🚀 go-pugleaf

jgadams@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) wrote:

> Bill Watts <wwatts@nothinbut.net> wrote:

>> jgadams@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph G. Adams) wrote:

>>> Bill Watts <wwatts@nothinbut.net> wrote:

>>>> Individual liberty as guaranteed in our constitution sets forth the
>>>> right for me to live how I wish so long as it does not interfere with
>>>> your, or anyone else's rights to do the same. 

>>> This is surely wrong.

>> Surely I wish it was.

>>> A number of Constitutional provisions empower Congress to restrict
>>> your liberty, even if you aren't interfering with anyone else.

>>> For example, Art. I, s. 8 allows Congress to impose taxes, regulate
>>> interstate commerce, and raise armies.  All of these powers may 
>>> infringe on your right to live the way that you wish.

>> Neither of which require, even in the most extreme circumstances, a
>> current tax rate of >%60 and most assuredly not a future promised >82%
>> tax rate to sustain.

> But neither do they prohibit it.  Your claim was that the Constitution
> prohibits restrictions on your liberty to the extent that it doesn't
> interfere with others.  You haven't located that right convincingly
> in the Constitution.

Do I, or do I not have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness? I guess, by your reasoning, since it's not explicitly
listed in the constitution then I don't. Do I, or do I not have the
right to labor and provide for me and my families needs? Oops, sorry
that not explicitly listed in the constitution either. Is not the
confiscation of my productivity and property infringing upon most, if
not all of these rights? Damn, there I go again assuming I have any
rights not explicitly written in the constitution. Forgive me. It's
wrong and your wrong Adams, all wrong. How can one accept this tyranny
and claim that is because it was not specified in the constitution?
Omissions surely were not intended to be construed permission in the
favor of the government. On the other hand it was assumed that We the
people would be eternally vigilant and stand up to these encroachments
on our liberty. The individual is the final and ultimate interpreter
and protector of liberty. Not the courts. They are here to serve WE
the people. But when they have rendered utterly pathetic rulings such
as the Bennis decision then I have all the proof I need to convince me
that we have become a nation of men, make that corrupted men, and not
law.

>> Furthermore I submit as proof that the intentions of the founding
>> father has been perverted in the context of taxation; the writings of
>> the founding fathers views on taxes as documented in the Federalist
>> Papers:

> Who cares?  If they really cared about this matter, they'd have put
> a limitation in the Constitution.  They didn't.  The Constitution
> was ratified; the various writings of the Founders were not, and they
> are not the law.

The intent of the legislators IS the law. The constitution means
nothing without the understanding of the intent. And to this point
their writings, such as the Federalist papers and the Declaration of
Independence, that express their intent supersede mere status of
ratified law. In any other exercise of the law, intent is primary to
the construction of motive. And any evidence pertaining to intent
and/or motive would and must be permitted on that basis and that basis
alone.  Intent is the spirit and essence of the law. And it is this
spirit that is being violated on the grossest scale yet imaginable.
And any court that would ignore or deny any such documents and facts
is therefore unconstitutional.  Without understanding, either
intentionally or otherwise, the intent and spirit of the law than the
constitution isn't worth the paper it was written on. On the contrary
Mr Adams they did put a very big limitation in the constitution, it's
called: "general welfare." And if our government at present was
limited to protecting just our "general welfare" then the assault on
our productivity, ipso facto, would then be non existent in that it
would be sufficiently sustained by excises, duties and imposts. Now
Mr. Adams, since the term "general welfare" is not defined in the
constitution, where can one go to find out what the term meant? Do you
contend that such terms where arbitrarily chosen with no regards to
there exact and specific meaning? The answer is in their writings. Why
did they go through the effort of documenting their arguments and
debates? Would it not be for the purpose of setting the foundation of
principles and future interpretations?  So are we stuck with your
courts and legislators arbitrary Simon say's or didn't say perversions
of the intent? Worse yet at our expense? Face it Adams, it's all
coming to an end. Feel free to cling to the corrupted courts and there
rulings. I hope they have promised you the life style to which you
wish to become accustomed for they surely offer no hope or relief for
me and my family, if not altogether the countries future. 

Bill Watts

Statutes levying taxes should be construed, in case of
doubt, against the government and in favor of the citizen.

Miller v. Gearoing, 258 F. 225

Harry Browne for President
http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/