Comments by "romanmir01" (@romanmir01) on "Health Care Mandate, The Supreme Court, & Hypocrisy" video.

  1. Supreme Court is NOT the DECIDER of the Constitution, it's supposed to UPHOLD the law, not DECIDE on what the law is. The entire Amendment system is flawed - it created the very problem you are obviously displaying here, turning people to believe that the Constitutional amendments are the negative powers and everything else is allowed, while the exact opposite is true Unfortunately from the start people misunderstood this, and acted beyond their authority, thus amendments (which was a mistake)
    1
  2. You are free to be done anytime you want.
    1
  3. 1. There is no value in setting terms limits as long as the Constitution is followed, the opposite is true in fact, if you find people who follow the Constitution, keep them in power as long as possible. 2. Women's suffrage could not have ever happened in the Republic as it was formed, because women mostly didn't run and own land or businesses that would pay actual taxes, and nobody who wasn't a tax payer could vote in the Republic (and USA was no democracy, which was the correct way to go)
    1
  4. Public option is COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. "public option" - there is NO SUCH AUTHORITY in Article 1, Section 8. QED.
    1
  5. Peter Schiff did lose to Linda, but she outspent him by about 49 MILLION and in a state, where nobody has heard of him really (and heard plenty of the Wrestling Linda), Schiff still managed to get what, 23% of the vote? If Simmons dropped out.... I think he was a stooge the way he reentered that race for the second time. But for the first time runner to get 23% of the vote? While being outspent 25 to 1 at least and with all the odds stacked against him? I say he did really well.
    1
  6. Income tax is NOT paid on WEALTH, it's paid on INCOME, and as far as I am concerned it's illegal and it's collected illegally too, and I have an actual argument here, but it's longer than 500 chars, so here is the link: slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2661413&cid=38994655
    1
  7. It's up to the States, Federal gov't has absolutely no mandate to do anything it has been up to for the last 100 years easy (thanks to the super-partisan SCOTUS and the big flaw with the fact that those judges are appointed the way they are). SCOTUS needs to be disbanded, Constitution needs to be amended in order to have a COMPUTER decide these cases. It's easy, I can code it in very short time: Is the item in question in Article 1 section 8? Yes - it's constitutional. NO - get out of here.
    1
  8. As to veterans - in this ONE instance I would say that since the protection of the borders is actually an enumerated power of the Federal government, then ensuring that it is done properly also means taking care of those, who serve their country and Constitution. Veteran care is really something that Federal gov't is truly responsible for - it put them there to be harmed.
    1
  9. What I don't want is to live in tyranny, even if it is tyranny of majority. I don't want to live in a totalitarian society, even if majority believe it's to the benefit. I'd rather live poor in a FREE society than rich surrounded by slaves. There is a PRINCIPLE by which the powers of the Federal gov't are enumerated, and this principle is lost on you, but that's the principle based on which the original colonies actually RATIFIED the damn agreement, and now the contract is broken.
    1
  10. I said what I said: amendments are a mistake, they muddy the water, muddy the issue, they were the first step in the process of subverting the Constitution, because they created the false idea that gov't has all powers and only negative limitations, while in reality US Federal gov't had no powers outside of what it was very explicitly allowed. Amendments are absolutely unnecessary and confused a bunch of people into the wrong idea. All the things in amendments are TRUE WITHOUT AMENDMENTS.
    1
  11. And that's a problem, having lawyers there, isn't it? Shouldn't people be electing those, who actually have a good track record in economics instead? (and that would exclude so many people, the choices would be limited to single digits per ten million).
    1
  12. It's a state by state question then, but Federal gov't has no authority, it has been operating outside of its authority envelope nearly from the moment the Union was agreed upon. Of-course for about 100 years now since that 0.01% millionaire Roosevelt, the process of destruction of liberties and subversion of the Constitution has been sped up dramatically resulting in current economic destruction.
    1
  13. You want me to tell you about the Louisiana Purchase? Are the French ready to pay for it in gold? The point being that it is unconstitutional for the Federal government to OWN land and assets, but it doesn't make sense to force the government to sell its assets to one particular entity either, it should be sold in a free auction, and whoever buys it becomes the owner.
    1
  14. Gov't that is voted for by non-payers of taxes, is gov't that is just an proxy thief. That's all it is. It's true for individuals, but it's also true for the special corporate interests, so the banks get bailouts, but do they really pay taxes? Gov't workers do NOT pay taxes, because they don't produce anything that the gov't didn't already have and didn't pay them in salary, so their real salary is just whatever they get after-tax, but it's not real tax that the gov't workers are paying.
    1
  15. Wait a minute, where does it say that gov't CANNOT do something? You are under the impression that EVERYTHING is allowed to the government by default and that it can do whatever it wants. You have to revisit your most basic assumptions, even though the Congress and the White House and the Senate and SCOTUS have done their business that very way, doesn't at all mean that's the actual mechanism. The mechanism is this: there are ENUMERATED POWERS. Enumerated - listed. Public option? NOT LISTED.
    1
  16. Do you know WHY it's important that only those, who pay taxes are allowed to vote? Because if one is 'represented' WITHOUT paying taxes, then he'll ALWAYS vote for people who do that exact thing I am against - people who will abolish the law above the government Why? Because it makes sense to vote for somebody, who will STEAL from others and GIVE to me. Which part of that is unclear? Bottom 51% of US workers pay 3% of all income taxes. That's NOT a coincidence, it's the consequence of tyranny
    1
  17. Right to tax of gov't is still BOUND by Const'n. 1. Direct taxes must be apportioned. 2. Excise taxes must be uniform. Excise tax is on a product, but not on NOT buying a product, so it's NOT an excise tax, it's a direct tax. So levying a direct tax on individuals (similar to CAPITATION tax), that ppl will have to pay because they DIDN'T buy something, it then MUST BE APPORTIONED. But they cannot apportion this tax. It's not a direct tax. It's not an excise tax. It's unconstitutional.
    1
  18. HOW would I get more FDRs at all, if the people actually cared to elect people that didn't try to subvert the Constitution? How about electing leaders that don't try to be lawyers and get around the actual rules set for the governments to follow? And yes, TODAY you don't have to pay taxes to vote for people who 'represent' you, but that's because the Republic has been abolished and now you have this worthless 'democracy', which is a terrible consequence of destruction of law above gov't.
    1
  19. I am very very specific on INCOME, payroll and corporate taxes that go towards FEDERAL government. I am arguing that if a person is not paying some of these taxes, he should not be able to vote in those particular elections. If the State has an income tax that the person IS paying, then it's fair for that person to vote on that level, etc.
    1
  20. Oh, and by the way, 'uniform' taxes - that principle has been abandoned 100 years ago, around the same time that they really hit their nails into the Constitution. It's not only supposed to be uniform, it's also supposed to be apportioned. PPL allowed that to go the way of the Dodo bird. -- Gov't is arguing before SCOTUS that Obama's HC plan is a TAX. That's while they explicitly stated it's not a tax, when confronted on this. They want both sides of this: Obama promised no new taxes.
    1
  21. Do you know the meaning of the word ratified? What is hilarious about exiting the contract that has been broken exactly, I suppose you never had to do so in your life?
    1
  22. Bill of rights is nonsense, the original Constitution was flawed in the way it treated the minorities and thus the reality is that I would have NEVER ratified it in the way it was ratified. There wouldn't have been USA with THAT contract. Amendments are not prohibited, I never said they were, I said that they muddy the actual understanding that the gov't is only allowed things that are enumerated. The original contract is broken and the original colonies at least have the right to secede.
    1
  23. Why don't you ask yourself: is ANYTHING above the clause 'general welfare' and why have that Constitution at all (you are forgetting the ratification part) if anybody can come up with the next best thing that can be then called 'general welfare'? Is it general welfare to keep you well fed, clothed, warm and generally happy on some drug or other? Maybe it is in the eyes of some. AFAIC general welfare means insuring that States do not create barriers of entry, so cross state driver license is it
    1