MJ: When a 'child', or someone with less sophistication, keeps questioning authority by asking, "why?", sometimes the best reply is: "Because I say so!" You are definitely someone of low sophistication. So... "Because I say so, kid!" — J. A. A. — > On May 26, 1:35 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > You can spew all the fallacious matter you choose, but it remains that you > are (hopelessly) confused. > Per AIS5C2:Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its > Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, > expel a Member.Note that the CONSTITUTION provides the House the power to > determine the Rules of its Proceedings. If that body deems Members with > certain affiliations to have certain positions/duties, then such is within > its purview. > The problem occurs when Rules are imposed OUTSIDE of the House itself. This > does not make political parties unconstitutional, but instead the advantage > providing laws unconstitutional. > Regard$, > --MJ > Several major turning points mark the reversal of this [Constitutional > enumerated powers] ethic. The first was the passage in 1913 of the Sixteenth > Amendment, which permitted a federal income tax. This was the first major > tax that was not levied on a proportional or uniform basis. Hence, it > allowed Congress a political free ride: It could provide government benefits > to many by imposing a disproportionately heavy tax burden on the wealthy. > ... -- Stephen Moore, _Between Power and Liberty_ > At 11:19 AM 5/26/2011, you wrote:Dear Pigeon-Dung-for-a-Brain, MJ: The > SPIRIT of the Constitution > champions FAIRNESS and equality of the power of INDIVIDUALS to control > government. The (they were only human) Founding Fathers knew that > there were rules needing to be made and laws passed to make this > country function. But those naive Founding Fathers had no idea that > by giving Congress the 'power' to make its own rules, without any > controls over what those rules can be, that Congress would so willing > depart from the sacred SPIRIT of the Constitution that is: "Fair play > and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!" Having... "rules" > that give the power to 'the winning party', and not allocating power > to individuals equally, is a SUBVERSION of our sacred Representative > (parity) Republic! There is NO ASPECT OF THE MANDATED STRUCTURE OF > OUR GOVERNMENT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE PEOPLE > CONTROL GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING THE PEOPLE!!! > Congress, nor the President have the power to vote to take power away > from the People. And Congress, nor the President have the authority > to do a God-damned THING that is socialist-communist or unfair!!! My > New Constitution stipulates that no "rule" of Congress can concentrate > power in the hands of any individual or group beyond one-person-one- > vote. Political parties, because they are unfair and use leverage NOT > granted by the Constitution are, and always have been > UNCONSTITUTIONAL! You would be well advised NOT to question anything > I have done on behalf of the American People, because there is not a > Patriot on Earth with my intellect and my devotion to SAVING this > country!!! — John A. Armistead — Patriot > > > On May 25, 9:49 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > Political parties are unconstitutional because they impose a power > > structure within Congress that gives the... "power" to the winning > > party, rather than having a parity of power on every single issue > > voted upon. You are (hopelessly) confused. > > Per AIS5C2:Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish > > its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two > > thirds, expel a Member.Note that the CONSTITUTION provides the House the > > power to determine the Rules of its Proceedings. If that body deems Members > > with certain affiliations to have certain positions/duties, then such is > > within its purview. > > The problem occurs when Rules are imposed OUTSIDE of the House itself. This > > does not make political parties unconstitutional, but instead the advantage > > providing laws unconstitutional. > > Regard$, > > --MJ > > Several major turning points mark the reversal of this [Constitutional > > enumerated powers] ethic. The first was the passage in 1913 of the > > Sixteenth Amendment, which permitted a federal income tax. This was the > > first major tax that was not levied on a proportional or uniform basis. > > Hence, it allowed Congress a political free ride: It could provide > > government benefits to many by imposing a disproportionately heavy tax > > burden on the wealthy. ... -- Stephen Moore, _Between Power and Liberty_ > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
