IRS legally kicked in the gonads...

[K Frame]

Loopholes?

In the Constitution???!!!???

Heaven fofend!

What does that tell us, then, about the Framers?

Possibly that they were a huge pack of asshats who couldn't get their heads out of their rectums long enough to see the horrific malaise that their Constitution would bring upon the United States?

Or perhaps very intelligent men, many of whom were trained attorneys, who knew the value, validity, and even necessity of loopholes?

While in some ways I agree with the abrogational desires of some posters on a number of topics, I often wonder if their view of the ultra strict, ultra restrictive interpretation of the Constitution isn't in its own way just as dangerous and as destructive as those who view the Constitution as license to do just about anything at all.

The Founders included a number of mechanisms by which laws and powers granted to the Central government could grow. I just find it very hard to believe that much of this wasn't intentional on their parts.

[Len Budney]

Loopholes? In the Constitution???!!!??? Heaven fofend!

Have you read the Federalist Papers? Hamilton specifically denied that either of those clauses could be used to expand federal powers. He personally then attempted to use them to expand federal powers.

Possibly that they were a huge pack of asshats...

Most of them didn't intend for their words to be misconstrued as they later were. A few federalists like Hamilton intended to misconstrue them, because they specifically wanted a strong central government to subvert the authority of the states--which is why they discarded the Articles of Confederation, contrary to the explicit instructions given them by their respective state legislatures. Honestly, have you studied the history here?

...who couldn't get their heads out of their rectums long enough to see the horrific malaise that their Constitution would bring upon the United States?

They predicted it in great detail in the federalist papers, among other primary sources. They even predicted, e.g., the abuse of the general welfare clause--although Hamilton hastened to dismiss that concern. Heads up their rumps? Not half. They were practically prophetic.

Or perhaps very intelligent men, many of whom were trained attorneys, who knew the value, validity, and even necessity of loopholes?

Not according to their own words. Give them a read sometime.

--Len.

[Creeping Incrementalism]

They predicted it in great detail in the federalist papers, among other primary sources. They even predicted, e.g., the abuse of the general welfare clause--although Hamilton hastened to dismiss that concern. Heads up their rumps? Not half. They were practically prophetic.

If they foresaw "abuse" of the general welfare clause, I would say that would mean that organizations such as the Fed are legal, and the founders recognized the legal use of this clause could lead to big/more powerful gov't than they liked, but the Fed is still legal.

I think they understood the limitation that a constitution, to be workable at all as the supreme law of the land with day-to-day laws working under it, has to have room for expansion of these day-to-day laws that can legally lead to big/powerful government if the people so desire, as long as it doesn't violate the human and civil rights laid out in the Bill of Rights.

I don't know if there is any other way to do it.  Either you have a static constitution that falls completely apart as times change, or you have one that maintains civil & human rights and the split powers of governments, but can still grow very large.  Maybe a constitutional amendment that limits gov't spending as a percentage of GDP except in time of declared war, and bans a few specific things like welfare, would do it.  But those ideas weren't around back then, and they didn't think to use them to limit gov't power, even if they might have if they could have seen the future.

[Len Budney]

They predicted it in great detail in the federalist papers, among other primary sources. They even predicted, e.g., the abuse of the general welfare clause--although Hamilton hastened to dismiss that concern. Heads up their rumps? Not half. They were practically prophetic.

If they foresaw "abuse" of the general welfare clause, I would say that would mean that organizations such as the Fed are legal, and the founders recognized the legal use of this clause could lead to big/more powerful gov't than they liked, but the Fed is still legal.

You mean, when they said "Nobody could be so malign, venal or stupid to do the following..." they really meant, "We fully intend for our successors to do the following, wink wink, nudge nudge"?

If so, the revolution ended too early. Hopefully next time around we won't make that mistake, and the Hamiltons of that future time will get the cigarette and blindfold before they can do much damage.

--Len.

[Perd Hapley]

I would prefer to see the IRS illegally kicked in the gonads.  Who's with me? 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

They predicted it in great detail in the federalist papers, among other primary sources. They even predicted, e.g., the abuse of the general welfare clause--although Hamilton hastened to dismiss that concern. Heads up their rumps? Not half. They were practically prophetic.

If they foresaw "abuse" of the general welfare clause, I would say that would mean that organizations such as the Fed are legal, and the founders recognized the legal use of this clause could lead to big/more powerful gov't than they liked, but the Fed is still legal.

You mean, when they said "Nobody could be so malign, venal or stupid to do the following..." they really meant, "We fully intend for our successors to do the following, wink wink, nudge nudge"?

No, they meant "Nobody will hopefully be that dumb, but it might happen anyway."  Because I don't think there was any other way to write the constitution.

I would prefer to see the IRS illegally kicked in the gonads.  Who's with me? 

I'd rather see them turn their attention to employers who pay illegals under the table, and don't contribute to payroll taxes.  Other than getting rid of them and the income tax completely.

[richyoung]

"The Constitution gives them the authority, and doesn't give them the power to delegate that authority."

You know, reading through the powers that the Constitution grants to Congress, one finds this little tidbit...

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers...

Interesting.

One looks that phrase, taken straight from the Constitution, and then compares it to what Congress did when it passed the Federal Reserve Act in 1913...

Seems to be a perfectly Constitutional exercise of a power granted to Congress by the Constitution.

A LAW cannot alter the CONSTITUTION, which is the supreme law of the land, nor can it change ANYTHING IN IT.  ONLY a constitutional convention or an amendment can do that.  Because the CONSTITUTION demands that Congress coin the money, and that the States make only gold and silver coin "legal money" (and not coin money), the Congress has to do that, or pass an amendment.  (At least, thats my high school civics understanding - that if a law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution wins...).  Can you refer me to ANY such passed amendment?

Didn;t think so.

On the other hand, if laws CAN trump the Constitution, what, in your opinion, is stopping Congress from simply changing their terms of office to "life"?

[richyoung]

I would prefer to see the IRS illegally kicked in the gonads.  Who's with me? 

What he said, plus 10,, with mink lined permium corinthian leather carrying case with gold handles....

[K Frame]

"Have you read the Federalist Papers? Hamilton specifically denied that either of those clauses could be used to expand federal powers. He personally then attempted to use them to expand federal powers."

Yes, I have read the Federalist Papers.

Nice collection of essays, but they legal documents of governance.... how?

Oh, wait, they're not.

They're individuals who are giving their own PERSONAL viewpoint on how the Constitution should, and should not, be applied.

Notice I say should, not would.

Why?

Because the very men who framed the document, and included the bill of rights into it, immediately set out to find ways to bypass it when it was inconvenient.

These "immortal Gods of marble magnificance" set their own precedents for using those little loopholes and, in some cases, passed laws directly contrary to the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights within years of them being ratified. Odd how you'd claim that they were virtual prophets, but that they did absolutely NOTHING to close down those very loopholes and prevent the very thing that they predicted. As I said, that's a very firm indication that these men were capable of planting their heads very firmly up their asses. It always amuses me to no end when someone holds up the Founders/Framers as some godhead group of imutable logic and reason. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

And it wasn't just the strong central government players who bent the Constitution to their ideals of what it should be, or what should be done...

Ever hear of Thomas Jefferson? The main advocate of small, disassociated central government?

Funny how Mr. "Small Government" jumped up and grabbed the Louisiana Purchase by interpreting the Constitition to allow that EXPANDED use of Federal power. But, maybe I'm reading a different Constitution than the one you have. I don't see any clause in there that permits the outright PURCHASE of land to add to the territorial boundaries of the United States.

Funny that you'd ask if I've studied the history here...

Of the two of us, I'm now 100% sure that I've not only studied the history of these events, I'm the one who actually UNDERSTANDS what the Framers did in drafting the Constitution and how they later applied the loopholes that they INTENTIONALLY crafted into the document.

[K Frame]

"A LAW cannot alter the CONSTITUTION, which is the supreme law of the land, nor can it change ANYTHING IN IT."

Please tell me where I claimed that Congress passed laws ALTERING the Constitution?

I didn't.

They used the EXISTING LANGUAGE in the Constitution, language included by the Framers, to pass laws that SUPPORTED the powers granted to the body.

That's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Or at least it shouldn't be.

Let's try this again...

Here is the SPECIFIC section of the Constitution in question:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You see that? To MAKE LAWS WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER FOR CARRYI9NG INTO EXECUTION THE FOREGOING POWERS..."

That phrase right there gives Congress the power to make a law that delegates monetary management to a body that was created in yet another law.

[richyoung]

"A LAW cannot alter the CONSTITUTION, which is the supreme law of the land, nor can it change ANYTHING IN IT."

Please tell me where I claimed that Congress passed laws ALTERING the Constitution?

I didn't.

They used the EXISTING LANGUAGE in the Constitution, language included by the Framers, to pass laws that SUPPORTED the powers granted to the body.

That's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Or at least it shouldn't be.

A LAW can not remove or change the requirement for gold and silver coinage.  Just like changing the method of electing Senators required an amendment, so would this change.  This also is not a difficult concept to grasp.

[K Frame]

Funny, I'm not addressing the concept of specie.

If you had read my messages you'd get that.

I'm talking about the concept of the Federal Reserve as a whole and whether or not that constitutes delegation of authority via a means not allowed by the Constitution, not the production method.

[Len Budney]

Nice collection of essays, but they legal documents of governance.... how? Oh, wait, they're not.

Unless you're a Jeffersonian who believes in original intent: they're irrefutable evidence of the original intent. Any judge who "interprets" the constitution contrary to the crystal clear statements of intent by its authors is a domestic enemy of the republic.

...I'm the one who actually UNDERSTANDS what the Framers did in drafting the Constitution and how they later applied the loopholes that they INTENTIONALLY crafted into the document.

You're justifying criminal behavior today by arguing that the original framers were also criminals. If you are correct, then you've merely proven that the Constitution must be scrapped and the current government abolished, to be replaced with something else. Preferably no government at all, but I'd settle for the Articles of Confederation.

However, you do Jefferson a disservice. He agonized over the Louisiana purchase, and also over acting against the Barbary pirates. You can argue that he made a mistake, but you can't argue that he cynically drafted the Constitution in order to create a strong central government under color of creating a weak one. The criminal you're after is Hamilton. I'll readily stipulate that Hamilton acted with criminal intent.

--Len.

[v35]

I'm quite aware gold and silver are worth more now than they ever have been,

Gold and silver may be worth more in US dollars than they've ever been. A good case can be made that the worth of an ounce of gold or silver has been constant while the value of the dollar has decreased. I would make the converse argument: the value of US currency is worth less now than it has ever been, thanks to out of control spending by Congress and unprecedented infusions of cash by the Fed.

but consider the Twilight Zone scenario where we figure out a way to synthesize an effective substitute for either, and there goes the value. 

Gold and silver are elements. Synthesizing elements from other substances would entail precise manipulation of subatomic particles. IANAP (I am not a physicist)  but it seems to me that nothing short of atomic fusion would be required. Even if that could be accomplished, the energy requirements would likely exceed the value of the synthesized product. Still, if it were possible to synthesize any element you wanted I think it would be a lot more fun to synthesize food, shelter, companionship, entertainment, fast cars and gas to power them, eliminating the need for money altogether. Kinda like Second Life without Linden Dollars.

Jesus may have turned water into wine. Until He returns we'll have to settle for what gold and silver is already around.

Our ratty paper greenbacks would work just fine if they'd just stop printing billions more of them every time they felt like it.

Totally correct! Unfortunately no civilization in the entire history of mankind using fiat currency has ever been able to resist the enormous urge to print more of it, ultimately resulting in what ought now to be the predictable cycle of hyperinflation, devaluation, and collapse. Tell me what mystical qualities Americans have that makes us immune to this inexorable path.

[Brad Johnson]

Unfortunately no civilization in the entire history of mankind using fiat currency has ever been able to resist the enormous urge to print more of it, ultimately resulting in what ought now to be the predictable cycle of hyperinflation, devaluation, and collapse.

So what you're saying is that the fed prints money on a whim and throws it into circulation just because they can?  You really should study up on U.S. monetary policy.

Brad

[WeedWhacker]

So what you're saying is that the fed prints money on a whim and throws it into circulation just because they can?  You really should study up on U.S. monetary policy.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of the Fed? I can't speak for their motivation...

As for what they're doing, let's look at two historical US coins. The first is a 1964 half dollar, the last year they were minted in a 10/90% copper/silver alloy. The face value of the half-dollar is (carry the one...) fifty cents. The spot price of the ~0.35oz of silver in the coin is roughly five dollars, which shows a more than 90% debasement of the dollar's value since 1964. Pick any other year and while the percentage may be lower, it will still show a huge downward trend.

The second coin would be a 1913 gold half-eagle. Face value of five bucks, gold content of ~0.26oz. At a spot price of around $200 for the gold content, that's over a 97% debasement of the dollar since the introduction of a central bank.

What amount of "good" could possibly justify an organization which has stolen 97% of the value of every dollar since its inception?

-edit
speeling

[WeedWhacker]

As for the original post, the articles seem to indicate that this case was not an actual victory for anyone; not the IRS, but not for the Nevada business, either.

No criminal charges stuck, but that was because the jury found no intent to break laws. There was no precident set to allow this or any other business to pay employees with US legal tender in gold coins, and pay taxes on the face value.

This is really a B.S. copout, as this case really should have forced the IRS' hand in either acknowledging the tremendous devaluation of the dollar and cause the US Mint to mark their coins appropriately, or to allow gold money to make a comeback.

[K Frame]

"but you can't argue that he cynically drafted the Constitution..."

Anyone who argues that Jefferson drafted the Constitution is a moron.

He was in France when it was drafted.


"Unless you're a Jeffersonian who believes in original intent: they're irrefutable evidence of the original intent."

Actually, they're TWO men's interpretation of the original intent of the Federalists. Not all of the Federalists were lockstep behind Hamilton and Madison in their interpretations of what the Constitution was, or would be.

If one tries to argue strict Federalist intent based on the essays of these two men alone, the Bill of Rights is completely out the window because it was NOT original intent. Madison saw no need for a specific Bill of Rights, and in fact stridently argued against it, and only later agreeing to it as a political expediency to ensure passage of the Constitution.

"However, you do Jefferson a disservice. He agonized over the Louisiana purchase..."

Oh really? I know not. Jefferson's only reason for "agonizing" over the Louisiana purchase was because it would come perilously close to using up all of the spare cash of the Federal government. In fact, it required the United States to borrow money from Great Britain. When presented with the opportunity to purchase the territory he didn't spend any time agonizing whether the Federal purchase of the territory would be contrary to the Constitution. At best he was worried not about Constitutional issues but of issues of his own personal standing inside the party that he was leading. Mr. "Agrarianism, no National Bank, and Small Government" didn't waste any time at all exercising power that the Constitution didn't give him to do what the Constitution didn't specifically say he could do and thereby broadly expanding the scope of power of the Federal Goverment that he so clearly feared and despised.  Given Jefferson's adherence to the principles of the Age of Enlightenment and his personal interests, I think an excellent case can be made in claiming that Jefferson was more enamored with the opportunity for new discoveries in the largely unexplored west.

"Any judge who "interprets" the constitution contrary to the crystal clear statements of intent by its authors is a domestic enemy of the republic."

So, when are you going to gain the courage to cast of the shackles of oppressive government and free all of us from our bondage? Come on, Pol Pot, we NEED you...

[Len Budney]

"However, you do Jefferson a disservice. He agonized over the Louisiana purchase..."

Oh really? I know not. Jefferson's only reason for "agonizing" over the Louisiana purchase was because it would come perilously close to using up all of the spare cash of the Federal government...

That's funny. Jefferson personally said the opposite in a letter to Wilson Cary Nicholas dated September 7, 1803. There he states clearly that he felt the purchase exceeded constitutional authority, and required an amendment. He decided in the end to do it anyway, but that's a far cry from the picture you paint in which his only concern was coming up with funds.

"Any judge who "interprets" the constitution contrary to the crystal clear statements of intent by its authors is a domestic enemy of the republic."

So, when are you going to gain the courage to cast of the shackles of oppressive government and free all of us from our bondage? Come on, Pol Pot, we NEED you...

I have no interest in freeing you or anyone else. You're going to have to free yourself, or continue in slavery. The majority will choose the latter. Pathetically, many of them will do so while self-righteously declaring themselves free.

--Len.