I think he messed up. He said Congress is not allowed to make Letters of Marque and Repraisal, when - in fact - they are allowed to in Section 8. I think it was an accident, though.
Back in video 1, Mr. Badnarik admitted this would be a superficial summary of the material. Does that admission prevent such a course from being considered a strict interpretation?
He's being rather picky with what he chooses to literally interpret, and I foresee this being a problem with his 2nd Amendment defense. I wonder if he's going to concentrate solely on the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" but ignore the first part.
Since those people elected are called REPRESENTATIVES; they are legally bound to do as the People so instruct them. See Declaration of Independence that defines REPRESENTATIVE in the last paragraph.
I don't agree with Michael's assessment that he shouldn't take FRNs, otherwise he would be a hypocrite. The constitution forbids the STATES from requiring anything but gold and silver. The rest of us (private individuals, businesses, etc.) can take anything we dang well please if it is in agreement with the payee and the payor. We can even use seashells, toilet bowls, or pelts in payment if we wanted to.
I agree with you friend, however what happens when the people in charge of the specific currency decides to break the law and start thier own method of cheating?
wasn't the Constitution amended to allow for taxing individuals? And if voting for president is 'meaningless' why are we encouraged to vote? My understanding is that the popular vote determines which candidate gets the electoral votes for that state.
allowing for taxing individuals i guess I'll have to look into that but let know where exactly thats located I tend to forget to respond to these things lol...well voting for a president essentially is meaningless with the popular vote as well as the electoral they could be at odds with one another like what we had in previous elections where one recieved a higher popular vote and the other the electoral
The 16th Amendment is what the IRS says allows them to tax individuals. However, the evidence is that the 16th Amend. was not properly ratified. But even if it was, Supreme Court decisions quite close to the "ratification" shows that the 16th did not give the Congress any new taxing power. So, if they couldn't tax individual incomes before, they couldn't do it afterward.
ysgeye is correct. The 16th Amendment was NOT ratified and therefore no new taxing power was granted to tax individuals. That is why you will hear politicians use the words "Voluntary Compliance" and it is also why no one has paid there taxes that Obama tried to appoint.
Hahahahaha....."honey, I'm getting married"....that was priceless :P
dyampir 1 year ago
that is awesome that you have to pay in silver to attend his class
parkergmatas 1 year ago
@parkergmatas thats fucking Legit! XD
Takiado 8 months ago
I think he messed up. He said Congress is not allowed to make Letters of Marque and Repraisal, when - in fact - they are allowed to in Section 8. I think it was an accident, though.
justinpagewood 2 years ago
@justinpagewood I think he was talking about what states are not allowed to do, not what congress is not allowed to do.
constablekohler 2 years ago
Back in video 1, Mr. Badnarik admitted this would be a superficial summary of the material. Does that admission prevent such a course from being considered a strict interpretation?
He's being rather picky with what he chooses to literally interpret, and I foresee this being a problem with his 2nd Amendment defense. I wonder if he's going to concentrate solely on the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" but ignore the first part.
ibnmosef 3 years ago
No, it doesn't, he said superficial because he's trying to relay nearly 20 years of study in a one day class.
Monkor001 2 years ago
"If voting for the President meant anything it would have been illegal long ago."
Damn Straight!
cometepiace 3 years ago 8
Since those people elected are called REPRESENTATIVES; they are legally bound to do as the People so instruct them. See Declaration of Independence that defines REPRESENTATIVE in the last paragraph.
Kingery4President 2 years ago 2
if you disagree with this guy your still in the matrix
goose420w 3 years ago 14
I don't agree with Michael's assessment that he shouldn't take FRNs, otherwise he would be a hypocrite. The constitution forbids the STATES from requiring anything but gold and silver. The rest of us (private individuals, businesses, etc.) can take anything we dang well please if it is in agreement with the payee and the payor. We can even use seashells, toilet bowls, or pelts in payment if we wanted to.
ysgeye 3 years ago 4
thats true, and that my friend is why i call free trade. and its a good thing, we used it all the time until america started controlling everything.
xmattycorex 3 years ago 5
For this class he accepted silver only. For other classes he immediately converts the worthless FRN's to inflation-proof silver, or other metals.
AwakenedByTyranny 3 years ago 4
I agree with you friend, however what happens when the people in charge of the specific currency decides to break the law and start thier own method of cheating?
lawharrison 3 years ago 2
Like with what heppend cause of the Federal reserve act of 1913?
Monkor001 2 years ago
BINGO. More oversight on the people that need it.
lawharrison 2 years ago
wasn't the Constitution amended to allow for taxing individuals? And if voting for president is 'meaningless' why are we encouraged to vote? My understanding is that the popular vote determines which candidate gets the electoral votes for that state.
zoskiaist 4 years ago
allowing for taxing individuals i guess I'll have to look into that but let know where exactly thats located I tend to forget to respond to these things lol...well voting for a president essentially is meaningless with the popular vote as well as the electoral they could be at odds with one another like what we had in previous elections where one recieved a higher popular vote and the other the electoral
benjie2429 4 years ago
The 16th Amendment is what the IRS says allows them to tax individuals. However, the evidence is that the 16th Amend. was not properly ratified. But even if it was, Supreme Court decisions quite close to the "ratification" shows that the 16th did not give the Congress any new taxing power. So, if they couldn't tax individual incomes before, they couldn't do it afterward.
ysgeye 3 years ago 4
ysgeye is correct. The 16th Amendment was NOT ratified and therefore no new taxing power was granted to tax individuals. That is why you will hear politicians use the words "Voluntary Compliance" and it is also why no one has paid there taxes that Obama tried to appoint.
smatthewsauthor 2 years ago 2