Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘statute’

John Paul Stevens, U.S. Supreme Court justice.

Former Associate Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, explained the changing definition of “originalism” on the October 18, 2011 episode of Charlie Rose (starting at 4:04):

Originalism actually is described in different ways in different times. And some people think it refers to the original intent of the people who drafted either a statute or a constitutional provision. But I think more and more, in recent years, those who describe themselves as originalists and not focused on the intent of the draftsmen, but rather then on intent of the reader or the community in which the law is enacted or distributed.

He went on to say that Justice Scalia is in the latter camp.

The particular view of originalism that is taken can be very significant in reaching decisions on certain issues. For example, the Founders were clear that the Bill of Rights only intended to apply to the federal government and not the several States. Yet, it may be that it was the expectation of some in the Union that it should also apply to their particular state as well.

Read Full Post »

You aren't a person -- you have a person

Have you ever heard anyone say that you don’t have to pay personal income taxes in the U.S., or that you can “drive” without a license?

If so, were those ideas discounted with typical tactics employed by those who intend for you to not do your own investigation?

If not, it’s because these matters are actively discounted and suppressed by the mass media, and, ironically, by many influential members of the liberty movement.

At the start of the first segment of the August 18, 2010 episode of The Divided Kingdom, the co-host stated:

There is one element of the patriot movement that we don’t care for. That element seems to want to get people into trouble, with the IRS, or, get them to, get bizarre, what can I say, cop-outs from the system, that maybe aren’t going to be looked at, well, in other words, instead of a driver’s license, some other kind of a pass, a passport — all kinds of different things.

And from that same area of the patriot movement, we always get a condemnation of the Social Security.

By “that element,” does she mean the one that accurately states that:

  • You don’t need a driver’s license to lawfully travel by car. (Note, I said “travel” and “car,” not “drive” and “vehicle”).
  • Statute isn’t law, and you can go through a process in all common law jurisdictions to be exempt from all statutes.
  • You aren’t a person — you have a person.
  • In my estimation, makes a strong case that the personal income tax on U.S. citizens is unlawful.
  • Social Security is unlawful, as a consequence of being unconstitutional.

For more details, go to thinkfree.ca and watch some great free videos that woke me up to some of these intentionally suppressed facts and their eye-opening consequences.

Read Full Post »