses..the constitution is kind of old.

If millitary personel where really defending the constitution they'd have too shoot (or maybe just detain) Carl Levin and John McCain.

edit: In case you didn't know all my posts are drunk posts (why whould a sober man post here) so when I drift from one sentence to the next, it's because I'm drifting.

Well think of it this way, when the country was founded the could print money but it was worthless because the were a new country with no guarantees it would be around longer than a week or so. The English were not magically gone from the continent, and of course all the other European interests in the areas that would eventually become the united states. We had a small and terrible army (numbers bounce between 650 and 950 from a brief peakaboo) who had not been paid and states that wouldn't pay taxes. Honestly I'm amazed we made it out of that rut.

[Don Rumata]

Meanwhile:
http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/...newt&cat=world

I like totally laughed my head off.

Yeah, while the American press (what's left of it) has to maintain a sense of decorum, the Guardian has the luxury of just plain enjoying the hilarious clusterfuck that Republican "party" has became.

I think even the die-hard cretins have began to realize that they have no chance in hell, and now just want to go down in a blaze of glory. They are so hilariously fucked. If they nominate Romney, they can kiss Teabaggers goodbye. If they nominate Gingrich, they can kiss the moderates goodbye. They have a perfect candidate (Huntsman), but are too goddamn stupid to realize that.

[untilted]

If millitary personel where really defending the constitution they'd have too shoot (or maybe just detain) Carl Levin and John McCain.

I would have no issue with this. Politicians putting their lives on the line for what they believe in would stop a lot of the shit that is going on.

great argument there, calling for a military regime, eh?*

the military got the monopoly on legitimate violence in regards to external (in the modern sense: international) relations of a state. the internal monopoly on legitimate violence is manifested in the police (backed up by the judicial system) NOT the military.

so you're calling a.) either for vigilantism .. in which case it doesn't matter if someone is in the military or not or b.) well, a military regime.

*)i doubt you really intended it .. but that's the implication of your statement

[Tellenta]

If millitary personel where really defending the constitution they'd have too shoot (or maybe just detain) Carl Levin and John McCain.

I would have no issue with this. Politicians putting their lives on the line for what they believe in would stop a lot of the shit that is going on.

great argument there, calling for a military regime, eh?*

the military got the monopoly on legitimate violence in regards to external (in the modern sense: international) relations of a state. the internal monopoly on legitimate violence is manifested in the police (backed up by the judicial system) NOT the military.

so you're calling a.) either for vigilantism .. in which case it doesn't matter if someone is in the military or not or b.) well, a military regime.

*)i doubt you really intended it .. but that's the implication of your statement

That and military personnel can disobey a command if they feel it is unconstitutional. Repercussions upon review of course, however it doesn't work the other way around. For example the Army is no longer allowed to be used in a law enforcement manner. As an example the 82nd airborne was deployed to New Orleans as disaster relief, and there was an actual question on whether or not it was a legal action and what they could or could not do. Disaster relief and law enforcement help is the realm of the national guard.

[Tyrus Tenebros]

With the gold standard there is the whole constitution thing.

Section. 10.No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Either the constitution is BS or the dollar illegal, why fuck about with details.

Actually the Fed can print dollars all it wants, this Section doesn't apply to the federal govt, obviously, since the Feds ARE the ones coining money and entering in to treaties with foreign nations, so just looking at this section, the Fed can print paper money....

... but (EDITED) the states can't call anything but gold and silver legal tender, but the Fed can declare that it is. Interestingly enough this IMPLIES that the states could individually allow for a gold standard, since they aren't prohibited from calling gold or silver legal tender. Not that this would likely have any effect on anything, since they'd also be required to accept the federal fiat money anyways, but it might be amusing for somebody to try.

[Tellenta]

With the gold standard there is the whole constitution thing.

Section. 10.No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Either the constitution is BS or the dollar illegal, why fuck about with details.

Actually the Fed can print dollars all it wants, but this DOES imply that the States owe debts in gold and silver anyways. One would imagine this implies the Fed would be using Gold, but this Section doesn't apply to the federal govt, obviously, since the Feds ARE the ones coining money and entering in to treaties with foreign nations, so just looking at this section, the Fed can print paper money, but the state Govts. themselves must render debts in gold. Which is mildly amusing.

I think what it is saying is that states ca not coin a currency so if they do not wish to deal in federal mint currency they must deal in precious metals. Along with being unable to act independently in regards to foreign powers or declaring monarchs of course. Either way the more I read it and the more I look up it looks like it is intended to limit the power of states. For example states can not do this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Wickham

[Tyrus Tenebros]

With the gold standard there is the whole constitution thing.

Section. 10.No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Either the constitution is BS or the dollar illegal, why fuck about with details.

Actually the Fed can print dollars all it wants, but this DOES imply that the States owe debts in gold and silver anyways. One would imagine this implies the Fed would be using Gold, but this Section doesn't apply to the federal govt, obviously, since the Feds ARE the ones coining money and entering in to treaties with foreign nations, so just looking at this section, the Fed can print paper money, but the state Govts. themselves must render debts in gold. Which is mildly amusing.

I think what it is saying is that states ca not coin a currency so if they do not wish to deal in federal mint currency they must deal in precious metals. Along with being unable to act independently in regards to foreign powers or declaring monarchs of course. Either way the more I read it and the more I look up it looks like it is intended to limit the power of states. For example states can not do this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Wickham

I edited my post to say basically the same thing that because I read the section a second time. It's not so much that the States MUST render in gold and silver by implication, only that if they are to choose to use a standard, it is restricted to gold and silver.

edit: and yes, your interpretation is correct, its a limiting clause on the powers of the states, which is necessary because another clause grants TO the state those powers not specifically enumerated to the Federal Govt.

[fffuuu]

That and military personnel can disobey a command if they feel it is unconstitutional. Repercussions upon review of course, however it doesn't work the other way around. For example the Army is no longer allowed to be used in a law enforcement manner. As an example the 82nd airborne was deployed to New Orleans as disaster relief, and there was an actual question on whether or not it was a legal action and what they could or could not do. Disaster relief and law enforcement help is the realm of the national guard.

if I may correct you. Military personnel can (must?) disobey Illegal orders, not necessarily non-constitutional ones. Military personnel have curtailed rights while serving in uniform. Freedom of speech/press/assembly, for example, they are not allowed to campaign for political candidates while in uniform, or do so on behalf the Armed forces. also no fourth and fifth amendment rights, sixth amendment is covered by the UCMJ, (trials must be speedy but not necessarily public).

EDIT: IANAL or JAG

[Tyrus Tenebros]

That and military personnel can disobey a command if they feel it is unconstitutional. Repercussions upon review of course, however it doesn't work the other way around. For example the Army is no longer allowed to be used in a law enforcement manner. As an example the 82nd airborne was deployed to New Orleans as disaster relief, and there was an actual question on whether or not it was a legal action and what they could or could not do. Disaster relief and law enforcement help is the realm of the national guard.

if I may correct you. Military personnel can (must?) disobey Illegal orders, not necessarily non-constitutional ones. Military personnel have curtailed rights while serving in uniform. Freedom of speech/press/assembly, for example, they are not allowed to campaign for political candidates while in uniform, or do so on behalf the Armed forces. also no fourth and fifth amendment rights, sixth amendment is covered by the UCMJ, (trials must be speedy but not necessarily public).

EDIT: IANAL or JAG

Can confirm that the wording is illegal, not unconstitutional. Although an unconstitutional order is by definition illegal so technically your statement was correct anyways :P

[Tellenta]

With the gold standard there is the whole constitution thing.

Section. 10.No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Either the constitution is BS or the dollar illegal, why fuck about with details.

Actually the Fed can print dollars all it wants, but this DOES imply that the States owe debts in gold and silver anyways. One would imagine this implies the Fed would be using Gold, but this Section doesn't apply to the federal govt, obviously, since the Feds ARE the ones coining money and entering in to treaties with foreign nations, so just looking at this section, the Fed can print paper money, but the state Govts. themselves must render debts in gold. Which is mildly amusing.

I think what it is saying is that states ca not coin a currency so if they do not wish to deal in federal mint currency they must deal in precious metals. Along with being unable to act independently in regards to foreign powers or declaring monarchs of course. Either way the more I read it and the more I look up it looks like it is intended to limit the power of states. For example states can not do this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_Wickham

I edited my post to say basically the same thing that because I read the section a second time. It's not so much that the States MUST render in gold and silver by implication, only that if they are to choose to use a standard, it is restricted to gold and silver.

edit: and yes, your interpretation is correct, its a limiting clause on the powers of the states, which is necessary because another clause grants TO the state those powers not specifically enumerated to the Federal Govt.

So now that two reasonable people have looked at the constitutional amendment looked shit up and came to the same conclusion that the amendment is a limitation of state powers not federal powers this solves the whole discussion right? Sadly no, people will only see the requirement of gold and silver and assume that it was meant to encompass everything despite the qualifier of "state". They will continue to read in to it what they want to read and spout it whenever they feel it is a good point. My fucking country I swear to god....

[Tyrus Tenebros]

To really lay the argument to rest, Article 1 Section 9 is the restrictions on Congress (Federal)

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html

And though it mentions money only leaving the treasury based on appropriations law, it does not specify a type of currency

And article 8

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

grants them the power to coin the money without specifying what materials should be used to do so.

Now let's talk about the legality of Income Tax (lol)

[Tellenta]

That and military personnel can disobey a command if they feel it is unconstitutional. Repercussions upon review of course, however it doesn't work the other way around. For example the Army is no longer allowed to be used in a law enforcement manner. As an example the 82nd airborne was deployed to New Orleans as disaster relief, and there was an actual question on whether or not it was a legal action and what they could or could not do. Disaster relief and law enforcement help is the realm of the national guard.

if I may correct you. Military personnel can (must?) disobey Illegal orders, not necessarily non-constitutional ones. Military personnel have curtailed rights while serving in uniform. Freedom of speech/press/assembly, for example, they are not allowed to campaign for political candidates while in uniform, or do so on behalf the Armed forces. also no fourth and fifth amendment rights, sixth amendment is covered by the UCMJ, (trials must be speedy but not necessarily public).

EDIT: IANAL or JAG

a non-constitutional order is by definition illegal. However yes you are right on that point, was working from memory and not from reference. However an illegal order changes according to the current rules of engagement or internal army regulations in regards to inter personnel regulations. As in an officer can no longer order the summary execution of an enlisted man no matter how high of rank he holds.

[Tellenta]

Now let's talk about the legality of Income Tax (lol)

God dammit

[Herschel Yamamoto]

Herschel, you fail to resopnd to my post, I'll stop weeping soon but in the mean time could you please explain how your country fails to uphold section ten of article One of it's constition.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Evry member of the millitary has made an oath to defend this constitution, yet breaks it with every dollar they earn and spend, how does this make sense?

This has already been answered several times, but since you poked me specifically I'll respond specifically.

1) I'm not actually American(though I'm familiar enough with American con law to answer anyways)

2) Which post was it that I didn't reply to? I must have skimmed it, I try to answer every question asked of me by people of sound mind and good faith(i.e., not Lusu or Don).

3) As said above, it's the distinction between states and the federal government. Several of the powers specifically prohibited to the states by I/10 are specifically granted to Congress by I/8, and many of them were powers that Congress had already used, even under the vastly weaker Articles of Confederation, or under wartime rule prior to their ratification(specifically, issuing paper money, issuing letters of marque, and making treaties). The other prohibitions are rule of law stuff(ex post facto, bill of attainder, etc.) that Congress is also prohibited, but that's not what's at issue here.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that American jurisprudence since 1937 has been pretty blatantly tainted by FDR's threat to pack the Supreme Court, and the resultant approval of some pretty obviously unconstitutional laws. Some of that's been drawn back over the years, but there's still a pretty significant part of the American legal community that seems to believe that any bill can be necessary and proper for regulating interstate commerce unless it specifically violates one of Amendments 1, 3-8, 13, or 24. I regard that as a pretty tortured reading designed specifically to allow the Court to not need to overturn yet more laws passed in a crisis by a popular President, but it's got 75 years of stare decisis behind it now, and a truly immense amount of legislative power has been run through that channel, so it's not going away any time soon. And of course, even if the Court did overturn Social Security and Medicare, the amendment re-allowing them would pass again a week later, so it wouldn't mean much in reality. (Though that'd still be kind of nice, because it'd mean that there would be an actual set of rules on the books for what's allowed and what's not, but I'm not holding my breath).

The distinction between the states and the federal government is hardly a fucking loophole.

It is when the framers didn't seems to envisage a federal government of any serious power. The intent was a union of states, not states subserviant to a federal power. Clinging on to this myth of freedom and democracy in a plutocracy that could almost define the word is madness.

Actually, your history is questionable. Certainly they never envisioned a federal government as powerful as the one that exists today, but the whole purpose of the Constitution was to allow for a more powerful central government, instead of the almost EU-like construction they'd had previously. Compare the Constitution to the Articles, and it's pretty clear that Madison's purpose was to centralize power and make it easier to use. Not infinitely so, of course - there's still plenty of balance-of-powers roadblocks in there - but far more than it had been previously.

Now let's talk about the legality of Income Tax (lol)

Yeah, there's another set of tortured readings. At least when the Supreme Court figures out a way around I/8, they do it in a way that's vaguely plausible and rather intellectual. Trying to watch a tax protester wriggle out of the 16th Amendment is just pathetic.

[lucian]

Now let's talk about the legality of Income Tax (lol)

God dammit

It's not legal under the original articles...which is why they passed the 16th amendment legalizing it.

But you probably knew that...just wish the right wing crazies like Wesley Snipes and the Ruby Ridge folks would stop treating the constitution like a god damn salad bar where you get to only take the parts you like, and toss the rest back. If you're going the to support the second amendment, you need to support the 14th, 15th, and 16th too.