BanthaSamantha
Posts: 261
Joined: 8/7/2011 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "These two clauses of the Constitution are what give the federal government the authority to enact this regulation." They do not. If you take that implication then they have unlimited authority. They do not. The only taes to be colected are for the enforcement of the Constitution, that is it. Read what it says about taxation and you will see that a specific tax on any specific type of godds is unconstitutional. I know it doesn't matter and I know that you are used to it because it has been that way for your entire life. But when you know how it is supposed to be, you know that a whole hell of alot of things should not be. Anything federal that has to do with alcohol, tobacco, firearms, gambling, sex, - all of it, they are not empowered to legislate those things. They had no slice of that pie, if you think they do then they can tax you for bisexuality. They can make the tax too high to pay and then if you engage in bisexuality you go to jail for tax evavion. Think they wouldn't do it if they thought it would make them more money ? Lucky thing it wouldn't huh ! If you can tax cigarettes you can tax dildoes. If you cna tax water you can tax air. You can fully say that in this country today they consider this shit all nice and legal, but it is not lawful and never was. If a tax can be a penny it can be a dime or a dollar, or any amount at all. A million dollars to have a Christmas tree, how about that ? This makes that possible. Before it was just sales tax, this is technically an excise tax. You are all for this ? T^T T^T All of your hyperbole aside, the position you are advocating runs against the learned opinion of every Supreme Court of the past 200 years. Your unique interpretation of the Constitution is radical and does not hew closely to any classic or contemporary mainstream thought. As such, your novel interpretation is the heart of our disagreement. As I don't feel I could convince you to take a more reasoned or widely-accepted approach to the Constitution, our conversation is at an end. I'll take solace in the fact that my interpretation of the Constitution has the backing of both mainstream thought as well as many previous Supreme Courts.
|