Originally posted by whodey My point is that whether they be laws that are being usurped or whether it be the Constitution, it matters little to the statist.
Case in point regarding the Constitution is a friend of mine who works outside the city limits. The city decided to put to a vote whether or not a tax levy should be imposed to raise revenue for the city. My friend wanted to ...[text shortened]... ng as agendas are placed in front of the very document that was designed to insure our freedoms.
By that logic any state sales tax would be unconstitutional because an out of state tourist would have to pay that but they can't vote for it.
What kind of tax was this in any case?
Also, did the levy get passed by one vote? If not, then it didn't go through just because he couldn't vote.
Originally posted by whodey Case in point regarding the Constitution is a friend of mine who works outside the city limits. The city decided to put to a vote whether or not a tax levy should be imposed to raise revenue for the city. My friend wanted to vote because it effected him directly simply because his job was located inside the city limits and, therefore, would be paying the ta ...[text shortened]... Clearly this is taxation without representation and is a direct violation of the Constitution.
I don't get it. How is the Constitution stopping your friend from finding a job in a different city?
Originally posted by whodey My point is that whether they be laws that are being usurped or whether it be the Constitution, it matters little to the statist.
Case in point regarding the Constitution is a friend of mine who works outside the city limits. The city decided to put to a vote whether or not a tax levy should be imposed to raise revenue for the city. My friend wanted to ...[text shortened]... ng as agendas are placed in front of the very document that was designed to insure our freedoms.
Hell Whodey, since 1913 there is federal taxation without representation. You know what I mean there. When congress asked where the money went, they said they wouldn't say. If the federal reserve system doesn't answer to anybody, then there is no representation. Am I wrong?
Originally posted by sh76 The Constitution does not guarantee no taxation without representation. Sufferage based on geography of your residency is at least as old as the United States. I don't see a problem with charging you a tax when you knowingly direct an activity towards a jurisdiction when you don't live there. I pay Pennsylvania sales tax if I go to a Pennsylvania store even tho ...[text shortened]... in all 50 states or not allowing states to charge sales tax to residents of other states.
😳
Woops, my bad. Albiet, taxation without representation is why the United States was founded in the first place.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn [b]By that logic any state sales tax would be unconstitutional because an out of state tourist would have to pay that but they can't vote for it.
I would say that being a tourist is far different from living and working in a local area.
Originally posted by FMF I don't get it. How is the Constitution stopping your friend from finding a job in a different city?
Generally speaking the vast majority of jobs are found within the city limits. I suppose you could argue that he still could find another line of work.
Originally posted by joe beyser Hell Whodey, since 1913 there is federal taxation without representation. You know what I mean there. When congress asked where the money went, they said they wouldn't say. If the federal reserve system doesn't answer to anybody, then there is no representation. Am I wrong?
But who cares? I mean, it isn't even unconstitutional apparently.
I do kind of scratch my head as to why this was not included in the Constitution. After all, it is one of the major reasons they declared independence.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn Also, did the levy get passed by one vote? If not, then it didn't go through just because he couldn't vote.[/b]
The levy passed by about a couple of hundred votes. Of course, the politicians threatened a large number of state jobs if the levy did not pass. The ones targeted where police and fire fighters which are the services people desire the most. So essentially, they coerced the citizens in a way to pay up or else!! Once again, they had an agenda that superceeded any ethical means to achieve their objectives.
Typically, those who live in the city limits vote for those who continue to raise taxes. The reason being is that those who live in the city depend on the government to maintain infrustructure. Of course, those who live outside the city are not as dependent on the government and typically just want to be left alone. As a result, it would behoove the politicians in the city to shune outsiders who live in teh suburbs from such matters so as to continue to raise revenue even though they are taxing those who work in the city.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn Do you think working somewhere should give you the right to vote there?[/b]
In a way yes. After all, you live a large part of your life where you work so what is the diff? Granted, it is not where you lay your head at night but you do live there in a way.
Originally posted by whodey I suppose you could argue that he still could find another line of work.
Only if you interpret your Consitition as allowing it. Do you think he's allowed to? You seem to think the Constitution says he can work in a city without paying for the services that are provided to people there. If he wants to vote on issues laid before city residents why doesn't he move inside the city limits and become a resident? Which part of the Constitution do you think says that working somewhere should give you the right to vote there alongside the people who live there? I thought you were against creative and presumptious interpretation of the Constitution?
Originally posted by whodey In a way yes. After all, you live a large part of your life where you work so what is the diff? Granted, it is not where you lay your head at night but you do live there in a way.
I guess I'm curious where you'd draw the line? How much time do you have to spend in order to earn the right to vote there?
Originally posted by sh76 Then I would say that I don't want to be disrespectful to a man dying of brain cancer. 😉
What is there to really say about him? I didn't like his politics. I didn't like the sanctimonious way he spoke much of the time. His hypocrisy on the issue of the Nantucket Sound wind farm was mind-numbing. I don't think that being elected to the Senate from Massachuss ...[text shortened]... oves to do this sort of thing, I'm not going to canonize him just because he's dead.
Your comments show your ignorance of who the man really was. i wonder how many people will line the streets for orin hatch or kay baily Hutchison. A pitiful handful at best. Teddy may have made some mistakes, but who hasn't? The difference is he lived in the shadow of two Giant men...his brothers. On the balance I think he did well, especially after he gave up the booze.
Originally posted by duecer Your comments show your ignorance of who the man really was. i wonder how many people will line the streets for orin hatch or kay baily Hutchison. A pitiful handful at best. Teddy may have made some mistakes, but who hasn't? The difference is he lived in the shadow of two Giant men...his brothers. On the balance I think he did well, especially after he gave up the booze.
With all due respect, you don't have a clue as to whether I'm ignorant on a particular subject. I'm sure many people like him. I don't. Why you assume this makes me somehow ignorant is beyond me. Or, is anyone who doesn't share your opinion inherently ignorant?
Originally posted by PsychoPawn I guess I'm curious where you'd draw the line? How much time do you have to spend in order to earn the right to vote there?
Since the Constitution does not seem to spell out that taxation without representation then it should not be enforced unless added to the Constitution. So in this sense I seem to have used a poor example, As for my feeling on the matter, however, there is equity in taxation with representation and I think if it were added to the Constitution it would send cold shivers up the spines of those that are statists.
Having said that, we must ask the following questions. If words and their meaning can be manipulated or ignored to advance the Statist's political and policy preferences, what then binds allegiance to the Statist words? Why should todays law bind future generations if yesterday's law does not bind this generation? THis more or less sums up what I have been trying to convey.
Kennedy
28 Aug '09 02:43
Back to Top