There are no illegal immigrants in America

[regular.joe]

The wording dealing with direct taxes was removed in the 14th amendment:


AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.


Hey, it's a game of constitution tag. You're it!!!

[Radar]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

The wording dealing with direct taxes was removed in the 14th amendment:


AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.


Hey, it's a game of constitution tag. You're it!!!

I don't see anything in there about taxes. The amendment you're looking for is the 16th and it was fraudulently ratified. It's not a legitimate part of the Constitution. Again, this isn't merely my opinion, it's a fact.

Philander Knox was the guy who did it. He slipped it by on Christmas Eve at midnight and he claimed it was ratified, but the papers were not ratified, and were changed by the states prior to signing them.

You may want to read "The law that never was" by Bill Benson. He traveled to each of the states and got original copies of the papers that were signed and he proves that the 16th was not legitimately ratified.

Even if it were ratified, it would become void because it violates several other parts of the Constitution. An amendment may add to the Constitution, or it may repeal part of the Constitution, but it may not contradict another part. The 16th violates many parts.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Radar

...The amendment you're looking for is the 16th and it was fraudulently ratified. It's not a legitimate part of the Constitution...

Psssssst! I heard Heywood Jablowmee forged John Hancock's signature on the Declaration of Independance. Don't tell anybody....

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Radar

I don't see anything in there about taxes. The amendment you're looking for is the 16th and it was fraudulently ratified. It's not a legitimate part of the Constitution.

Prove that please. You have stated too many times that nothing other than the constitution matters, then when verifiably proven wrong REPEATEDLY you try to slip away with another game of round robin duck and switch.
Now you want us to believe that another part of "the Constitution" that inarguably proves you are insane and completely WRONG is not valid - yeah right. And we're the wacko's uh huh.
suuuuureee we are.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by classicman

Prove that please. You have stated too many times that nothing other than the constitution matters, then when verifiably proven wrong REPEATEDLY you try to slip away with another game of round robin duck and switch.
Now you want us to believe that another part of "the Constitution" that inarguably proves you are insane and completely WRONG is not valid - yeah right. And we're the wacko's uh huh.
suuuuureee we are.

1. I've NEVER been proven wrong a single time with the Constitution, though I've proven you wrong verifiably and repeatedly on many occasions.

2. I don't try to "slip" away ever. I address the issue. Others in this thread have attempted to change the game and discuss the definition of "of" or the use of punctuation marks.

3. I've proven each and every single thing I've said with regard to the Constitution and immigration. No part of it grants the federal government authority over immigration....not the migration and importation of slaves (which are the only people referred to in that clause), not the power to repel invasions, not the "general welfare" clause, not the power to make laws concerning naturalization, etc.

Many attempts have been made by people in this thread to twist the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean, or to misconstrue some part of the Constitution that has nothing to do with the immigration of free people, to mean that it does.

People have danced around and dodged the truth and tried to hit me from every angle with laughably stupid arguments, but in every case they were shut down by the truth, by the facts, by the words of our founders, and by the simple and clear language of U.S. Constitution itself which PROHIBITS the federal government from creating or enforcing immigration laws.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Radar

Many attempts have been made by people in this thread to twist the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean, or to misconstrue some part of the Constitution that has nothing to do with the immigration of free people, to mean that it does.

I'll just take this one part - you, Radar, have repeated attempted to tell "us" what a passage or portion of the Constitution refers to or means or is applicable to or directed at or or or or or ad nauseum. Then when it is clearly stated in the Constitution that you are wrong, you claim that part of the Constitution is not valid because it disagrees with your perspective.
Thats fine, I think everyone has got their own perspective and yours is just very different than most well virtually everyone else's. Still thats a good thing to a point, but to claim that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is less of an American. Well thats where you cross a very dangerous line. Add to that your own admission that you would murder a border agent serving his duty and your refusal to pay income taxes.... I'm out - you should spend time with wolfs equivalent in your area.

[classicman]

I'll repeat myself.

Originally Posted by classicman

I'm out - you should spend time with wolfs equivalent in your area.