ID -- the thing is, notwithstanding your absolute and concrete view of this, if the Supreme Court overturns a law, it's overturned.

No, it would not. The law would have to be a direct reply to the law found by SCOTUS but make no mistake the people are the law makers, not any part of the three branches of our government.

Gary, regarding China -- so now we know the sort of government you really want to see here -- who knew? <smile>

Corporations are the Fiat of Kings to be sovereign. They are the product of a dictator, a license to be a dictator. Any questions? (Or haven't you been paying attention to my posts about the real evil.)

---

ID -- the thing is, notwithstanding your absolute and concrete view of this, if the Supreme Court overturns a law, it's overturned.

No, it would not. The law would have to be a direct reply to the law found by SCOTUS but make no mistake the people are the law makers, not any part of the three branches of our government.

Once again, it is NOT my view. IT is the Rule of Law.

Example, slavery. It was lawful, Dred v Scot. Now it is not lawful, 14th Amendment.

Example, no drink with Alcohol in it, amendment. A amendment overturned it.

This is the Rule of Law. "We the People" the final arbitrator's of law.

Slightly Off Topic

......As it stand right now, just under half our taxpayers pay no income tax what so ever.....

I see this mentioned over and over again. The inference is nearly always that the non tax payers are somehow bludging on the poster.

Has anyone stopped to think that the reason so many don't pay tax is because they are working for as little as $2.00/hour ? (See recent amendments to the minimum wage legislation in Florida and, IIRC Arizona.) Even working 80 hours a week, at this rate, a person would not earn enough to make the minimum taxable amount.

The problem is that the tax rates were set when "times were good". Since then working class and middle class incomes have fallen to the point where a lot of people are now below the threshold.

The way to solve the tax problem is to raise the minimum wage rate to a point where people at this level are earning above the tax threshold plus the amount they lose by paying tax. This would boost government income which would help pay off America's national debt.

T.A.

ID -- I appreciate your faith in your interpretation of the Constitution - however, I suspect the Supreme Court frankly doesn't care how *you* think the 'Rule of Law' operates. It is possible that you don't see that your view is your view, but rather the view given from some higher power and you are simply channeling it to us mere mortals and the mere mortals in the Supreme Court.

I understand that you similarly might believe that the 'Rule of Law' allows you to commit any number of acts -- but frankly, some other players get to decide.

At this point it seems you are playing the 'higher law' game relative to the Supreme Court.

I'd like to do that too regarding Citizens v. United -- but unlike you, as a mere mortal, while I can rail against that decision, I recognize that I can't stop SuperPac's from operating.

Easy approach for increasing the proportion of people paying no *FEDERAL INCOME* taxes, double their compensation.

I am glad you want to see the ratio of wealth corrected.

TA -- echoes might thought, want more people paying income taxes (note these folks pay Social Security and Medicare taxes from dollar one -- something the notaxaholics like to ignore), increase their compensation.

Instead, these folks want to tax them, reduce safety net support, and scoop the money up for those destitute R-money folks.

I have this thing about morality -- it colors my thinking -- so I vote against personal financial interest.

The hustle is that there are millions of voters voting against financial interest because they have been lead to believe it is in their interests to increase the wealth of the very wealthy.

For me it has to do with an ethical and moral view.

Some of these folks are the same ones with signs 'Keep the government's hands off my Medicare'.

At a certain point, it suggests to me that over the past 30 years, this country has suffered from a detrimental genetic drift that has increasingly impeded the thinking capacity of our electorate.

DOWN -- I don't think of those folks as worthless, shiftless, lazy -- which is one of the reasons I believe in a decent structured safety net.

If you don't think of them that way, there must be some other reason you want to cull them. Is it because you think with them out of the way, you'll have more stuff for YOU?

I sort of understand that folks growing up in the 70's and 80's got very much into being the 'me generation'. Some of the discussion here reflects that.

I only hope that the next generation can return to a better value set.

I sort of understand that folks growing up in the 70's and 80's got very much into being the 'me generation'. Some of the discussion here reflects that.

Not a fair description of my generation ... ?

Sarge, it's a generalization. You know, one of those cultural things -- you might not get that, but Teapublicans know about cultural things <sigh>.

ID -- I appreciate your faith in your interpretation of the Constitution - however, I suspect the Supreme Court frankly doesn't care how *you* think the 'Rule of Law' operates. It is possible that you don't see that your view is your view, but rather the view given from some higher power and you are simply channeling it to us mere mortals and the mere mortals in the Supreme Court.

I understand that you similarly might believe that the 'Rule of Law' allows you to commit any number of acts -- but frankly, some other players get to decide.

At this point it seems you are playing the 'higher law' game relative to the Supreme Court.

I'd like to do that too regarding Citizens v. United -- but unlike you, as a mere mortal, while I can rail against that decision, I recognize that I can't stop SuperPac's from operating.

Bottom line Barry...

You said the SCOTUS is the last in line and has the last say in matters of law.

That is just not true.

AS I pointed out to you the amendment process which is "We the People" is the last in line and the SCOTUS has to take a back seat.

ID -- fair point, in order to re-define what SCOTUS has defined a tax in the ACA, all that need be done is an Amendment to the Constitution -- I agree with you there.

As folks say these days, 'Good luck with that'.

ID -- fair point, in order to re-define what SCOTUS has defined a tax in the ACA, all that need be done is an Amendment to the Constitution -- I agree with you there.

As folks say these days, 'Good luck with that'.

And I will agree with you on..."Good luck with that".

But point being made is that "We the People" are the last word on what is law and what is not. Most don't even know that let alone care about it. But the fact remains that we can and very much should take control of our OWN lives and I mean that in every little detail because if we don't someone else will for us. And that, that by itself is what has driven our debt, foreign policy, etc, etc, etc...

As I have stated here and firmly believe [by facts, not personal only] the crowd is alot more smart then ANY one person.

ID -- fair point, in order to re-define what SCOTUS has defined a tax in the ACA, all that need be done is an Amendment to the Constitution -- I agree with you there.

As folks say these days, 'Good luck with that'.

Is ID saying that is possible today? He is delusional!

---

ID -- fair point, in order to re-define what SCOTUS has defined a tax in the ACA, all that need be done is an Amendment to the Constitution -- I agree with you there.

As folks say these days, 'Good luck with that'.

And I will agree with you on..."Good luck with that".

But point being made is that "We the People" are the last word on what is law and what is not. Most don't even know that let alone care about it. But the fact remains that we can and very much should take control of our OWN lives and I mean that in evert little detail because if we don't someone else will for us. And that, that by itself is what has driven our debt, foreign policy, etc, etc, etc...

Corporations are people, too! Guess they'll help us figure out what our last word should be, eh?

As I have stated here and firmly believe [by facts, not personal only] the crowd is alot more smart then ANY one person.

Hmmm ... collectivist/socialist thinking.

ID -- fair point, in order to re-define what SCOTUS has defined a tax in the ACA, all that need be done is an Amendment to the Constitution -- I agree with you there.

As folks say these days, 'Good luck with that'.

Is ID saying that is possible today? He is delusional!

Put your glasses back on and re-read his response to Barry.

ID -- fair point, in order to re-define what SCOTUS has defined a tax in the ACA, all that need be done is an Amendment to the Constitution -- I agree with you there.

As folks say these days, 'Good luck with that'.

And I will agree with you on..."Good luck with that".

But point being made is that "We the People" are the last word on what is law and what is not. Most don't even know that let alone care about it. But the fact remains that we can and very much should take control of our OWN lives and I mean that in evert little detail because if we don't someone else will for us. And that, that by itself is what has driven our debt, foreign policy, etc, etc, etc...

Corporations are people, too! Guess they'll help us figure out what our last word should be, eh?

As I have stated here and firmly believe [by facts, not personal only] the crowd is alot more smart then ANY one person.

Hmmm ... collectivist/socialist thinking.

Corporations do not vote in the ballot box.

No, not collectivist/socialist thinking. Democratic thinking, that being within the state, not federal government. As I have been talking about so far in this thread, Democratic state, and a republic of states, ergo the amendment process.

Please do try to keep up...

ID -- fair point, in order to re-define what SCOTUS has defined a tax in the ACA, all that need be done is an Amendment to the Constitution -- I agree with you there.

As folks say these days, 'Good luck with that'.

And I will agree with you on..."Good luck with that".

But point being made is that "We the People" are the last word on what is law and what is not. Most don't even know that let alone care about it. But the fact remains that we can and very much should take control of our OWN lives and I mean that in evert little detail because if we don't someone else will for us. And that, that by itself is what has driven our debt, foreign policy, etc, etc, etc...

Corporations are people, too! Guess they'll help us figure out what our last word should be, eh?

As I have stated here and firmly believe [by facts, not personal only] the crowd is alot more smart then ANY one person.

Hmmm ... collectivist/socialist thinking.

Corporations do not vote in the ballot box.

No, not collectivist/socialist thinking. Democratic thinking, that being within the state, not federal government. As I have been talking about so far in this thread, Democratic state, and a republic of states, ergo the amendment process.

Please do try to keep up...

Corporations influence the individual voters and donate to the SuperPACs, do they not?
Yes, what I said is an example of collectivist thinking is precisely that: that the masses will make better decisions for most or all involved than can the aggregate result of individuals acting on their self interests.
As for "please do try to keep up", I remind you now publicly of what I told you in PM, that I do not show you disrespect ... and ... follow the points made up to this post.

ID -- fair point, in order to re-define what SCOTUS has defined a tax in the ACA, all that need be done is an Amendment to the Constitution -- I agree with you there.

As folks say these days, 'Good luck with that'.

And I will agree with you on..."Good luck with that".

But point being made is that "We the People" are the last word on what is law and what is not. Most don't even know that let alone care about it. But the fact remains that we can and very much should take control of our OWN lives and I mean that in evert little detail because if we don't someone else will for us. And that, that by itself is what has driven our debt, foreign policy, etc, etc, etc...

Corporations are people, too! Guess they'll help us figure out what our last word should be, eh?

As I have stated here and firmly believe [by facts, not personal only] the crowd is alot more smart then ANY one person.

Hmmm ... collectivist/socialist thinking.

Corporations do not vote in the ballot box.

No, not collectivist/socialist thinking. Democratic thinking, that being within the state, not federal government. As I have been talking about so far in this thread, Democratic state, and a republic of states, ergo the amendment process.

Please do try to keep up...

Corporations influence the individual voters and donate to the SuperPACs, do they not?
Yes, what I said is an example of collectivist thinking is precisely that: that the masses will make better decisions for most or all involved than can the aggregate result of individuals acting on their self interests.
As for "please do try to keep up", I remind you now publicly of what I told you in PM, that I do not show you disrespect ... and ... follow the points made up to this post.

My reply was in respect to this..."Hmmm ... collectivist/socialist thinking."

You know dang good and well that I am NOT into socialist thinking at all. Ive been MORE then clear on that topic.

Corporations and PAC's have NO effect on my what so ever. I do NOT belong to either party. I belong to the Constitution Party. We in the C.P. do not and will never accept monies from PAC's or any Corporation. WE ONLY accept monies from the one, the one person. Because of this we are BEHOLDING to NO ONE, but, the voter.

You can take whatever tone you wish. I don't care, but if you think that you can bring up a PM key word being Private and then expect me to answer your questions you have another thing coming. It isn't gonna happen...

agreed...but not with the word "collectivist" which does not apply to a free people who are free to vote or not to vote.

YOU SAID and I AGREE to a point...
"Yes, what I said is an example of collectivist thinking is precisely that: that the masses will make better decisions for most or all involved than can the aggregate result of individuals acting on their self interests."

Design for the Wisdom of Crowds