States' Rights vs. the Supreme Court

Tom Woods explains that the Supreme Court is not the final authority and that States and the People can resist federal tyranny through strong public opinion and support.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• tom
• woods
• nullification
• tenth
• amendment
• states
• rights
• state
• sovereignty
• supreme
• court
• california

[MorphCity]

@patthespark Pat- many people are waking up to the fact that our freedom has been lost to fiat currency and our current monetary policy, which are contrary to the Constitution that advocates sound money. Central banks did not always exist in America.  Property tax is too complex to explain here and off-topic. Property taxes are levied by states and local governments; this direct tax is not a federal tax. Find out more about Constitutional taxation from G. Edward Griffin's 'The Perfect Tax'

[MorphCity]

@patthespark While I agree with you that our government is a corrupt mess and corporatocracy, it has taken generations to break down the Constitution. Therefore, to say that the American Constitution was created for and by a small group of elitists is false. The problem is lack of awareness and willingness to act in an effective way. This video proves that the States and justice can prevail with enough support. An attitude of doom is often used as an excuse to do nothing.

[bjugler]

@patthespark Are you sure there is no point? Suppose you were the one trying to take freedom away from people. Would you say there was a point in trying to keep people from talking about it? For every person that has convinced themselves that there is no hope, and that there is nothing they can do, that equates to one less person fighting for liberty and against tyranny. You can call me a fool if you like, but I'll die trying before I give up, and I'll never try to convince another to give up.

[rotnflesh]

@ssssaaafff If you want a very accurate breakdown of what those mandates should entail, read this:

usconstitution(dot)net / consttop_pre(dot)h t m l

Then, take all that info and study what the Government has been doing for and to us the last 60 years....now compare them: Is what the government is doing compatible with the mandates of the Constitution that gives them authority and reason for existence?

No, is the answer.

[rotnflesh]

@ssssaaafff "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Source -- Preamble, Constitution for the united States.

That is their 7-job mandate from us. WE DO NOT ENFORCE IT!

Time for change?

[rotnflesh]

@ssssaaafff The truth of the matter is: We let them do what they want to us because it is EASIER than fighting them.

We let them regulate our RIGHTS of locomotion, property, choice, religion, expression, and space. We LET them spend our money to kill brown people around the world. We LET them brainwash our children into consumer fodder so they can work cubical and greasy-spoon jobs for shit pay. We LET THEM control our prosperity....all that, rather than their Constitutionally mandated jobs:

[rotnflesh]

@ssssaaafff "The Sixteenth Amendmentdoes not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects” Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165) (1918)

"The legislative history merely shows... ...that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable.” South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988)

Federal income tax has only been upheld through perjury signatures and/or morons not reading their employment contracts (W-4 forms)

[rotnflesh]

@ssssaaafff We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far reaching effect of this erroneous assumption..." Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. 240 US 1 (1916)

...

[rotnflesh]

@ssssaaafff The 14th Amendment declares that all PERSONS be given FEDERAL RIGHTS. In effect, this Amendment merely protects against States violating FEDERAL PRIVILEGES, which are revokable by the Federal Government anytime they wish to.

It's a paper-defense in that it gives no true freedom, only the shadow of freedom.

16th Amendment...This is the most laughable example of an abridgement of tyranny and consented governance.

[rotnflesh]

@ssssaaafff I am a Constitutional Libertarian. The Bill of Rights indirectly protects the general populace, true, but the sweeping influence of the other Amendments being uncontested is bad: The contract we call the Constitution FOR the united States was never closed, so it is a book open to addition and editing.

This is where the Supreme Court has the power.

There are always pros and cons in anything; the 14th Amendment, for example...

[rotnflesh]

@MorphCity It doesn't matter if its a State government, the Federal Government, or Wal-Mart. The only reason any of them exist is through our consent and tolerance.

In fact, the larger the fictional entity, the greater the number of consenting and tolerant human beings involved in its maintained existence.

Ironically, the greater the number, the less the common sense...but that is individual choice: Free will. People CHOOSE not to educate and empower themselves despite their economic station.

[rotnflesh]

@MorphCity The only interface one can have with a corporation or government is through an AGENT, or REPRESENTATIVE because they are human beings. Chartered entities do not breathe, eat, sleep, shit, piss, cry, want, or feel; it is fallacy to think that they are in any way realistic: They are IDEAS only.

People, as in general populace, need to start breaking away from reliance on fictional entities and start forcing those entities, through their AGENTS, to exercise the will of those People.