BREAKING: 5 to 4 in favor of incorporation

[Quantum]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9GKARU01&show_article=1

Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide
Jun 28 10:13 AM US/Eastern
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court says the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of government to limit its application.

The justices on Monday cast doubt on a Chicago area handgun ban, but also signaled in their 5-4 decision that less severe restrictions could survive legal challenges.

[Quantum]

The Decision:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

[General of Darkness]

I like how all the jewish judges voted against the constitution.

[joe_momma]

Thank you George Bush!

Chief Justice Alito

[sirgonzo420]

I like how all the jewish judges voted against the constitution.


Oh come on, they were just trying to be jewdicial.

[chad]

in other news, daley and other asshole politicians to simply ignore the ruling with no repurcussions at all.

[I am me, I am free]

I gather they largely relied on the 14th amendment in this decision. If so, I don't see how anyone can regard that as a good thing.

[Neuro]

I like how all the jewish judges voted against the constitution.
I guess they have a grudge against it because no Jewish judges were around to write the god dam piece of paper. I bet it would have looked different if there were..

[Awoke]

I guess they have a grudge against it because no Jewish judges were around to write the god dam piece of paper. I bet it would have looked different if there were..


Like this?

http://www.virtualgeula.com/meorei-or/yerush-cover.jpg

[Apparition]

5-4? Sigh.

I guess Bush's presidency did produce a few good results.

[I am me, I am free]

5-4? Sigh.

I guess Bush's presidency did produce a few good results.


If any rights are tied to the 14th amendment, there's nothing good about that.

[Twisted Titan]

in other news, daley and other asshole politicians to simply ignore the ruling with no repurcussions at all.



The Illegal we do immediately........The unconstitutional takes a bit longer.

H. Kissinger


T

[Neuro]

in other news, daley and other asshole politicians to simply ignore the ruling with no repurcussions at all.



The Illegal we do immediately........The unconstitutional takes a bit longer.

H. Kissinger
T
Damn did he really say that?

[Twisted Titan]

in other news, daley and other asshole politicians to simply ignore the ruling with no repurcussions at all.



The Illegal we do immediately........The unconstitutional takes a bit longer.

H. Kissinger
T
Damn did he really say that?





The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.


Henry Kissinger, New York Times, Oct. 28, 1973

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Henry_Kissinger/

[Quantum]

I gather they largely relied on the 14th amendment in this decision. If so, I don't see how anyone can regard that as a good thing.


If you believe the bullshit that's spewed in "patriot" circles about the 14th Amendment, yeah, you might not regard it as a good thing.

But because the 14th Amendment in reality means something much different than claimed by those who push magic formulae that work only inside their deluded domes, namely, that states cannot impose tyranny by imposing measures repugnant to the Bill of Rights, I find McDonald, relying on the 14th Amendment heavily (due process), to be a great thing.

I only wish Alito had clarified or expounded further on "limits (but by no means eliminates)." "Shall not be infringed" is exceptionally clear.

[Quantum]

If any rights are tied to the 14th amendment, there's nothing good about that.


In other words, you prefer ideology over liberty.

[I am me, I am free]

If any rights are tied to the 14th amendment, there's nothing good about that.


In other words, you prefer ideology over liberty.


I get the impression you suffer from anosognosia. lol

[Quantum]

If any rights are tied to the 14th amendment, there's nothing good about that.


In other words, you prefer ideology over liberty.


I get the impression you suffer from anosognosia. lol


Do you suffer from schizophrenia or compulsive lying? Both, perhaps?

Why do you oppose the System's acknowledgment of a God-given right being relevant to the States? You prefer State tyranny?

[I am me, I am free]

If any rights are tied to the 14th amendment, there's nothing good about that.


In other words, you prefer ideology over liberty.


I get the impression you suffer from anosognosia. lol


Do you suffer from schizophrenia or compulsive lying? Both, perhaps?

Why do you oppose the System's acknowledgment of a God-given right being relevant to the States? You prefer State tyranny?


I have not read the decision (and considering the length I doubt I will), however I have read commentary elsewhere which noted the Supremes relied upon the 'due process' clause of the 14th amendment.

Do you always demonstrate an inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgment??

[Steal]

ano soga...what? anosognosia ---had to look it up.

Anosognosia is a condition in which a person who suffers disability seems unaware of or denies the existence of his or her disability. This may include unawareness of quite dramatic impairments, such as blindness or paralysis. It was first named by neurologist Joseph Babinski in 1914,[1] although relatively little has been discovered about the cause of the condition since its initial identification. The word comes from the Greek words "nosos" disease and "gnosis" knowledge (an- / a- is a negative prefix).

[I am me, I am free]

ano soga...what? anosognosia ---had to look it up.

Anosognosia is a condition in which a person who suffers disability seems unaware of or denies the existence of his or her disability. This may include unawareness of quite dramatic impairments, such as blindness or paralysis. It was first named by neurologist Joseph Babinski in 1914,[1] although relatively little has been discovered about the cause of the condition since its initial identification. The word comes from the Greek words "nosos" disease and "gnosis" knowledge (an- / a- is a negative prefix).


I suggest you check out this thread, it's a great article - Link to Article (http://gold-silver.us/forum/general-discussion/we%27re-stupid-but-not-that-stupid-%28the-anosognosia-of-everyday-life%29/)


EDIT: Changed long link to named link to prevent horizontal scrolling. -Gaillo

[I am me, I am free]

I gather they largely relied on the 14th amendment in this decision. If so, I don't see how anyone can regard that as a good thing.


If you believe the bullsh*t that's spewed in "patriot" circles about the 14th Amendment, yeah, you might not regard it as a good thing.

But because the 14th Amendment in reality means something much different than claimed by those who push magic formulae that work only inside their deluded domes, namely, that states cannot impose tyranny by imposing measures repugnant to the Bill of Rights, I find McDonald, relying on the 14th Amendment heavily (due process), to be a great thing.

I only wish Alito had clarified or expounded further on "limits (but by no means eliminates)." "Shall not be infringed" is exceptionally clear.


Somehow I don't think you appreciate the distinction between natural, God-given, unalienable rights and civil rights - you anosognosic. lol

[7th trump]

I gather they largely relied on the 14th amendment in this decision. If so, I don't see how anyone can regard that as a good thing.


If you believe the bullsh*t that's spewed in "patriot" circles about the 14th Amendment, yeah, you might not regard it as a good thing.

But because the 14th Amendment in reality means something much different than claimed by those who push magic formulae that work only inside their deluded domes, namely, that states cannot impose tyranny by imposing measures repugnant to the Bill of Rights, I find McDonald, relying on the 14th Amendment heavily (due process), to be a great thing.

I only wish Alito had clarified or expounded further on "limits (but by no means eliminates)." "Shall not be infringed" is exceptionally clear.

If the 14th means nothing and doesnt have any bearing on rights then why does the Senate disagree with you Quantum?
I'd rather beleive an official Senate document outlining what exactly those who are subject to the jurisdiction get as th Bill of Rights than your uneducated opinion.
The 14th incorporates very little Bill of Rights with the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that federal citizens get.
Heres something for you quatum...................why do we need a congressional Civil Rights Act when the Bill of Rights are all we need?
See what you think of these court cites quantum that prove you.........................well not correct!


“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...”
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

“...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,...” “One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States”.
McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)

“That there is a citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state,...”
Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236 (1927)

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)

“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

Now please tell us quantum how one person having a different set of Rights is the same "legally" as someone with a different set of rights?
The courts recognize a legal difference dont they!

[StackerKen]

I am glad they made this ruling....

Good thing they voted before Kagan got in there.

[Jazkal]

I am glad they made this ruling....

Good thing they voted before Kagan got in there.

Isn't she replacing one of the decenters?

[StackerKen]

I am glad they made this ruling....

Good thing they voted before Kagan got in there.

Isn't she replacing one of the decenters?

oh...good question...I don't know...I didn't think before I posted

I think John Paul Stevens is a Republican, so I just assumed he voted in favor



Splitting along conservative and liberal lines, the nation's highest court extended its landmark 2008 ruling -- that individual Americans have a constitutional right to own guns -- to all cities and states for the first time.
Im not sure how he voted though.


ETA; I found this when searching the story..

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. They said the Heller decision remained incorrect and added that they would not have extended its protections to state and local laws even had it been correctly decided.

So you are correct....and I stand corrected


I don't know nuthin

[Jazkal]

i wasn't sure, but I figured Obama was replacing a like minded SCJ.

[Quantum]

Do you always demonstrate an inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgment??


I exercise intelligence beyond your maximum limit when I say you are full of it when claiming to drive around free of police state harassment without a driver's license or license plate.

I exercise sound judgment when I declare your deluded theories of "get out of the police state free" using nonsensical, impotent legal theories to be nothing more than large mounds of Texas manure.

[EE_]

[
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.


Henry Kissinger, New York Times, Oct. 28, 1873

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Henry_Kissinger/



I fixed the date. That fu(king devil is not human and is way older then anyone knows.

[7th trump]

Do you always demonstrate an inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgment??


I exercise intelligence beyond your maximum limit when I say you are full of it when claiming to drive around free of police state harassment without a driver's license or license plate.

I exercise sound judgment when I declare your deluded theories of "get out of the police state free" using nonsensical, impotent legal theories to be nothing more than large mounds of Texas manure.

What....................?
You not going to comment on my post with the court cites quantum?
You say a lot of crap but when I put up the evidence you say nothing???
Come on quantum put up or shut up!

[Quantum]

While I personally value the McDonald decision, since it will impede some of the bureaucratic bullshit dished out by the System regarding firearms and their ownership and bearance, I do not misconstrue it's true meaning.

The decision of McDonald v. Chicago is a statement of "The Powers that Be" that they DO NOT FEAR US. If the System stooges and thugs really did fear us, the decision would have been 9 to 0 against the plain-text of the Second Amendment.

McDonald is a concession to the growing movement of "work within the System" patriotards who are constitutionally (no pun intended) incapable of recognizing that the US Government and the US Constitution are instruments of a satanic, fascist dictatorship.

Executive Vice Quisling Wayne LaPierre vomited out sophistry shortly after McDonald was issued, praising McDonald while comprehensively ignoring the indisputable, absolutely clear, centuries-old meaning of the plain English "shall not be infringed." Tens of millions will accept this "common sense" NEWSPEAK for gospel, and shun, insult, or attack those of us who point out McDonald is nothing more than a form of Pyrrhic victory. Enormous resources have been, and will continue to be expended just to maintain a status quo of massive infringement of a right. This lukewarm, equivocal, and greatly expensive - in manhours and millions of dollars - endeavor, can and likely will be rendered irrelevant by an "executive order" or perhaps a UN "treaty." Had the Supreme Court issued the rightful decision, reiterating and affirming the Second Amendment's eternal law which any elementary school kid can properly understand, then we might have something to truly celebrate.

No, "the Powers that Be" do not fear us. And they have tens of millions of imbecilic scoundrels who believe in the "rule of [their] law" ready to report a free man for buying, using or even possessing "illegal" weapons or "illegal" ammunition or bearing arms "illegally."

[Quantum]

You not going to comment on my post with the court cites quantum?


I stopped talking back to the turds in the bowl when I was, what, 5?

Now I just push the lever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-3Iq3XQkAw

[I am me, I am free]

Do you always demonstrate an inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgment??


I exercise intelligence beyond your maximum limit when I say you are full of it when claiming to drive around free of police state harassment without a driver's license or license plate.

I exercise sound judgment when I declare your deluded theories of "get out of the police state free" using nonsensical, impotent legal theories to be nothing more than large mounds of Texas manure.


You just keep diggin' your anosognosic hole deeper and deeper, don't you?

Are you going to address the case cites 7th trump posted about federal citizenship vs. state citizenship or is that an inconvenient truth?

[Grand Master Melon]

You not going to comment on my post with the court cites quantum?


I stopped talking back to the turds in the bowl when I was, what, 5?

Now I just push the lever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-3Iq3XQkAw


How witty. :oo-->

[Awoke]

I feel as though I have to make a post with the word anosognosic in it.

I'm just trying to fit in.

;D

[Quantum]

You just keep diggin' your anosognosic hole deeper and deeper, don't you?


You remind me of an idiot savant who is fascinated with one, peculiar word.

It's totally laughable that you would claim I'm "unaware" of "my condition"...while you pay homage with every post, via your user name, to an occultist lunatic.




Are you going to address the case cites 7th trump posted about federal citizenship vs. state citizenship or is that an inconvenient truth?


As with most of 7th Dump's posts, his position is sophistry and half-truths.

The language of the 14th Amendment was written with recently-freed Blacks in mind. There is no "special meaning" or sinister meaning, as patriotard con-artists claim. It simply meant the US government saw each American as both a citizen of the respective state and the United States as whole. This meaning extends back to before the 1787 constitution was written.

[I am me, I am free]

You just keep diggin' your anosognosic hole deeper and deeper, don't you?


You remind me of an idiot savant who is fascinated with one, peculiar word.

It's totally laughable that you would claim I'm "unaware" of "my condition"...while you pay homage with every post, via your user name, to an occultist lunatic.




Are you going to address the case cites 7th trump posted about federal citizenship vs. state citizenship or is that an inconvenient truth?


As with most of 7th Dump's posts, his position is sophistry and half-truths.

The language of the 14th Amendment was written with recently-freed Blacks in mind. There is no "special meaning" or sinister meaning, as patriotard con-artists claim. It simply meant the US government saw each American as both a citizen of the respective state and the United States as whole. This meaning extends back to before the 1787 constitution was written.


This coming from someone who vowed never to return to this forum a couple of months ago. lol

[Bigjon]

As with most of 7th Dump's posts, his position is sophistry and half-truths.

The language of the 14th Amendment was written with recently-freed Blacks in mind. There is no "special meaning" or sinister meaning, as patriotard con-artists claim. It simply meant the US government saw each American as both a citizen of the respective state and the United States as whole. This meaning extends back to before the 1787 constitution was written.


If this were true the language of the amendment could be summed up in one sentence.

Here is the text of the amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[Quantum]

This coming from someone who vowed never to return to this forum a couple of months ago. lol


You're more insane than I thought. Care to explain this?

[Quantum]

If this were true the language of the amendment could be summed up in one sentence.

Here is the text of the amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(irrelevant portions removed)


Yeah? And your point?

What problem do you have with the language there?

If you believe Negroes should not be citizens, fine, we can come to an agreement.

However, how is this language "sinister" if applied only to White people?

It is completely consistent with the principles within the Bill of Rights. I'm certainly not in favor of a State tyranny more powerful than a Federal tyranny. I don't want tyranny of either kind. I want State governments to be powerful enough to challenge the Federal government, but I DO NOT want them powerful enough to challenge the American people.

The "Citizen of the United States" issue is claimed to be nefarious only by con-artists and idiots who fall for their games.


Here's text from the original parts of the 1787 Constitution:

Article I, Section 2:

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

Article I, Section 3:

"No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Article II, Section 1:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."


If what the con-artists claim about "Federal v. State citizen" is true, then James Madison, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were all in on it...81 years before the 14th Amendment!!

[Bigjon]

Well if anything, you are funny. Your last reply cracked me up.

Irrelevant parts removed

[I am me, I am free]

Well if anything, you are funny. Your last reply cracked me up.

Irrelevant parts removed



Indeed.

[Quantum]

Well if anything, you are funny. Your last reply cracked me up.

Irrelevant parts removed



What do Sections 2, 3, and 4 have to do with the issue at hand? (Federal v. State citizenship)

Care to refute my commentary, or are you incapable of doing so?

[Quantum]

Well if anything, you are funny. Your last reply cracked me up.

Irrelevant parts removed



Indeed.


How's your practice of Kabbalah going?

Learn any new tricks from New Age occultist David "I am Me, I am 'Free' [sic]" Icke?

("free" of what, God?)

[I am me, I am free]

Quantum, are you as insufferable in the RW as you are in cyberspace?

I perceive an OC component, and it ain't pretty.

[Quantum]

Quantum, are you as insufferable in the RW as you are in cyberspace?

I perceive an OC component, and it ain't pretty.


Ah, you're not only a Kabbalistic occultist, you're a Freudian psychoanalyst, too!

Why don't you just come clean, and admit that your "sovereign citizen" and related theories are just such a bunch of crap?




(when I'm accused of being obsessive-compulsive about the Truth, I'll take that as a compliment!)

[7th trump]

If this were true the language of the amendment could be summed up in one sentence.

Here is the text of the amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(irrelevant portions removed)


Yeah? And your point?

What problem do you have with the language there?

If you believe Negroes should not be citizens, fine, we can come to an agreement.

However, how is this language "sinister" if applied only to White people?

It is completely consistent with the principles within the Bill of Rights. I'm certainly not in favor of a State tyranny more powerful than a Federal tyranny. I don't want tyranny of either kind. I want State governments to be powerful enough to challenge the Federal government, but I DO NOT want them powerful enough to challenge the American people.

The "Citizen of the United States" issue is claimed to be nefarious only by con-artists and idiots who fall for their games.


Here's text from the original parts of the 1787 Constitution:

Article I, Section 2:

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

Article I, Section 3:

"No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Article II, Section 1:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."


If what the con-artists claim about "Federal v. State citizen" is true, then James Madison, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were all in on it...81 years before the 14th Amendment!!

Quantum, All thats being said is the recognition that the federal government sees two types of people holding different Rights from the other.

Maybe you are taking it all wrong quantum about George and the guys being "in on it".
Maybe its more seperation of federal central government from state government?

You definetly cannot argue that the feds see different Rights within state jurisdictions................and you dont which I beleive is not a mistake Mr. quatloos guy!

Furthermore the Negroe is not really free because if the negore was truely free Congress wouldnt have had to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to give the negroe rights or privileges nor would they have to amend the Constitution with the 14th amendment to give the negroe a citizenship status equal to whites. They would have been free and equal to whites and had the Bill of Rights, all ten of them!
Acts of Congress are not even close to being considered an amendment to the Constitution.
Acts of Congress are not amendments quantum.

Tell us mr. compulsive of the truth!
Are enactments of Congress ratifications of the Constitution?
Who can ratify quantum?....who!
Do you know the difference?

[7th trump]

Quantum, are you as insufferable in the RW as you are in cyberspace?

I perceive an OC component, and it ain't pretty.


Ah, you're not only a Kabbalistic occultist, you're a Freudian psychoanalyst, too!

Why don't you just come clean, and admit that your "sovereign citizen" and related theories are just such a bunch of crap?




(when I'm accused of being obsessive-compulsive about the Truth, I'll take that as a compliment!)

Show us in the law where it says that every American must apply for a ssn and be forced to accept federal benefits?

[I am me, I am free]

Show us in the law where it says that every American must apply for a ssn and be forced to accept federal benefits?


I'm waiting to see this as well, but somehow I get the impression it won't be forthcoming.

[Quantum]

Show us in the law where it says that every American must apply for a ssn and be forced to accept federal benefits?


I'm waiting to see this as well, but somehow I get the impression it won't be forthcoming.


7th Dump's assertion is a strawman. "The law" does NOT require anyone "be forced to accept federal benefits." He knows this, so he presents a HALF-TRUTH, implying the entire statement is false because half of it is false.

I have shown, clearly, from the Internal Revenue Code, in another thread, the SSN is REQUIRED for every "taxpayer." Now you con-artists can claim you're not "taxpayers," but the IRC also says you are. You can argue the Internal Revenue Code is wrong, evil, unconstitutional, or whatever, and while I agree with those assertions wholeheartedly, the IRS ACTS ON THE IRC, and puts people in prison for refusing to comply.

How much money have you made from unsuspecting people peddling this BS? Thousands? "The Free Yourself Sovereign Citizen Guide, only $109.95" and "The Free Yourself Sovereign Citizen Seminar, three whole days of information you can get nowhere else, only $895.99, not including lodging or meals." Most of us have come across these SCAMS, and have seen the non-"arguments" before.

I won't fall for it...and I won't let any other person here at GSUS who naively believes "patriots" aren't out to rip them off, to fall for it, either.

[I am me, I am free]

Show us in the law where it says that every American must apply for a ssn and be forced to accept federal benefits?


I'm waiting to see this as well, but somehow I get the impression it won't be forthcoming.


7th Dump's assertion is a strawman. "The law" does NOT require anyone "be forced to accept federal benefits." He knows this, so he presents a HALF-TRUTH, implying the entire statement is false because half of it is false.

I have shown, clearly, from the Internal Revenue Code, in another thread, the SSN is REQUIRED for every "taxpayer." Now you con-artists can claim you're not "taxpayers," but the IRC also says you are. You can argue the Internal Revenue Code is wrong, evil, unconstitutional, or whatever, and while I agree with those assertions wholeheartedly, the IRS ACTS ON THE IRC, and puts people in prison for refusing to comply.

How much money have you made from unsuspecting people peddling this BS? Thousands? "The Free Yourself Sovereign Citizen Guide, only $109.95" and "The Free Yourself Sovereign Citizen Seminar, three whole days of information you can get nowhere else, only $895.99, not including lodging or meals." Most of us have come across these SCAMS, and have seen the non-"arguments" before.

I won't fall for it...and I won't let any other person here at GSUS who naively believes "patriots" aren't out to rip them off, to fall for it, either.


Anyone who allows anyone else to determine their status for them is a fool. This coming from someone who claims to adhere to God's law to boot. lol

[7th trump]

Show us in the law where it says that every American must apply for a ssn and be forced to accept federal benefits?


I'm waiting to see this as well, but somehow I get the impression it won't be forthcoming.


7th Dump's assertion is a strawman. "The law" does NOT require anyone "be forced to accept federal benefits." He knows this, so he presents a HALF-TRUTH, implying the entire statement is false because half of it is false.

I have shown, clearly, from the Internal Revenue Code, in another thread, the SSN is REQUIRED for every "taxpayer." Now you con-artists can claim you're not "taxpayers," but the IRC also says you are. You can argue the Internal Revenue Code is wrong, evil, unconstitutional, or whatever, and while I agree with those assertions wholeheartedly, the IRS ACTS ON THE IRC, and puts people in prison for refusing to comply.

How much money have you made from unsuspecting people peddling this BS? Thousands? "The Free Yourself Sovereign Citizen Guide, only $109.95" and "The Free Yourself Sovereign Citizen Seminar, three whole days of information you can get nowhere else, only $895.99, not including lodging or meals." Most of us have come across these SCAMS, and have seen the non-"arguments" before.

I won't fall for it...and I won't let any other person here at GSUS who naively believes "patriots" aren't out to rip them off, to fall for it, either.

Show me in the Social Security Act anywhere, or Title 42 where SS is statutorized, or even in title 26 for revenue purposes that its required by every American to apply for a ssn.......show me the law because i can show you an Administrative regulation thats say if do not want to participate in SS you do not need to apply for a ssn and not only that but I can show you a SSA letter saying that a ssn is not required to live and work in America or to merely have one.

And I've countered your claims that I DO NOT sell rip off scams.................I do no such thing. I'm an electrician quantum nothing more and nothing less.
I merely question the law .................thats it!


Yea sure a ssn is required for and by taxpayers I never said anything different. Matter of fact, I whole heartedly agree with you because thats what the law says.
However Mr Quatloos, you are under the assumption that everone is a taxpayer at birth..................thats a bad assumption made by you and those socialist lawyers and judges over at quatloos.com because thats not what the law says.
You see the 16th doesnt say who or what is taxed unapportionately. You have to go to the statutory law to find out who and what is taxed unapportionately.
The question is quantum...............................does the chicken come before the egg?
You say and the law says " the SSN is REQUIRED for every "taxpayer" but what you do not understand is since the 16th doesnt identify a "taxpayer" what makes them a "taxpayer"? which comes to the old verbage of " does the egg come before the chicken"?

One thing about it quantum.........theres only one number that puts a person in the federal system and that is the ssn. There is no other number or identifier that does that, so with a little common sense figure what comes before the other.......the chicken or the egg.

And all most forgot quantum..........................why are you going to and reffering to title 26 to determine that ever American is required to apply for a ssn?
Title 26 is for revenue only....................has nothing to do with anyone accepting benefits or not.

[7th trump]

Show us in the law where it says that every American must apply for a ssn and be forced to accept federal benefits?


I'm waiting to see this as well, but somehow I get the impression it won't be forthcoming.


7th Dump's assertion is a strawman. "The law" does NOT require anyone "be forced to accept federal benefits." He knows this, so he presents a HALF-TRUTH, implying the entire statement is false because half of it is false.

I have shown, clearly, from the Internal Revenue Code, in another thread, the SSN is REQUIRED for every "taxpayer." Now you con-artists can claim you're not "taxpayers," but the IRC also says you are. You can argue the Internal Revenue Code is wrong, evil, unconstitutional, or whatever, and while I agree with those assertions wholeheartedly, the IRS ACTS ON THE IRC, and puts people in prison for refusing to comply.

How much money have you made from unsuspecting people peddling this BS? Thousands? "The Free Yourself Sovereign Citizen Guide, only $109.95" and "The Free Yourself Sovereign Citizen Seminar, three whole days of information you can get nowhere else, only $895.99, not including lodging or meals." Most of us have come across these SCAMS, and have seen the non-"arguments" before.

I won't fall for it...and I won't let any other person here at GSUS who naively believes "patriots" aren't out to rip them off, to fall for it, either.


Anyone who allows anyone else to determine their status for them is a fool. This coming from someone who claims to adhere to God's law to boot. lol

You'll find all the communist lawyers and judges over at quatloos.com say the very same thing. All God loving..............but their works tell of a different story.
Know them by the fruits they bare!

[Quantum]

Anyone who allows anyone else to determine their status for them is a fool. This coming from someone who claims to adhere to God's law to boot. lol


Anyone who claims that words stop bullets is insane.

And that is indeed what you claim. That your legal magic formulae can overcome the sheer power of the State.

My citizenship status is the same as that of Jesus Christ: a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven. But that didn't stop Him from being killed on the cross, did it?

[Quantum]

Show me in the Social Security Act anywhere, or Title 42 where SS is statutorized


Another strawman. NO ONE has claimed it is.




or even in title 26 for revenue purposes that its required by every American to apply for a ssn.......show me the law


I already have, which means you're being disingenuous. In other words, you're being deceitful.

26 USC 6109(a)(1):

Inclusion in returns

Any person required under the authority of this title to make a return, statement, or other document shall include in such return, statement, or other document such identifying number as may be prescribed for securing proper identification of such person.

26 USC 6109(d):

Use of social security account number

The social security account number issued to an individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act shall, except as shall otherwise be specified under regulations of the Secretary, be used as the identifying number for such individual for purposes of this title.

http://gold-silver.us/forum/constitution-and-law/ucc-1-207-question/msg66912/#msg66912


You replied to my post there at:

http://gold-silver.us/forum/constitution-and-law/ucc-1-207-question/msg67020/#msg67020

So don't try to claim you didn't see it.




because i can show you an Administrative regulation


Do you understand the difference between "law" (specifically, statute) and "regulation"?

The former is always greater than the latter.




I can show you a SSA letter saying that a ssn is not required to live and work in America or to merely have one.


Irrelevant. Show me one from the IRS stating the same.




And I've countered your claims that I DO NOT sell rip off scams.................I do no such thing. I'm an electrician quantum nothing more and nothing less. I merely question the law .................thats it!


Just lil' ol' you there, a country bumpkin playing with wires and stuff. ::)




Yea sure a ssn is required for and by taxpayers I never said anything different. Matter of fact, I whole heartedly agree with you because thats what the law says.


Really? THEN WHY ARGUE WITH ME?




However Mr Quatloos


WTF?! Do NOT associate me with those SOBs at quatloos. How did that come up, anyway?




you are under the assumption that everone is a taxpayer at birth


Another strawman. No one said such. But every American is indeed deemed a "taxpayer" at 18 if they receive any gain ("income"). I do NOT argue that this is right and just or constitutional, but the IRS says it is so, and they put people in cages if you refuse to comply.




You say and the law says " the SSN is REQUIRED for every "taxpayer" but what you do not understand is since the 16th doesnt identify a "taxpayer" what makes them a "taxpayer"?


The brute force wielded by the US Government.




Title 26 is for revenue only....................has nothing to do with anyone accepting benefits or not.


Title 26 is what is used by Federal persecutors to put people in cages via the "proceedings" of their kangaroo courts of no defense.

Irwin Schiff is sitting in a cage right now, because he believed, as you do, that you can argue "the rules" with the Federal mafia, and actually win.

[Quantum]

You'll find all the communist lawyers and judges over at quatloos.com say the very same thing. All God loving..............but their works tell of a different story.
Know them by the fruits they bare!


The Quatloosers are all in love with money. Hardly "Communists." Every one of them argues in favor of the bankster-debt system, condemning financial guerrilla warfare against the banks. I doubt one of them truly loves God.