Josh-D. S. Davis

Xaminmo / Omnimax / Max Omni / Mad Scientist / Midnight Shadow / Radiation Master

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Dispelling some myths regarding the US constitution
Josh 201604 KWP
There's a whole lot of "the constitution says blah" or "that's not authorized by the constitution" that goes on throughout us commoners. Here are my comments regarding some of these.

A) "The states, not the people, authorize the federal government." - The preamble states "We the people... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It doesn't say "we the states". This is made fuzzy because of the way the electoral college is instituted but that oddity only applies to the election of the executive.

B) "Healthcare isn't intended or authorized." - In the preamble, one of the purposes of the constitution is to "promote general wellfare" of the people. As such, many social and civil projects are specifically authorized.

C) "The IRS and federal income tax are not authorized." - Article I, Section 8, grants congress the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay debts and provide common Defense and general Wellfare of the United States;" So, Any debt incurred by the US government can be repaid by taxes which are authorized by congress.

Many people have said that because they can't trace the IRS to a creating act of congress, it's invalid and can't collect. On July 1, 1862, congress passed "An Act to provide Internal Revenue to support the Government and to pay Interest on the Public Debt." The relevant text is, "for the purpose of superintending the collection of internal duties, stamp duties, licenses, or taxes imposed by this act, or which may be hereafter imposed, and of assessing the same, an office is hereby created in the Treasury Department to be called the office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue". Further, "the Secretary of the Treasure may assign such number of clerks as he may deem necessary...." it goes on to explain tax districts, tax assessors, etc.

Several other revenue acts have come and gone since then, restructuring and reorganizing the persons who are under the authority of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and/or the Treasure Department for management of internal revenue. There were gaps in the imposition of income tax itself; however, the office of the CIR still exists; therefore, regardless of the name of the officials' organization, whether it's simply the office of the CIR, the bureau of IR, or the IRS, this is all valid as enacted by congress.

Another significant argument is that Article I requires equal apportionment among the states. This was corrected by the 16th amendment to the Constitution as ratified by 3/4 of states in 1913, and eventually all 48 states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

In summary, Income tax is authorized by due process and under the authority of the Constitution. The Congress was authorized to create structures to carry out the collection of income tax, and did so through legal means.

Get over it.

D) "We are granted the right to keep and bear arms." - This is true, with caveats. Constitutional amendment article the fourth states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As such, the right of the people to keep and bear arms won't be restricted; however, ownership or posession of arms would imply membership into and regulatory subservience to the militia (of your state or of the US) but not the Army/Navy.

Further, Constitutional Article I, Section 8 says congress may call forth the militia "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." So, if you want to keep firearms, then you are obligated to be accessible to congress for any and all such duties. Further, congress is obligated to organize, arm and discipline the militia, and for those deployed, to govern them. Note that the militia is described distinctly from the Navy and any Armies of the union.

E) "Detainees have the right to a Writ of Habeas Corpus" - Section 1, Article 9 says congress (not the military itself) can suspend this right in "cases of rebellion or invasion", but only when "public safety may require it." It could be said that the attacks on NYC, and several subsequent attempts, could be considered the beginnings of a failed invasion, and it could be said that any detainees related to those thougth to be involved with said invasion might be deprived of write of HC for public safety reasons.

F) "The federal government isn't authorized to provide nor pay for disaster aid" - Article IV, Section 4 says, among other things, that the US Legislature, or the Executive (president) when legislature cannot be convened, shall protect the states from domestic violence. Immediately following the disasters, domestic violence is increased, and only alleviated through disaster recovery proceedings. You might say Martial Law would also qualify; however, martial law without disaster aid/relief would only serve to increase tensions and violence (struggle for necessities).

G) "Separation of church and state does/does not exist" - Article VI states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States". In other words, officers cannot be required to know anything religious. This would further imply that no laws could be enacted upholding would require specific religious knowledge beyond what reasoning and declarations were included in said law.

This is further enhanced by Amendment article the third, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This would mean no law creating a state religion, nor a law granting specific authority to a religion. Further, no restriction on exercise of religion would be allowed.

Some people say this means you have to have a religion, and try to go on to define this to be a monotheistic based religion; however, it could easily be argued that having no dieties and no central structure are integral to your own, personal religion.

All of this provides a substantial separation between church and state, but it in no way implies that officers of the government must suspend their religion, beliefs or morals to be in office. So long as laws proposed and promoted are not created to the benefit of a specific religion, nor the detriment of those who are non-religious, nor require subservience to a religion, there's nothing to say laws/legislation couldn't parallel one or more religions (ie, restrictions against killing, etc).

  • 1

more research on militia

I did more research and came up with some interesting results.

The right to keep and bear arms comes with the obligation that with few exceptions, if you keep or bear arms, and are between the ages of 17 and 45, then you are a member of the unorganized militia.

Congress by constitutional power, and President by statute, can call upon you "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". You can be court martialed for failure to serve.

In Texas, if you are "liable to serve", you can be called in for state specific duty as well (but cannot be court martialled for refusal).

Josh-D. S. Davis The risk is that if Congress or the President so chose, they could call the unorganized militial to serve as relief for the organized militia (National Guard and Naval Militia, among others) efforts in the middle east. (Execution of the laws of the union, and repulsion of invasion could apply.)
about a minute ago · LikeUnlike · .

More Refs:

Militia contacts in North Texas:

Re: On the topic of keeping arms

I can't look at that without thinking of Damien Hirst.

I wish a lot more people would get this stuff through their skulls. There's been quite an upsurge lately of people who want to adopt a very strict interpretation of certain parts of the Constitution while completely ignoring other parts that happen to contradict their interpretation. It's basically Constitutional fundamentalism.

Regarding point E, I don't think many people would dispute that Congress can legally suspend Habeas Corpus in some circumstances. The general consensus among liberals is that, if you interpret the idea of an "invasion" so broadly as to consider the mere threat of follow-up terrorist attacks to be a kind of invasion, then there's really no time when we are not being "invaded," so Congress can suspect Habeas Corpus any time it wants to.

On point G, this is an area where my fellow liberals seem to get things wrong pretty regularly; they call for policies (like totally banning prayer in school, for instance) that are the very thing that "separation of church and state" is supposed to prevent.

Re G, yah, it's not supposed to protect people from feeling uncomfortable at there being differences among peoples' beliefs. It's just to protect anyone from being subjected to a religion that they haven't chosen for themselves.

But, all things considered, humans haven't changed in millenia. We're all the same as the Nazis, Jesus killers, Khan's army, and every other type of person. Protecting "you" from others also means protecting others from "you".

But, that's a lot more complicated than many would admit.

I disagree with several of the points, for example how terms like militia and wellfare have very different definitions today than how they were originally used.

Hey, you didn't cancel out on boating because of us did you?

I saw the late post, but then I saw a photo of you about to sink, er, embark on the boat.

Disagreement of constitutionality

And, militia means all citizens, or all armed citizens, and did at the time of the framing, and for centuries before. The legal structures making "organized militia" such as the National Guard in 1903 are a little weird to me.

Regardless, the constitution granted authority to congress to call upon the militia to serve. Basically "we're under attack, everyone take up arms and defend the borders".

I'm still not sure what I think about the national guard being deployed overseas.

"The definition of 'welfare' in 1787, the year of the drafting of the Constitution, meant you had health, wealth and happiness. Almost 40 years after the Constitutions drafting, Noah Webster 1828 Edition still used this definition."

Now, this is a pretty general inclusion, being in the preamble. Being not otherwise restricted, welfare limitations and judgements are left up to the republic to decide.

I'm not sure exactly where I stand on welfare. I waffle pretty regularly and am pretty sure that no matter which side someone is on, there is room for exploitation of others. :(

  • 1

Log in

No account? Create an account