Radar, In practice the world you describe creates an even larger chasm between the few rich and majority poor. To me, the mechanics it suggests seem to spin backwards towards ignorance, poverty and isolation. The trail of your extreeme values end at selfishness and greed at all costs. I believe we do need each other, that workings of daily life are bigger than my person, and there is value to the whole in providing assistance to others. (Its defining and deciding the assistance that is the issue, not the complete scraping of it.)

Its interesting that your entire position and mission rests on the ideal of educating, uplifting the masses you deride- those poor kids you feel so much contempt for you wish them dead. Just as paved roads and firetrucks, I think the educational opportunities and health of other people's kids are my investment, and it baffles me that you cannot see the benefit in that.

Keeping what you earn, not having government tell you what you will do with your own body, and forcing government to abide by the limits on their powers does inspire a revolution. Seeing thousands upon thousands of American families broken up because the Government wants to legislate their choice of medicines, having Americans murdered, attacking every right we have, inspire a revolution. Living on your own through your own merits is just what freedom is. If you don't want it, you're unwilling to accept the responsibility that goes with freedom as many Americans are.

The opposite is true. When people get all the money they earn, their children have better educations, they have more money to start up businesses, which means more jobs, goods are made better and cheaper so even the most poor people benefit from what I'm proposing and they have a better chance to stop being poor.

See the response above. And don't make the mistake of comparing military non-interventionism and isolationism. They are entirely different. I suggest we have strong ties with other countries. We should sign non-aggression treaties, and trade freely, but we should never use our military to defend any nation that is not our own and we should always remain neutral in every situation.

Wrong again. It's not selfish to keep what you earn and to spend it how you want. It's selfish to expect other people to pay for your irresponsibility at the point of a gun. Also the poor, elderly, and sick would get MORE help than they do now under my plan.

Of course there's value in helping others, but not at the point of a gun. Charity comes from the heart. And instead of having glorified DMV workers who don't care about the poor keeping 85% of the money collected to help the poor and treating them badly, why not let us voluntarily give to the charities we want to support who only need 12%-17% of the money collected for overhead, actually care about people, and get more help to those in need?

Some people ignorantly believe that if you're against the government stealing money for forced charity, you're against charity or if you're against the government stealing money for education, you're against education. Perhaps they think if I don't expect the government to feed all of us, I'm against eating.

Private enterprise is more efficient, cheaper, and better than government 100% of the time.

lol. Let me play a sad song on a violin...

:violin:

Whenever people want to steal from you in America they say, "It's for the children...". We've got to attack your rights for "the children". I say I want my children to be free, well-educated, and prosperous and what I'm proposing will give them that. It's very obvious that government funded education hasn't.

Yes, they are YOUR investment. You may invest in the education of anyone you choose. All I ask is that you don't put a gun to my head and make me pay for it. Why should someone without children be forced to pay for the education of those who CHOSE to have children? If they want to pay for it, I'd encourage them to pay to educate children. It's a very worthwhile charity. But the second you force someone to do it, it is morally wrong, and no matter how many sad pictures you paint of starving, sick, poorly educated children dying in the streets, it won't change that fact.

oops. i meant pre ww2. and, obviously i don't know enough about it to argue this point.

i'm with you on the sending foreign aid bit unless there is profit to be gained in the near future from interest on loans, or product exports. Same with the subsidized farming, too. And at least partly with you on the welfare vs. darwinistic society.

When I say that the gubment evloved as it is from neccessity, i mean that for various reasons, people have elected and voted in ways that support the systems we have today, be they humanitarian, or reaction to problems, or whatever, we found it needful to do what we did in that respect.

you say that states could pay for infrastructures soley with sales, excise and property taxes. I pay state income tax. I know that the federal government assists the states road programs at least in part, from the whole 55mph speed limit debates from years ago. And if we didn't pay income tax, wouldn't our sales tax etc just be higher?
It would be really nice if we didn't have to pay any income tax. How much is collected annually from american workers in just federal income tax? in other words, how much income would the government find itself without when you are elected *king? would your america still support a Social Security tax? how bout medicaid?



(* not being smart, just simplifiying)
i have 2 ideas for when I am king of america:

1. all businesses should be open 24 hours a day.
-this would reduce traffic problems, and creat new jobs.

2. prisoners would be treated like prisoners. hard labor. no rights. no cable. prison would be a bad place to be. really bad. maybe people would try to stay out of it then.

lumberjim: Right now, the way roads are paid for is the federal government tells the states to give them a bunch of money to pay for crap they shouldn't be doing. The states send a whole bunch of money and the government takes a huge bite and sends back a few crumbs and table scraps to the states of their own money to build roads.

As I said, all of the constitutional parts of the federal government could be paid for solely with the tariffs and excise taxes collected currently. That means the states wouldn't have to send money to the fed. They could keep their own money and pay for their own roads, make their own speed limits, etc.

States wouldn't have to raise taxes to cover these things, because they'd be getting a lot more of their own money. They could actually lower taxes and still have more money to take care of infrastructure.

Most of the money currently collected in income tax goes to pay for unconstitutional parts of government like foreign aid. Hardly any stays in America. Did you know there are more US Dollars outside of America than inside of it?

Harry Browne laid out a good plan to take care of the elderly while still allowing the young people to escape from the bankrupt pyramid scheme of Social Security. I'm paraphrasing, but he'd have us sell all government property that isn't currently being used by the government for offices, military bases, etc. and use that money to buy annuities for those already retirement age or close to it so they'd be taken care of as they were promised. Everyone else would cut their losses and prepare for their own retirement and probably do much better than those on social security.

Keep in mind also that with people keeping what they earn, they'd have a lot more money to help out those who can't take care of themselves.

We'll be in touch, Paul.

And they'll have a lot more chance to earn that $50k (or whatever the equivalent buying amount is in a cheaper state) when more companies open, more jobs open up, and goods become cheaper because people got to keep their own money and opened new businesses.

Looking forward to it. I'd love to go up against the most evil, corrupt, vile, disgusting, group of lowlifes who stand in the way of freedom on the planet....namely....YOU. Just imagine how much pure evil must be in a man who actually ran the CIA.

we cannot confirm or deny the accuracy of this statement. I will say, however, that our benefits package is great!

:D LOL :D

Hrm...ok. So what do you do for those who are collecting SSDI and are on Medicare for a disability (like myself)?

The political compass thread is here

The political compass itself is here

Harry Browne laid out a plan whereby government would sell all land and assets not currently in use for military bases, etc over a 6 year period. and the money raised would buy annuities which would pay benefits to all of those already retirement age or close to it while allowing others to cut our losses escape all together from the bankrupt pyramid scheme of social security.

Perhaps she should have explained it better, Radar: She is 34 years old and on SSDI and Medicare because she is in end-stage renal failure, unable to work full-time.

Because it improves the general, overall quality of society that you also play a part in. Businesses and people pay into the local taxes, the local schools educate the children with that money, then down the line the children grow up with that education and enter the workforce. The money comes back. If you feel that your children need an education better than what the state can provide, then send them off to a private school. Do not, however, remove the system that enables children from low-income families to receive an education that will provide them with the means to get a job and enter the workforce as a productive adult and return the money you invested back into the system. Despite what you perceive, the money that is taken out of your paycheck comes back in the form of business and employment to yourself as well as others.

Why do you think college tuition is different for in-state students when compared with the inflated rates for out-of-state ones? Because the in-state students are more likely to stay in the area in which they attended college after they graduate, get a job, and begin returning money to the local community. The money taken out of your paycheck ensures that children in your local area have a chance to become edcuated, productive adults that will get jobs, earn money, and return what was given to them many times fold.

If the system of "buy your own education with your own money" were already in place and had been for decades, I could see this working. Implementing such a policy now would result in disaster for communities across the entire country.

Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals. "Society" has no rights, only individuals do. "Society" is not above the rights of individuals.

Wrong. Businesses need educated people, and those who have been educated apply for the jobs. Businesses have no obligation to educate these people or as you say "invest" in their education. They have a responsibility to educate themselves and thier children. Education is not a right, nor is healthcare, or even eating. You have the right to have any education, healthcare, food, etc. you obtain honestly whether it's donated to you, or paid for by you, but you don't have the right to force anyone else to pay for it.

Actually home schooling is superior to public or private schooling.

You do not use a gun to force other people to pay for the education of other people. They are not entitled to reach into my wallet or anyone elses to pay for their education. There are plenty of ways (as I've already described) for children from low-income families to get an education, and if not all of them can get one, that is the fault of their parents for having children they couldn't afford. If you have children, you alone are responsible to pay for 100% of their needs and "society" isn't.

"Despite what you perceive, the money that is taken out of your paycheck comes back in the form of business and employment to yourself as well as others."

Despite what you just falsely claimed, the truth is very different. The money that is STOLEN from my paycheck does not come back to me. It's sent to other countries, it pays for farm and business subsidies, it pays for things I don't want and don't use; some of which are used against me to attack my rights. And if a little of it pays for education, I don't benefit from that either. No matter how many times you claim I benefit from paying for the education of other people's kids, you'll be wrong. It's a crock of shit. In fact the opposite is true. If less people were getting an education, my life would improve since I'd be one of few people who educated MYSELF. I'd have more opportunity, more money, etc.

Wrong again. Implementing such a policy would mean people would take having a child much more seriously, and they'd act more responsibly. It would also mean children would get a superior education including poor children.

No matter how many times you claim I benefit from paying for the education of other people's kids, you'll be wrong. It's a crock of shit.

The sign above the door that reads 'Sarcasm' has turned on.

Yeah -- you're right. I'm sorry.

So, let's get set on changing some other things then, shall we? There are some other things, along with public schooling, that need to go.

1. Parks - All national, state, county, and city parks need to be shut down and put up for sale. The money raised will, in turn, be given back to the people. If there is a demand for the conservation of wilderness and the preservation of historic areas, the people will pay for it on their own. The Grand Canyon, for instance, could be made to turn a profit if a roller coaster is installed by a theme park company. Its time these lazy park rangers stop being paid for having such a slack job. The majority of the land will be logged or paved over and business will boom.

2. Police - These are the people that are always holding a gun to our heads to force money out of our paychecks and, when they aren't doing that, they're eating donuts. Each individual will need to take the law into their own hands through the ownership of a weapon. If their house is broken into, they will have to deal with it on their own. Private industry could also provide certain protections and investigative powers. Instead of calling 911, you might call your local Pinkertons office.

3. Fire Departments - Your local firestation should be replaced by a private or volunteer organization. If your house burns down, you get to pay to save it. After all, if it burns down, you didn't build it with proper safety materials in mind, anyways. In the event of a major fire, each family must fend for itself. Towns will not send fire departments to other towns in need of assistance unless the people are willing to pay a premium for it. Forest fires will finally have the opportunity to burn unchecked.

4. Art and Culture - If the public really feels the need to preserve art, culture, and historic items, they will pay for it.

5. Roads and Infrastructure - State and Federal governments need to stop building roads. Private industry, in turn, needs to take over this responsibility. If there is a market demand for it, then it will happen. I'd personally like to see multiple roads, side-by-side, that all go in the same direction built by competing companies. You could be charged for whichever road you take and the more you pay, the higher the speedlimit could be or the better quality of pavement.

6. Emissions and EPA Control - Hey, if the people want clean air and water, they'll pay for it.

7. Government Assisted Medical Research - Its time we stopped funding Universities and research centers! If people really need to find a cure for HIV, they'll pay for it. It is more likely, however, that Cancer research will advance faster than AIDS. After all, those with money don't contract HIV nearly as often -- why pay for something you aren't ever going to need?

8. Coast Guard and other DOT departments - Have you been swept out to sea? Boat sinking? You probably shouldn't have been out there in the first place.

This freedom is going to be awesome. The quality of life is going to skyrocket.

No, I'm not. When more people have more of their own money, they'll give to charities including those that pay for the education of poor children. But the difference is it would be voluntary.

That's right. There are many conservationist groups. Dr. Gordon Labedz (Founder of the Surf Rider Association and Chairman of the largest chapter of the Sierra Club) is a Libertarian and believes, as I do, that the private ownership of land is the best way to preserve it. Companies don't pollute on their own land, they pollute on PUBLIC land because the government allows them to do so. If you want the Grand Canyon preserved, you should make sure it's privately owned by a nature conservancy.

Fire Departments, Police, Roads and Infrastructure would still be paid for without the need for income-based taxes so this isn't a valid point. But anyone who has been on a private toll road knows it's usually in better repair than a public road.

As far as Art & Culture go, the valid role of government doesn't include paying for art or culture. Those are private industries and if the people want them, they'll get them.

Your comments are laughable. As I said, you think that if I'm against government paying for art, I'm against art. If I'm against government funded (theft) medical research, I'm against medical research. etc.

As far as the EPA goes, they were guilty themselves of leaking mercury into ground water a few years ago and don't do much to stop the largest polluter on earth (the US gov't) from polluting since the government says they're immune from prosecution. The best way to make sure companies are environmentally responsible is to make it impossible for them to pollute public lands, to hold them responsible for pollution they cause on others (this is trespass), to hold government responsible for pollution at thier hands, and the ultimate way...use your dollars to buy from clean companies.

If we want cheaper healthcare, and more medical research, stop using government to prevent life-saving new medicines from being released, allow people to practice medicine without arbitrary licensing, etc. Some people come here that were doctors in another country. Why prevent them from giving healthcare? When more people are giving healthcare, the prices will be lower and the quality higher.

You don't have a single valid point. Not one. Every single thing you've mentioned could be better done by private industry than by government. In fact the only truthful thing you said was this...

Did you change jobs recently?

Fire Departments, Police, Roads and Infrastructure would still be paid for without the need for income-based taxes so this isn't a valid point. But anyone who has been on a private toll road knows it's usually in better repair than a public road.

Really? How would these public services be paid for? Why should they be paid for?

As for the toll road, you obviously haven't driven on any of them in and around Pittsburgh. :D

If you want the Grand Canyon preserved, you should make sure it's privately owned by a nature conservancy.

Do you think a nature conservancy, based on donations, would be able to out-bid a corporation attempting to slash-and-burn an area? Would any land be conserved at all if logging companies had the ability to bid on the plots?

Your comments are laughable. As I said, you think that if I'm against government paying for art, I'm against art. If I'm against government funded (theft) medical research, I'm against medical research. etc.

I didn't say you were against anything. I'm stating that if you remove government funding from certain forms of research, only the research that gets money will continue. An incredible majority of the people with HIV and AIDS have little income, so therefore that research will shrink as compared to, say, cancer research.

The best way to make sure companies are environmentally responsible is to make it impossible for them to pollute public lands, to hold them responsible for pollution they cause on others (this is trespass), to hold government responsible for pollution at thier hands, and the ultimate way...use your dollars to buy from clean companies.

I would love to see companies held responsible for the land, water, and air they pollute -- Piney Point currently holds Tampa Bay in check with overflowing water with a pH of 3. The phosphate company that caused the pollution moved to Texas and declared bankruptcy in the state of Florida, so they are under no obligation to clean up anything. Under your laws, how would this change? For that matter, what companies are "clean" and who would you buy from? Who would define "clean" and how would you know that a company wasn't lying when they told you they were? Certainly, there would be no government organization that forms these standards, nor any that would enforce them.

Some people come here that were doctors in another country. Why prevent them from giving healthcare? When more people are giving healthcare, the prices will be lower and the quality higher.

Umm... we might prevent them because they might not have proper training? They might be quacks cheating common citizens, who don't understand medicine, out of their money? I actually see quality becoming much lower if you allow anyone to practice medicine without a license and cut all the corners they can to make it as cheap as possible. Malpractice insurance would go through the roof, along with the prices patients have to pay.

You don't have a single valid point. Not one. Every single thing you've mentioned could be better done by private industry than by government.

I'm not stating that the government does an outstanding job at what it is attempting to do through its programs. I'm also not saying that a lot of these applications could be better handled by private industry. I'm saying that companies inherently cut as many corners as they can in a desperate attempt to make as much money up front as they are able in order to please the shareholders, and then run. I'm also stating that neither the public, nor corporations, hold many long-term views. With all of these factors, simply "flipping the switch" on the controls in society has the potential to completely ruin it. In the coming years, we're about to see a massive catastrophe as millions of baby boomers, who were planning on seeing social security see them through their final years, find out there is nothing for them. Now they are told that they should have opened 401Ks and IRAs and all that they were previously told was false. Do we just permit these people to suffer for the better of the coming generations? The issues of the interim are not easily ignored.

I was reading the Constitution and Amendments today.

But the Constitution says
So, since the Constitution says Congress shall levy income tax, how do you propose following the Consititution AND getting rid of income tax?

If 6 months ago is recently.

The 16th amendment was fruadently ratified and didn't have the required number of votes to pass. But even if it did have the valid number of votes, it would still be illegal because it contradicts other parts of the Constitution and nothing may be added to the Constitution that contradicts another part as Article 6 Paragraph 2 says.

No new laws may be made (which includes Constitutional amendments because the Constitution is the highest law of the land) that contradict any part of the Constitution. You may add something to the Constitution, You may take something away from the Constitution (repeal it), but you can't have one part of the Constitution say something is legal and another part say it's illegal.

Contrary to the opinion of many idiots out there, when you add an amendment to the Constitution it doesn't "override" other parts it happens to contradict with. Let's look at the 18th and 21st amendments. The 21st didn't say "Alcohol is legal", it said it was repealing the part of the Constitution that said it was illegal in the first place. (The government has no authority to tell anyone what they may or may not consume, but that's another topic). The proper procedure was followed.

In the case of the 16th amendment, which not only didn't have the required number of votes to pass, but also contradicted Article 1 Section 9, the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 13th amendments so it is a blatant violation of the Constitution and therefore illegal.

The first Supreme Court of America decided in Marbury vs. Madison that any laws that are contrary to the Constitution are null and void and citizens are under no obligation to follow them.

It's an open and shut case.

Remind us again who decides whether there's a contradiction?

I looked up enumeration. It means "to list before"
Proposal and Ratification

The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-first Congress on the 12th of July, 1909, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 25th of February, 1913, to have been ratified by 36 of the 48 States.

The dates of ratification were:
Alabama, August 10, 1909;
Kentucky, February 8, 1910;
South Carolina, February 19, 1910;
Illinois, March 1, 1910;
Mississippi, March 7, 1910;
Oklahoma, March 10, 1910;
Maryland, April 8, 1910;
Georgia, August 3, 1910;
Texas, August 16, 1910;
Ohio, January 19, 1911;
Idaho, January 20, 1911;
Oregon, January 23, 1911;
Washington, January 26, 1911;
Montana, January 30, 1911;
Indiana, January 30, 1911;
California, January 31, 1911;
Nevada, January 31, 1911;
South Dakota, February 3, 1911;
Nebraska, February 9, 1911;
North Carolina, February 11, 1911;
Colorado, February 15, 1911;
North Dakota, February 17, 1911;
Kansas, February 18, 1911;
Michigan, February 23, 1911;
Iowa, February 24, 1911;
Missouri, March 16, 1911;
Maine, March 31, 1911;
Tennessee, April 7, 1911;
Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier);
Wisconsin, May 26, 1911;
New York, July 12, 1911;
Arizona, April 6, 1912;
Minnesota, June 11, 1912;
Louisiana, June 28, 1912;
West Virginia, January 31, 1913;
New Mexico, February 3, 1913.

Ratification was completed on February 3, 1913.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, March 4, 1913;
New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected it on March 2, 1911).

The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.


So explain please, how this amendment is not legal again? You mentioned that it wasn't legally ratified. For those people that are completely ignorant, please provide sources.

Radar discusses the issues with the 16th amendment in this thread, and provides various links.

No problem...just trying (probably in vain) to head off another of his maniacal rants.

No problem. There are a bunch of idiots out there who are stupid enough to believe that ONLY the Supreme Court makes this decision, but the Supreme Court themselves said in Marbury vs. Madison that we the citizens (aka the bosses of the government) make that decision for ourselves. To claim otherwise is ludicrous.

If Congress suddenly decided to pass the no more abortion bill which said girls under the age of 18 must all be forcefully sterilized it would not have to even be looked at by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional in its face. It would be unconstitutional the moment it was signed. Even if the Supreme Court never made a decision or heard a case involving the forced sterilization law, it would still be unconstitutional and nobody would have to follow it. Only an idiot with no comprehension what-so-ever of government would suggest it was constitutional until the USSC decided on it. Only the worst scumbag would suggest we actually start following through with the sterilizing while we wait for the Supreme Court to hear a case on it.

The Supreme Court is made up of people, not of magicians. Laws don't magically become constitutional or unconstitutional because they say so. Laws are constitutional or unconstitutional the moment they're created whether or not the Supreme Court ever gets around to hearing cases on them. The Supreme Court's job is limited to comparing new laws, court cases, etc. to the Constitution to see if they fit properly and settling disputes between states and NOTHING else. The Supreme Court's job doesn't include "interpreting" or "defining" the Constituion, which doesn't need interpretation since it's written in English.

Let's say I'm sent to go grocery shopping for my wife. She lists 1 lb of Ground Round, Butter, Turkey Bacon, and Wheat Bread and I'm told never to deviate from the list much like government is told never to deviate from the Constitution. My job (much like the Supreme Court's job) isn't to "interpret" the list, but merely to follow it. When I go to the store, I don't decide what goes on the list, I don't change the language of the list, and I don't do anything other than compare an item to the list to see if it matches. If I hold see Chocolate Cake on the shelf but don't see it on the list, I know not to get it. In fact even if I see White Bread, Pork Bacon, Ground Chuck, or Margarine in the store, they don't qualify.

I am not given discretion to deviate from the list and neither is the Supreme Court.

So once again, I'll repeat this so you can get it through your head.

EACH AND EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN DECIDES FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER A LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT AND THAT LAW MUST NOT NECESSARILY BE DECIDED ON BY THE SUPREME COURT TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, PERIOD.

Like the Supreme Court, citizens do not have discretion to define or interpret the Constitution. They can not "decide" that murder is constitutional and follow through on it, or to steal from others because they've "interpreted" the Constitution to allow it. The entire federal government is here for one and only one purpose, to defend our person, rights, and property from tresspass, theft, and non-consensual harm whether that be from each other, or from outside forces. Citizens, unlike the Supreme Court, hold the power to actually change the Constitution since it is the citizens who hold 100% of the power and are the masters of government (our servant).

The Federal government's legitimate role does not include charity, education, healthcare, retirement, imperialism, spying on Americans, limiting the rights of citizens, etc.

Hey Radar, on one of the sites you listed for the 16th Amendment, it says that
But you said that under no circumstances is the US military to go overseas, under the constitution. Can you clarify this for me?

36 votes were required to pass the amendment, but most of the states you've listed violated their own state Constitutions by voting on the amendment with the same senate that recieved the proposed amendment. Most states have a provision that says if an amendment to the Constitution is proposed, the senate who recieves it can not vote on it because they must allow the people one election cycle to choose who will vote on the amendment. So those states are gone. Next many of the states actually re-wrote the proposed amendments (sometimes to mean the exact opposite of what it proposed) before signing it and sending it in. This is also not allowed. So those states are out. Some states actually voted against the amendment and their votes were tallied as voting for it by Philander Knox (the man who illegally and fraudently ratified the amendment).

In the end there were not even close to the required number of legal votes to legitimately ratify the amendment.

Feel free to do some reading. Bill Benson actually travelled to all of the states who supposedly voted to ratify the amendment, searched their archives and actually got certified copies of all the documents in question and proved without a doubt that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified.

Feel free to read his extremelly large and comprehensive books "The Law That Never Was - Vol I" and "The Law That Never Was - Vol II". You can find it at:

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com

Of he states you listed as ratifying the amendment here's just a few examples that prove my point...

• The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
• The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
• The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
• The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington

Even if there were only one of these, it would mean the amendment hadn't been legally ratified.

Sure, everyone must decide whether to follow the law or not, but the law does apply to them in any case. The court system is where they work out whether you're locked up for your decision. Whether or not you are right will have no bearing on their figuring.

I didn't say the US military could never go overseas, I said they couldn't be stationed overseas during times of peace and the only valid reason for the US military to be used ever is to defend against an impending attack or to retaliate for one that has occurred even if we must go overseas to retaliate. This is the very definition of a "Defensive" military and DEFENSE (not OFFENSE) is the SOLE PURPOSE of the US Military as defined by the US Constitution in the phrase "common DEFENSE"

Wrong. The law does not apply if it is unconstitutional in its face and we need not wait for a Supreme Court decision on the matter as the first Supreme Court of the United States declared in Marbury vs. Madison.

No, it applies in the real world, where you can be convicted and put behind bars for doing something even though it is Constitutionally defensible.

In the real world the Supreme Court and the Constitution (the highest law in the land) are exactly as I've said. If you are about to be arrested or locked up for a blatantly unconstitutional law, you are within your rights to kill anyone who tries to do the arresting or locking up in your own defense.

Let's go back to the forced sterilization example. If the Supreme Court refused to hear the case and I said I would not allow the government to sterilize my daughter. If police came to my house to arrest me, or to sterilize my daughter, I would be within my legal rights to kill every single person who tried to do it.

That's not a fantasy, that's reality. The reality of a bullet going through someone's skull. You fail to understand that the powers of government are extremely limited and that the people are the masters while government is the servant.

You need to grow up and get an education, assuming you're capable of learning.

Staying in the real world here, if you don't appear on a summons and kill the people who come to retrieve you, you can expect that the state will bring all of its resources to bear, and you will eventually either be killed or jailed for life.

The absurd sterilization case is interesting because, if it were to somehow pass tomorrow, without the consent of most of society, it would be ignored by almost everyone with a role to play in the system. The cops can choose not to arrest people breaking the law. The prosecutors can choose not to prosecute the arrestees. The judges can choose not to apply the law, or to apply a light sentence. The jury can decide not to convict. The whole thing can go through appeals or be thrown out on technicalities.

The application of the law requires a lot of people to buy into it one way or the other and almost any of them can dismiss any case very easily. I can predict that none of them, however, would buy into the notion that the Constitution operates the way you think it does and not the way they think it does. No matter how sure of your convictions you are, how eloquent your defense, etc. the law will apply to you the way they think it does, not the way you think it does.

And I follow that up with: in some cases, that does in fact suck. It sucks hard.

But given the inevitability of politics in a system implemented by imperfect people, it's not really that bad of a system. It's close.