BASS BARN banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,018 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Our socialists and communists are complaining about being asked, on the census form “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”


They complain that the question would scare illegal entrants from answering the form in their state and thus reduce their apportioned share of Congressional Representatives, in addition to reducing their apportioned share of free government cheese. And this is especially true of New York, Maryland and California, which appear to be the biggest objectors to the question.


But there is another reason for having the census. In addition to determining each state’s number of Representatives, the census is also intended to determine each state’s share of our federal tax burden!


The rule of apportioning both representatives and direct taxes was part of the Great Compromise of the Convention of 1787, and the wisdom of tying representative and taxation to each state’s population size was summarized as follows by Madison in the Federalist Papers, that it “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.” See Federalist No. 54


And in the state ratification debates we find:


“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6


And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment being intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:


“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41


Our Supreme Court has, over the years, acted in concert with socialists and communists to ensure that States get their apportioned share of Representatives, while intentionally destroying the protection requiring these very states to pay an apportioned share of the federal tax burden. Keep in mind that the constitutional rule requiring “direct taxes” to be apportioned has never been repealed, and has been so stated by the court:


In Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), which ruled on a tax asserted by Congress to be an income tax, the tax was struck down as being a direct tax and requiring an apportionment. The Court stated:


"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."


And in BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929), the Court found the tax there to be an “excise” tax, but emphatically stated “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.


And let us not forget that even Justice Roberts stated in the Obamacare case dealing with what is called “The shared responsibility payment”:


“The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.”


The fact is, it does not matter what Congress calls a specific tax, i.e., impost, duty, excise or income tax. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it must be apportioned as repeatedly commanded by our Constitution and our Court.


So, and with regard to the census question, the more important task is to once again tie representation and taxation to each state’s population size, as intended by our founders.


Finally, for those who do support our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, and especially support the protection intended to be afforded by apportioning both representatives and direct taxes, is it not time to demand our Constitution be following and Representation with a proportional financial obligation be observed, which would end our socialist/communist states’ lover affair with “free” government cheese?


JWK



”If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.”__ POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 [1895]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,018 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Keep in mind the reason for apportioning both representatives and direct taxes was explained as follows by Madison in the Federalist Papers, that it “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”
See Federalist No. 54


Our communist/socialist states like California want to swell their population size with illegal entrants so they can increase their representation in Congress. But they do not want to pay their apportioned share of the federal tax burden as intended by our founders.


The two fair share formulas for which the census is conducted are:




.

State`s Population
_________________X House membership (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
Population of U.S.
.



State`s population
_________________ X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX BURDEN
Total U.S. Population





JWK
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,232 Posts
This s a joke how many places do WE AS Citizens of the United States are asked IF we are a Citizen of the United States i'll start

Drivers Licence
Fire Arms ID
Back Ground Checks
Saltwater Registration
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
370 Posts
Let's be real. Who here illegal is going to answer the question honestly? It's a waste of time for elected officials' it's just a pissing match for each side. There will be no winners not matter what the out come is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76,204 Posts
Let's be real. Who here illegal is going to answer the question honestly? It's a waste of time for elected officials' it's just a pissing match for each side. There will be no winners not matter what the out come is.

Let's be real. Why are the Dems AGAINST It:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,018 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
Justice Roberts second guesses policy making decision, violates separation of powers



It appears with all the noise about the question “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” we are overlooking Justice Roberts has usurped legislative power by second guessing a legitimate policy making decision.

In regard to this assumption of power Justice Stone reminds us that:

”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)


Additionally, the court in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) pointed out:


”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”

And, in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the court unmistakably confirmed:

…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.



And finally, Justice Black, quite eloquently addressed the issue as follows:

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


The bottom line is, Justice Obamacare-Roberts has repeatedly violate the most fundamental cannons and principles of our constitutionally limited system of government and the fundamental rules of constitutional construction by interfering with a legitimate question being replaced on our census form . . . “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [ourMSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,018 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Will Justice Roberts explain how can the 2nd Section of the 14th Amendment be carried out without distinguishing citizens from non-citizens?

JWK
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
370 Posts
Why are the Republicans for it when it will not be answered honestly? Because they want to join the pissing match. Total waste time to debate it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,018 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Obama asked on the 2015 survey: Is this person a citizen of the United States?

Let us not forget that Obama asked this very question in the 2015 "THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY", sent by the Census Bureau!

Question "8" asked of "Person 1" reads "Is this person a citizen of the United States?"


JWK

The Democrat Leadership is correct! The border crisis has been manufactured. It has been manufactured by the Democrat Leadership in Congress refusing to protect our borders against an ongoing invasion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,232 Posts
Why are the Republicans for it when it will not be answered honestly? Because they want to join the pissing match. Total waste time to debate it.

Just to prove what liars they really are but IMO mo more proof is needed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,018 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
.
In 2015 when Obama asked in the American Community Survey, “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”, one of the reasons he gave for asking the question is, it is “used to decide where new schools, hospitals, and fire stations are needed.” So, according to Obama, it’s important to ask “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” for the above stated reasons.

JWK

The Democrat Leadership is correct! The border crisis has been manufactured. It has been manufactured by the Democrat Leadership in Congress refusing to protect our borders against an ongoing invasion.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
370 Posts
LOL which is why they shouldn't be in this Country NO ?
Actually the answer is yes, they should not be in this country illegal. But we have to go back to Reagan and amnesty. It gave many more reason the make the trek over the years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76,204 Posts
Actually the answer is yes, they should not be in this country illegal. But we have to go back to Reagan and amnesty. It gave many more reason the make the trek over the years.
Maybe we should talk about the current situation like the Tx legislators’ documents (Found on Illegals) telling illegal immigrants how to beat the system.
The list is long and we all know why the Dems want open Borders

This is fixable with Simple Legislation Changes that would de-incentify the Illegals from coming here
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top