#6 Okay, so now each country will have to negotiate 51 treaties for say NATO. That was one of the big problems with the Articles of Confederation.

As to the commerce clause, if you do what you want and make commerce a 1780's model, the USA will be overrun by the yellow hoard within a year. Better practice your Mandarin.

As to Marbury vs. Madison (1803), if that isn't there, then there is no constitution as it does not name who gets to decide what it means. War between the states?!
<ed>MK you talked about an "all" in another post about DIXIE and now you advocate war between the states, I left wondering about you. Is it ignorance or not being able to see consequence or Antebellum Tradition?

---

Marbury vs. Madison (1803),

Thank you for that. That was a good reference point
to help me understand that issue much better now.

---

#6 Okay, so now each country will have to negotiate 51 treaties for say NATO.

Prohibited explicitly by Article I Section 10 of the Constitution. Your example is without much merit with an isolationist foreign policy.

That was one of the big problems with the Articles of Confederation.

No... The big problems with the Articles of Confederation were lack of an executive and lack of taxation authority by the 'national' government.

As to the commerce clause, if you do what you want and make commerce a 1780's model, the USA will be overrun by the <REDACTED> within a year. Better practice your Mandarin.

你很搞笑 (Nǐ hěn gǎoxiào). As to the term you used that I redacted... Isn't that term somewhat racist?

As to Marbury vs. Madison (1803), if that isn't there, then there is no constitution as it does not name who gets to decide what it means.

Not true. Per the 10th Amendment, it belongs to the States themselves.

War between the states?!

Not true. Prohibited by Article I Section 10 of the Constitution.

<ed>MK you talked about an "all" in another post about DIXIE and now you advocate war between the states, I left wondering about you. Is it ignorance or not being able to see consequence or Antebellum Tradition?

I do not advocate 'war between the States'. What I do advocate is as follows.

1. The democratic right of self-determination.
2. The philosophy that the best Government is one that is as local as possible.
3. The philosophy that the best Government is one that is as 'small' as possible.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

WikiLeaks dump in two days. LOL

Who's gonna go bye bye...

---

...

Love your prohibition. Sure didn't stop it from happening the first time. Won't stop it the second either. Especially if there isn't a place to take the dispute. That leaves guns as the dispute resolution tactic. You see how well that is working already. Be thankful for Marbury vs. Madison (1803). Not including that was an oversight by the founders, but they are human.

As to your order of law, no foreign government will enter a treaty if some dingbat in a state can override it. Not going to happen. So each State will have to sign on. Article I Section 10 will have to go away or there will be no treaties, and I doubt many countries will bother trying to get 51 signatures.

With no treaties there won't even be a way for currency to be exchanged. Your 1870's model of a ship pulling up to the dock an the captain selling the hold empty in exchange for gold bars won't work. Maybe fly an airplane full of cash or gold bars? Nope. Can't fly without treaties on airspace and treaties on radio frequencies.

I understand the appeal. The reality of 1870's when the document was written and the reality of trade today can't be swept under the rug with nostalgia. As trade today depends on treaties they must be supreme over some fruitcake state government. Money will not be risked on the whims of some fruitcake to not upset the deal. The only way that happens is 51 sign or the Federal right of treaties is supreme to any state right. The founders realized that.

BUT Article I Section 10 puts the Federal right of Treaty ahead of any State right, and the tenth Amendment by its explicit delegation mention solidifies that. So now treaties are ahead of states in your order of power. And since the Federal government is the only one empowered to execute treaties, if treaties are ahead of states, the federal government must also be ahead of states. Sorry about that, but even the founders realized it.

If you want to argue that only entry into treaty was prohibited but not abrogation, you have a lot of convincing to do.

Absent that argument to abrogate, since the 1870's states are second class to the Feds and the tenth amendment solidified it. After all the Feds can enter into a treaty on any matter and thus force the states to do their bidding on anything not explicitly mentioned. They may even be able to enter into a treaty over matters expressly left to the states. SCOTUS would have to rule on that, but you just took Marbury vs. Madison (1803) away so they can't. Now what? a duel?

Now your isolationism will tank the US economy. You have repealed the income tax, the only tax left would be excise taxes on imports. Oh wait, a sin tax on booze, no, you just undid the commerce clause so it can't be taxed. Federal property tax?<ed>Well then the Feds would have to register property titles!

Now as to that commerce clause, I know you hate the word "made." I suspect you think it reads "assembled" but not "incorporated." Well it doesn't. And since damn near everything that isn't a farm product has some rare earth from China incorporated in it, damn near everything passed in foreign commerce.

If you want to change "made" to "assembled" and put a more than 10% (weight? volume? value?) requirement to have it kick in, well wait till the crooks begin to cheat the system!

If your revision is going to require a phone book size explanation on how to implement it, perhaps it is best left to regulation. You don't want to end up with a California Constitution.

---

Here it seems like that most U.S. citizens want their states to go independent whilst over here a lot would just like to do away with the extra red tape that individual state government cost us.

Cheers.

Here it seems like that most U.S. citizens want their states to go independent whilst over here a lot would just like to do away with the extra red tape that individual state government cost us.

Cheers.

Har you will believe anything mate.

More... more...

R0TLMA0!!

---

...

Ah hah, more comedy to keep me entertained. :-D

Cheers.

In addition...

Whenever you hear the phrase "American exceptionalism," most people don't know what that means. Our "exception" in history was that we flipped the norm. We empowered "the people" over our government. There are countless examples in world history (and in current world events) in which the results are poverty, tyranny, and overall misery when government has absolute power over the people.

Philadelphia, 1776, "...all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." The forms in which we are accustomed are deteriorating because of progressives and RINOs and we continue to allow this to happen because these incremental evils are sufferable!

Americans are no longer taught about our constitution--how it came to be--the goal which was trying to be achieved. The preamble to our constitution states, " We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, ..." it doesn't say "in order to form a *perfect*" union. We are still trying to achieve that goal--although we've been getting farther and farther away from that goal since the early 20th century because of progressives and RINOs.

A system of 50 states which can stand on their own individually makes a nation which can stand on its own. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link! Our founders knew it would remain a goal for a long time. Given human nature, some would not be able to stand on their own all the time. But allowing them to experiment individually would demonstrate what works and what doesn't work. Those who became successful would shine the light on success for those who could not stand on their own... yet. Maybe we'll never achieve this goal. Probably won't achieve this goal in my life time. But as long as a majority of states are individually strong (financially, not militarily), we are winning! A strong group of states makes a strong nation.

The tax and spend liberal keeps punishing the successful states to reward the failing states.

We know we will continue down the path of financial failure as a nation with hillary and her stupid catch phrase, "stronger together." We're hoping we at least start to get back on track in the right direction with Trump.

What a load of B/S your 50 states don't live together piecefully hence the constant talk of taking up arms against others .

If you vote Trump all that will happen is your going to go down hill even faster than you are now .

18 years no taxes .

That's smart !! crap on it's criminal and shows that what Trump is a selfish criminal .

A smart business man can run his company and pay his taxes only a bad business man needs to rort the tax system to make money so it's not smart as Burnie Sanders said if everyone did not pay taxes you would not have a country .

But I spose the idiots who don't get it how your country has become stuffed up got that way and buy whom and you sir are one off the idiots

You can pee off too asking us to now join your Navy in the south China sea

What you that great you need our help again to start a new war and use us as the escape goat like in Syria read my lips F-off you septic tanks

Fool us once shame on you ! , you wont get another try A/h's

---

What a load of B/S your 50 states don't live together piecefully hence the constant talk of taking up arms against others .

If you vote Trump all that will happen is your going to go down hill even faster than you are now .

18 years no taxes .

That's smart !! crap on it's criminal and shows that what Trump is a selfish criminal .

A smart business man can run his company and pay his taxes only a bad business man needs to rort the tax system to make money so it's not smart as Burnie Sanders said if everyone did not pay taxes you would not have a country .

But I spose the idiots who don't get it how your country has become stuffed up got that way and buy whom and you sir are one off the idiots

You can pee off too asking us to now join your Navy in the south China sea

What you that great you need our help again to start a new war and use us as the escape goat like in Syria read my lips F-off you septic tanks

Fool us once shame on you ! , you wont get another try A/h's

Glenn,

First of all, the news article I saw on this did not say Trump DID use Net Operating Losses (NOL) to avoid paying taxes for 18 years... But that Trump COULD have done so.

Trump's $916 million net operating loss that the New York Times identified on his 1995 taxes — a loss that could have enabled him to avoid paying federal income taxes for 18 years — might have stemmed from poor business practices. For that, he would have only himself to blame.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/10/02/trump-taxes-reagan-congress-depreciation-real-estate/91433192/

Secondly, perhaps you need to understand NOLs in the USA.

https://www.irs.gov/publications/p536/ar02.html

This should help. But be mindful that Trump supposedly did this in 1995... and the above link is about NOLs in 2015... 20 years LATER.

Next, how could something be CRIMINAL if it is done according to the LAW???

Now then, one might could make a case that this might be, maybe, immoral or perhaps unethical... Maybe...

But criminal?? Nope.

The proper remedy here would be to get the 'bad' law changed, not to try to crucify those that merely followed the law.

It is hardly criminal for a businessman to follow the law in order to maximize profit. Depending on the circumstances, he might have had a fiduciary duty to do so.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Trump has “a fiduciary responsibility to his business, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required,” the campaign said in a statement.

Of course, even if you buy the argument that Trump had a “fiduciary duty” to investors to minimize the tax obligations of his corporations, partnerships and LLCs, the leaked documents in question were portions of Trump’s personal income tax returns, not any corporate or partnership income tax returns. So there were no investors to let down.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-biggest-threat-to-trumps-business-trump/2016/10/03/72f7440a-89a3-11e6-875e-2c1bfe943b66_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2cefa59fe47b

---

Secondly, perhaps you need to understand NOLs in the USA.

https://www.irs.gov/publications/p536/ar02.html

This should help. But be mindful that Trump supposedly did this in 1995... and the above link is about NOLs in 2015... 20 years LATER.=

Point him to the 1995 version https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p536--1995.pdf

If Trump has an NOL going back to 95, every year of tax return going back to when he incurred the NOL could be under audit. IRS likes to sneak at you that way hoping to find something in dozens of years of stuff, much of which you won't remember to hang you out to dry. Bully for them!

@guy, sorry you lose. The tax returns aren't the IRS tax returns, so the IRS wasn't involved. As they say when a source is false on one detail, where it doesn't matter, you must distrust that source on all matters. Really, when they were mailed from the Trump Tower in NY you think they came from Ogden UT?! It might be an inside job, but I smell a false flag operation and remember Putin and his buddies love false flag operations!

---

Trump has “a fiduciary responsibility to his business, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required,” the campaign said in a statement.

Of course, even if you buy the argument that Trump had a “fiduciary duty” to investors to minimize the tax obligations of his corporations, partnerships and LLCs, the leaked documents in question were portions of Trump’s personal income tax returns, not any corporate or partnership income tax returns. So there were no investors to let down.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-biggest-threat-to-trumps-business-trump/2016/10/03/72f7440a-89a3-11e6-875e-2c1bfe943b66_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2cefa59fe47b

WinterKnight,


If it is on a Personal Tax Return, Trump had the fiduciary duty (as do ALL individual taxpayers) to his family to legally minimize ALL Taxes paid.

Take the case of John Q. Public, an individual with a regular job. Nothing in the law FORCES him to take the 'personal exemption(s)' or 'standard deduction' on his income to reduce the income taxes he owes on his wages. Yet, he would be kind of crazy not to do so. Mr. Public has the fiduciary duty to himself and his family to LEGALLY minimize the taxes he pays. He does so.

Same with Trump.

This story is, until the Trump is charged with violating the Tax Law in the USA (which ain't bloody likely since he likely employs a legion of accountants to make sure he doesn't), this entire story is a great, big, non-issue.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

This story is, until the Trump is charged with violating the Tax Law in the USA (which ain't bloody likely since he likely employs a legion of accountants to make sure he doesn't), this entire story is a great, big, non-issue.

It is a story that he is part of the 47%!

---

Doesn't look like all those accountants have advised him very well about his Foundation. State Attorney General Orders Trump Foundation to Cease Raising Money in New York

---

Doesn't look like all those accountants have advised him very well about his Foundation. State Attorney General Orders Trump Foundation to Cease Raising Money in New York

NYS AG Eric T. Schneiderman is a Democrat. 'nuff said.

Yes, USA Federal, State, and Local Politics *IS* that corrupt, and will remain so as long as the two-party political system exists in the USA.

Note that Trump's opponent solicited donations to THEIR foundation from foreign leaders to obtain SPECIAL ACCESS to Clinton during her term as Secretary of State.

Money laundering, influence peddling, BRIBERY...

Yet, nary a peep out of the Various Government Officials who are supposed to prosecute these matters.

Trump may be a fascist dictator wannabe...
but Clinton is a mobster. She OWNS the Democrat political establishment which currently infests the US Federal Executive Branch.

Both Trump and Clinton need to be... flushed out of US Politics.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Doesn't look like all those accountants have advised him very well about his Foundation. State Attorney General Orders Trump Foundation to Cease Raising Money in New York

Note that Trump's opponent solicited donations to THEIR foundation from foreign leaders to obtain SPECIAL ACCESS to Clinton during her term as Secretary of State.

and BINGO was his name-o. She didn't solicit NY residents, he did. Oh and all those donations came before she was secretary of state. How did the donor know what her future job title would be?

That Felon Trump ... member of the 47% ...

---