IRS Travel Ban: Revoking Citizenship By Stealth
Provision that allows feds to suspend passports of accused tax delinquents expected to pass Congress
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.com
Monday, April 16, 2012
Infowars.com
Monday, April 16, 2012
Efforts to pass a bill that would allow the IRS to deny travel rights to U.S. citizens who the feds merely claim owe $50,000 or more in delinquent taxes represents a de facto move to revoke the citizenship of Americans without due process and in complete violation of the Constitution.
Thanks to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a recently passed Senate bill, the suitably Orwellian entitled ‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’, includes a provision that allows the federal government to revoke passports of Americans accused of owing back taxes.
The legislation now moves to the Congress where, despite a Republican majority, the IRS provision is expected to be retained in the final version of the bill because it will raise an estimated $750 million dollars over ten years.
“There is no requirement that the tax payer be guilty of or even charged with tax evasion, fraud, or any criminal offense — only that the citizen is alleged to owe the IRS back taxes of $50,000 or more,”reports the Daily Economist.
Empowering the IRS to deny fundamental rights on a whim is completely illegal and unconstitutional.
“There are also numerous Supreme Court precedents protecting these same rights,” writes Jack Swint. “Furthermore, the law appears to violate Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution, which forbids “Bills of Attainder”, which are laws providing for the punishment of an individual without benefit of judicial process.”
“It takes away your right to enter or exit the country based upon a non-judicial IRS determination that you owe taxes,” Constitutional Attorney Angel Reyes told FOX Business. “It’s a scary thought that our congressional representatives want to give the IRS the power to detain US citizens over taxes, which could very well be in dispute.”
What’s next? If the feds can bar you from leaving the country merely by claiming you have committed some infraction without having to provide any evidence, the prospect of Americans being abducted and interned indefinitely under the National Defense Authorization Act with a similar absence of due process is just around the corner.
Will citizens have their drivers license cancelled if the state claims they are behind on their property taxes? How about the government working with big banks to suspend credit cards if an individual is accused of avoiding inheritance or capital gains tax? Will similar punitive measures of punishment be enforced for Americans who attempt to avoid mandatory government health care?
IRS Implements Mark of the Beast Control System
Presumably because the provision was introduced by Harry Reid, there is a noticeable absence of uproar from the left even though the bill would achieve in one fell swoop what civil libertarians have fought against during the course of over ten years of the ‘war on terror’ – the ability of the federal government to arbitrarily strip Americans of the inherent rights associated with their citizenship status.
While U.S. citizens will be treated as guilty until proven innocent with regard to tax delinquency under this bill, individuals and corporations that have avoided hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes continue to escape any scrutiny whatsoever from the IRS.
Forget $50,000 dollars, people like Warren Buffett owe nearly one billion dollars in back taxes going back a decade, but I doubt you’ll see Buffett being apprehended by the TSA on his next business trip if this bill passes Congress.
This has nothing to do with cracking down on large scale tax criminals and everything to do with greasing the skids for the federal government to randomly deny Americans the right to mobility, effectively revoking their citizenship, merely on hearsay alone.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
After 10 years of Americans ceding rights to an overreaching government, a government agency is being given power to effectively strip American citizenship of rights of citizenship. There are up to 20,000,000 illegal immigrants working in the US, very few paying taxes. Various governmental agencies and the police are not permitted to ask them for proof of identity, regardless of how much money they may owe for taxes. Anyone working illegally in the US for a period of seven years or longer can easily owe $50,000 in unpaid taxes. They will not be asked to surrender their passport or detained without a trial or hearing.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, under this illegal law, a real US citizen will have their passport seized because a government agency says they owe them money. Their freedom to travel will be denied without a hearing. If your identity was cloned by an illegal immigrant and the IRS shows that you owe $50,000, you lose again.
The American sheeple will probably take this with hardly a bleat, as they have accepted the TSA illegally detaining them without a warrant for their arrest. If you allow the government to take your passport like a common criminal, without due process from a court, don’t even think about losing your Second Amendment rights. You will lose them.
Alex Jones is about 95% right in the video.
ReplyDeleteThe events of 1938, which a German document termed “The Fateful Year,” were part of the radicalization of the Nazis’ Jewish policy. During this year German expansionism escalated, and domestic preparations for war accelerated. The crackdown on Jews took on an increased ferocity, viewed as part of the overall political and ideological course. Throughout the year registration of Jewish property and its forced expropriation increased. The Nazi Minister of Economics Walter Funk boasted that by 1938, the authorities had managed to steal Jewish property worth two million marks.
ReplyDeleteOn October 5, 1938, Jews’ passports were invalidated, and those who needed a passport for emigration purposes were given one marked with the letter J (Jude – Jew).
Not only am I sick and tired of paying taxes to support shit, I am tired of being 'racially profiled' when I go to the airport.
ReplyDeleteThe last time I was there, Homeland Security said to me,"Pass through Whitey, your kind never causes any trouble."
I want to have my asshole searched like everyone else!
bobbo
You certainly qualify for a more extended inspection.
DeleteFrom the FOX link:
ReplyDelete“Existing law says that passports may not be reviewed for applicants owing child support in excess of $2,500. So I think supporters would say: ‘You can’t get a passport if you don’t pay child support, but you can get a passport if you don’t pay taxes?” he said.
As for the MAP-21’s prospects of passing the House, Lesniewski says it’s hard to tell if it will withstand Republican opposition, but he believes the passport provision has a good chance at becoming law for one reason: money.
“This provision is expected to raise almost $750 million in the 10-year window that they do the budget,” he said. “I think it will get passed eventually, and not necessarily as part of the transportation bill, but it seems like relatively low hanging fruit.”
Rounding up the usual suspects.
(Not even a billion dollars - over ten years.)
It's April again: time to add up receipts, find little-known tax breaks, and, in some cases, renounce US citizenship altogether. In fact, a record number of Americans abroad renounced their citizenship last year as complaints increased about IRS rules, Reuters reports. One rule forces all Americans to file forms for foreign accounts containing at least $10,000. Another, newer rule stipulates that financial institutions must cough up information on US clients to the IRS.
ReplyDeleteThose banks, hedge funds, and private equity funds are " going to drop Americans like hot potatoes," says one analyst. "The foreign banks are upset enough about the regulations that they're saying they just won't keep American customers." Meanwhile, more Americans abroad are speaking up on the issue and disputing the label of "tax evader." Says one American in Canada, who blogs about expatriation: "It's making life difficult for a lot of people. It's driving us away."
The government of Argentina, claiming that a rise in oil imports is making the country "unviable," is taking control of the country's main oil producer. President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has announced plans to nationalize YPF, and is sending a bill to the country's senate allowing the government to expropriate 51% of its shares, reports the BBC. Spain's Repsol owns a majority of YPF, and Argentina's move is expected to escalate a dispute with the Spanish government, which has promised to take "clear and forceful measures."
ReplyDeleteKirchner—who has already re-nationalized the country's main airline—says the company's "predatory attitude" made the move necessary. But analysts predict the takeover will backfire, by giving Argentina a bad image internationally and scaring off investors, including those who would have enabled YPF to exploit recently discovered shale oil fields. "This is going to make it very hard to attract the investment because you not only changed the rules of the game but took over the assets of the main company," an analyst at political risk research firm Eurasia Group tells Bloomberg.
The Supremes will knock that down in a heartbeat.
ReplyDelete.
DeleteIt's got to get there first, Ruf. It takes a lot of money to get a case to the Supremes. An individual can't do it on his own. This is where pro bono work comes in especially by larger organizations like the ACLU.
I bitch out the ACLU everytime they get on their high horse about Xmas trees, but I praise them when they take on cases like this.
The most frustrating thing about the governements 'war on terror' efforts are the lengths they go to to keep these kind of issues out of the courts. It's a real catch-22 situation.
.
It seems like the public pressure on the Federal Reserve over the past few years had an effect. After a long, protracted battle in Congress, Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ron Paul were able to force an audit of the Fed by the Government Accountability Office. That audit came out in 2011. Bloomberg, which filed a Freedom of Information Act to get the Fed's emergency lending data, won its suit to get that data in the courts.
ReplyDeleteStill, in at least one way, it's not clear that the Fed has changed its stripes. When Dudley argued that Fannie and Freddie should reduce debt owed by millions of homeowners, what he didn't say is that this would help the big banks by making the home equity lines of credit they own on that very same debt more valuable. Taxpayers should transfer more capital to the big banks. This proposal is, as Gretchen Morgenson said, a "bailout by another name." And why wouldn't it be? Banks are still the Fed's real client. The board of directors of the New York Fed includes Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase, as well as two other bankers.
Link
I support the right of the individual to bear arms even though the constitutionality might be shakey.
ReplyDeleteGood one, Max.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, the "Constitutionality" isn't the least bit shakey.
ReplyDeleteWhat is shakey is the limitations put on those rights over the years. The word "infringe" means the same thing it meant 230 years ago.
I was referring to the militia vs individual debate.
DeleteI know what you were referring to. Still, the English is very Unambiguous, preamble aside: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
DeleteBut you will acknowledge the debate:
Delete**************************
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.[115]
Justice John Paul Stevens countered in his dissent:
When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated. But the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a “subset” significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”.[116]
**************************
But it is true. The Court has ruled. The Court can reconsider as well as they are doing with Citizen vs United.
But you will acknowledge the debate:
Delete**************************
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.[115]
Justice John Paul Stevens countered in his dissent:
When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated. But the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a “subset” significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”.[116]
**************************
But it is true. The Court has ruled. The Court can reconsider as well as they are doing with Citizen vs United.
In as much as the States feared a strong federal government more than they feared their citizens, they supported the 2nd amendment in order to guarantee that they would have an armed citizenry to draw upon in case they had to fight the Feds.
Delete.
DeleteYou don't need to worry about gun rights under the 2nd Amendment, not as long as long as Congress is in the pocket of the NRA.
I used to belong to the NRA. But the more I read about the NRA's role in the FL. 'stand your ground' laws, the more I learn about the NRA.
Riddle me this,
A citizen who is put on the government's 'terrorist watch list' won't be allowed on a plane; however, the same person is allowed to go out and purchase all the guns he wants.
.
Forget it Jake. It's Washington.
DeleteTo the world's military leaders, the debate over climate change is long over. They are preparing for a new kind of Cold War in the Arctic, anticipating that rising temperatures there will open up a treasure trove of resources, long-dreamed-of sea lanes and a slew of potential conflicts.
ReplyDeleteLink
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its untapped natural gas is in the Arctic. Shipping lanes could be regularly open across the Arctic by 2030 as rising temperatures continue to melt the sea ice, according to a National Research Council analysis commissioned by the U.S. Navy last year.
To the world's military leaders, the debate over climate change is long over. They are preparing for a new kind of Cold War in the Arctic, anticipating that rising temperatures there will open up a treasure trove of resources, long-dreamed-of sea lanes and a slew of potential conflicts.
ReplyDeleteLink
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its untapped natural gas is in the Arctic. Shipping lanes could be regularly open across the Arctic by 2030 as rising temperatures continue to melt the sea ice, according to a National Research Council analysis commissioned by the U.S. Navy last year.
The difference between "Child Support," and Unpaid Taxes is "Child Support" is a Criminal matter, whereas, an unpaid tax bill is a "Civil" matter.
ReplyDeleteYour missing the point Red. If you owe “child support”, you had your day in court. The same if you have been formally charged of a crime, you are part of a legal proceeding.
DeleteJust because the IRS claims you owe money does not rise to the same standard. You could have been given a 1099 in error. You could have had a failing business and did not have the money to send “withholding” but had enough money to send a worker home with his “take home”, hoping to catch up.
You can owe $15,000 but with taxes and penalty owe $51,000 with no prospect of ever seeing that kind of money again.
The IRS is no more reliable than an eyewitness account until you have had your day in court.
The IRS could claim that you owe taxes and take you to court. Should you lose and a judgement is awarded to the IRS, maybe then they could take a passport, but I doubt it. Citizenship and all that goes with it is not a privilege handed out by the government. It is a right that needs to be defended against the government.
It's also state vs federal, is it not?
ReplyDeleteChild support laws.
To the world's military leaders, the debate over climate change is long over. They are preparing for a new kind of Cold War in the Arctic, anticipating that rising temperatures there will open up a treasure trove of resources, long-dreamed-of sea lanes and a slew of potential conflicts.
ReplyDeleteLink
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its untapped natural gas is in the Arctic. Shipping lanes could be regularly open across the Arctic by 2030 as rising temperatures continue to melt the sea ice, according to a National Research Council analysis commissioned by the U.S. Navy last year.
All politicians have but one goal, the total subjugation, and enslavement of the people. It's just easier that way.
ReplyDeleteTo the world's military leaders, the debate over climate change is long over. They are preparing for a new kind of Cold War in the Arctic, anticipating that rising temperatures there will open up a treasure trove of resources, long-dreamed-of sea lanes and a slew of potential conflicts.
ReplyDeleteLink
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its untapped natural gas is in the Arctic. Shipping lanes could be regularly open across the Arctic by 2030 as rising temperatures continue to melt the sea ice, according to a National Research Council analysis commissioned by the U.S. Navy last year.
To the world's military leaders, the debate over climate change is long over. They are preparing for a new kind of Cold War in the Arctic, anticipating that rising temperatures there will open up a treasure trove of resources, long-dreamed-of sea lanes and a slew of potential conflicts.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its untapped natural gas is in the Arctic. Shipping lanes could be regularly open across the Arctic by 2030 as rising temperatures continue to melt the sea ice, according to a National Research Council analysis commissioned by the U.S. Navy last year.
But you will acknowledge the debate:
ReplyDelete**************************
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.[115]
Justice John Paul Stevens countered in his dissent:
When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated. But the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a “subset” significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”.[116]
**************************
But it is true. The Court has ruled. The Court can reconsider as well as they are doing with Citizen vs United.
Hokey dokey then.
ReplyDeleteThree's my magic number.
Tried to post couple of responses three times and nada zip zilch nothing.
Take a look at Justice Stevens' dissent (maybe I can squeeze that in):
Justice John Paul Stevens countered in his dissent:
When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated. But the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a “subset” significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”.
Let me try this one once more.
ReplyDeleteTo the world's military leaders, the debate over climate change is long over. They are preparing for a new kind of Cold War in the Arctic, anticipating that rising temperatures there will open up a treasure trove of resources, long-dreamed-of sea lanes and a slew of potential conflicts.
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its untapped natural gas is in the Arctic. Shipping lanes could be regularly open across the Arctic by 2030 as rising temperatures continue to melt the sea ice, according to a National Research Council analysis commissioned by the U.S. Navy last year.
The Second Amendment does no such thing, nitwit Stevens aside; it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
ReplyDeleteThe Second Amendment makes no mention, whatsoever, of "law-abiding, responsible citizens."
DeleteI noticed last night my link to a conservative defense of the health care mandate appeared nearly immediately after I wrote "little of conservative thought appealed to me" anymore. The post had been lost in limbo for several hours. I expect something similar might happen with the attempts of this morning which means three posts on two subjects will appear in several hours. I've been "bobbified" I think.
ReplyDeleteI can take a hint.
At any rate the wiki entry on Second Amendment is pretty good.
In the latter half of the 20th century there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right.[105] The debate centered on whether the prefatory clause (“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”) declared the amendment’s only purpose or merely announced a purpose to introduce the operative clause (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”).
ReplyDeleteThere ya go.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, it was a sneaky way to kill Two Birds with One Stone. Sanctify the "Right" of the States to have a Militia, and, at the same time, guarantee that the states will have a well-armed citizenry to draw from.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter. Machiavelliaphiles can ponder it till the cows come home; the simple matter is, The Language is Simple, to wit:
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It doesn't say "White, Male Property-Owners with No Parking Tickets; it says "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
DeleteIt's the only amendment with a prefatory clause, one that specifically references a militia: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.
DeleteLook, it's there and I doubt it's vulnerable to reversal any more than Row v Wade.
The conservative dictum is "original intent." The dissent argued that the original intent of the framers was defined by the prefatory clause, which restricted the subject right more narrowly restricted to the "militia."
My further opinion is that the Court wisely worked around that. (As it did Row v Wade and any number of constitutional rulings.)
As opposed to what would likely happen if the subject of this thread were put to the SCOTUS. I agree with you that they would strike it down rather decisively.
I am curious about the number of SCOTUS rulings that were unanimous or close.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DeleteThe original and literal meaning of penumbra is "a space of partial illumination between the perfect shadow … on all sides and the full light" (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., 1996). The term was created and introduced by astronomer Johannes Kepler in 1604 to describe the shadows that occur during eclipses. However, in legal terms penumbra is most often used as a metaphor describing a doctrine that refers to implied powers of the federal government. The doctrine is best known from the Supreme Court decision of griswold v. connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965), where Justice william o. douglas used it to describe the concept of an individual's constitutional right of privacy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Justice Cardozo's use of the penumbra metaphor in opinions written between 1934 and 1941 was similar to Holmes's application, but Justice Douglas took a different approach. Rather than using it to highlight the difficulty of drawing lines or determining the meaning of words or concepts, he used the term when he wanted to refer to a peripheral area or an indistinct boundary of something specific.
Douglas's most famous use of penumbra is in the Griswold decision. In the Griswold case, appellants Estelle Griswold, executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, a medical professor at Yale Medical School and director of the league's office in New Haven, were convicted for prescribing contraceptive devices and giving contraceptive advice to married persons in violation of a Connecticut statute. They challenged the constitutionality of the statute, which made it unlawful to use any drug or medicinal article for the purpose of preventing conception, on behalf of the married persons with whom they had a professional relationship. The Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional
because it was a violation of a person's right to privacy. In his opinion, Douglas stated that the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights have penumbras "formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and sub-stance," and that the right to privacy exists within this area.
Since Griswold, the penumbra doctrine has primarily been used to represent implied powers that emanate from a specific rule, thus extending the meaning of the rule into its periphery or penumbra.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's from the Free Dictionary website but it's one indication of how SCOTUS will handle societal change relative to interpreting an aging document that can realistically be expected to fail in anticipating future challenges, a challenge that's being framed in the rather narrow terms of literalism vs activism. In that context, a SCOTUS challenge to the subject thread is probably a slam dunk. No penumbra required.
The above should be italicized except for the last graph.
DeleteJust to keep the tenor where it belongs.
Poor old blogger is far from the problem but let's try this again in smaller bites.
DeleteThe original and literal meaning of penumbra is "a space of partial illumination between the perfect shadow … on all sides and the full light" (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., 1996). The term was created and introduced by astronomer Johannes Kepler in 1604 to describe the shadows that occur during eclipses. However, in legal terms penumbra is most often used as a metaphor describing a doctrine that refers to implied powers of the federal government. The doctrine is best known from the Supreme Court decision of griswold v. connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965), where Justice william o. douglas used it to describe the concept of an individual's constitutional right of privacy.
Justice Cardozo's use of the penumbra metaphor in opinions written between 1934 and 1941 was similar to Holmes's application, but Justice Douglas took a different approach. Rather than using it to highlight the difficulty of drawing lines or determining the meaning of words or concepts, he used the term when he wanted to refer to a peripheral area or an indistinct boundary of something specific.
DeleteDouglas's most famous use of penumbra is in the Griswold decision. In the Griswold case, appellants Estelle Griswold, executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, a medical professor at Yale Medical School and director of the league's office in New Haven, were convicted for prescribing contraceptive devices and giving contraceptive advice to married persons in violation of a Connecticut statute. They challenged the constitutionality of the statute, which made it unlawful to use any drug or medicinal article for the purpose of preventing conception, on behalf of the married persons with whom they had a professional relationship. The Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional
Deletebecause it was a violation of a person's right to privacy. In his opinion, Douglas stated that the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights have penumbras "formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and sub-stance," and that the right to privacy exists within this area.
Since Griswold, the penumbra doctrine has primarily been used to represent implied powers that emanate from a specific rule, thus extending the meaning of the rule into its periphery or penumbra.
Delete^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's from the Free Dictionary website but it's one indication of how SCOTUS will handle societal change relative to interpreting an aging document that can realistically be expected to fail in anticipating future challenges.
Looks like they're going to need a crystal ball.
DeleteOne more on the militia argument (it's not as "out there" as one might assume):
DeleteThe orthodox view of the meaning of the Second Amendment was articulated by Joseph Story in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution. In his view the meaning of the Amendment was clear:
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
Later, I gotta finish my taxes. Damn, I hate this day.
ReplyDeleteI thought you paid every month, Rufus.
ReplyDeleteThat is what you said a day or so ago.
You are so full of shit.....
bobbo
Rufus is full of shit
ReplyDeleteFull of shit
Full of shit
Early in the morning.....
I thought you paid every month, Rufus.
That is what you said a day or so ago.
You are so full of shit.....
bobbo
'I send a check to the government every month'
ReplyDeleteThe full of shit Rufus, just a day or so ago.
Rufus is probably on welfare, like most Indians, but his brain is alcohol logged he thinks he is sending when he is receiving.
Have a direct deposit Rufus, it is simpler.
Rufus is full of shit
Full of shit
Full of shit
Early in the morning.....
I thought you paid every month, Rufus.
That is what you said a day or so ago.
You are so full of shit.....
bobbo
'I send a check to the government every month'
ReplyDeleteChild support?
The full of shit Rufus, just a day or so ago.
Rufus is probably on welfare, like most Indians, but his brain is alcohol logged he thinks he is sending when he is receiving.
Have a direct deposit Rufus, it is simpler.
Rufus is full of shit
Full of shit
Full of shit
Early in the morning.....
I thought you paid every month, Rufus.
That is what you said a day or so ago.
You are so full of shit.....
bobbo
Yes, idiot, I do. It's easier for me that way. However, I only "File" once a year - like every other taxpayer in the country.
ReplyDeleteAnd, btw, you dufus fuck, I left the farm when I was 18 yrs. old.
We know you pass a lot of gas, Rufus.
ReplyDeleteHow is you pay every month?
We have always paid quarterly.
Are you an international corporation of some type?
Rufus Gas Industries, LLC?
You must be rich, but I know you are not, as you couldn't afford a vacation, a year ago.
Let's see.
ReplyDeleteO I remember.
The accountant does the taxes.
And we pay quarterly.
So we only moan four times a year.
It must be 'the shits' to pay every month.
Tell us the truth now.
We will accept that.
We know you pass a lot of gas, Rufus.
How is you pay every month?
We have always paid quarterly.
Are you an international corporation of some type?
Rufus Gas Industries, LLC?
You must be rich, but I know you are not, as you couldn't afford a vacation, a year ago.
It's back to bed, for bobbo.
ReplyDeletexxxx
Let's see.
O I remember.
The accountant does the taxes.
And we pay quarterly.
So we only moan four times a year.
It must be 'the shits' to pay every month.
Tell us the truth now.
We will accept that.
We know you pass a lot of gas, Rufus.
How is you pay every month?
We have always paid quarterly.
Are you an international corporation of some type?
Rufus Gas Industries, LLC?
You must be rich, but I know you are not, as you couldn't afford a vacation, a year ago.
My mother in law, Edna, who was the book keeper for the school district back there, told me, when my wife and I got married "There isn't an honest Indian in the whole tribe."
ReplyDeleteMaybe she missed one.
We were talking about the Indians out here.
Here, there did not have slavery, like the Cherokee.
That is because they were hunter/gatherers, and here, fisher folk, and not planters.
xxxx
It's back to bed, for bobbo.
xxxx
Let's see.
O I remember.
The accountant does the taxes.
And we pay quarterly.
So we only moan four times a year.
It must be 'the shits' to pay every month.
Tell us the truth now.
We will accept that.
We know you pass a lot of gas, Rufus.
How is you pay every month?
We have always paid quarterly.
Are you an international corporation of some type?
Rufus Gas Industries, LLC?
You must be rich, but I know you are not, as you couldn't afford a vacation, a year ago.
xxxxx
It is because, O Quirk, if I do not incorporate my previous posts, blogger erases the whole thing.
ReplyDeleteSince I know you hand on every word, it is what I have to do.
Do you have the same problem with your posts being erased?
Have you paid your taxes?
Do you pay monthly, or not at all?
xxx
My mother in law, Edna, who was the book keeper for the school district back there, told me, when my wife and I got married "There isn't an honest Indian in the whole tribe."
Maybe she missed one.
We were talking about the Indians out here.
Here, there did not have slavery, like the Cherokee.
That is because they were hunter/gatherers, and here, fisher folk, and not planters.
xxxx
It's back to bed, for bobbo.
xxxx
Let's see.
O I remember.
The accountant does the taxes.
And we pay quarterly.
So we only moan four times a year.
It must be 'the shits' to pay every month.
Tell us the truth now.
We will accept that.
We know you pass a lot of gas, Rufus.
How is you pay every month?
We have always paid quarterly.
Are you an international corporation of some type?
Rufus Gas Industries, LLC?
You must be rich, but I know you are not, as you couldn't afford a vacation, a year ago.
xxxxx
Unlike Rufus, I pay taxes every week, rather than just once a month.
ReplyDeleteWe buy, you guessed it, food.
Which I have created for people worldwide, all my working life.
6 or 7 percent sales tax, on that.
Down on the 'reservation' there is no sales tax.
Down in Casino land.
bobbo
Shall we ask, where do the people down on the 'reservation' actually get their food?
ReplyDeleteA lot of it is from a white man's company,
Campbell's Soups.
Much of it handed out through the welfare folks there.
Where do they get their medical support?
You guessed it, from the tribal Medcenter, staffed mostly by white folks, trained at a white university, in Portland, Oregon.
How do they pay for these services?
Welfare checks.
Will they ever get off their asses?
Unlikely.
Would you want to?
bobbo
.
ReplyDeleteBob, you are an idiot.
You are either drunk or nutz. You have been rambling on about Rufus for a week. No one gives a shit.
And no one wants to see your shit here multiple times. It's just not that interesting.
Out of 52 posts so far this morning, 20 are duplicates, long, extended duplicates. Add this to the new format and it's impossible to carry on a conversation. It's a waste of time. I'm out of here. I'll come back when you are not around.
.
So now we are told by "Rufus" that we need RufusCare.
ReplyDeleteThis will give free medical stuff to Rufus, because, he tells us, he 'deserves' it.
It will be paid for, of course, mostly by whites, trained by whites, staffed by whites, dispensed by whites.
He did, after all, he tells us, in a mighty act, fall off the bar stool, dead drunk, into the Marine Recruiting Center.
Go pay your taxes, Quirk.
ReplyDeleteI don't give a shit about Rufus either.
But the subject of the day was taxes, and Rufus tells us he pays every month.
It would be interesting to see his tax returns.
And so, I read this head line on Drudge quoting a black moron -
ReplyDeleteFarrakhan Warns Whites: 'Unless You Change, Your End Has Come'...
I am telling you, we are heading into fellaheenism, if we don't regain our tenor.
You can drive about Detroit Quirk, until such time as some criminal, black by all accounts, puts a bullet in your brain.
I am almost to the point of agreeing with the CIA agent from Montana - I don't want to see it, and will be almost glad to be out of here.
Look at that ass hole.
Farrakhan has never done a thing in his entire life.
bobbo
Since I like you, I will give you some advice, Quirk.
ReplyDeleteDon't drive around the community your democratic politicians have built for you there in Detroit.
Find yourself a gated community.
There is a long history of whites trying to bring reds medical care in our country.
ReplyDeleteSee Hemingway's early short stories.
His father was a doctor.
He finally killed himself.
Deuce wrote:
ReplyDelete"The American sheeple will probably take this with hardly a bleat, "
hmmm, whaddya gonna do about it? Us US citizens living abroad have been threatened with the 'no passport for you if you fail to file your tax returns' for years now. I've never heard of anyone actually not getting their passport renewed but the threat exists...
As a US citizen living abroad the IRS has been waging a campaign to get Foreign banks to file reports with the IRS on holdings by US citizens. They are threatening to limit Foreign banks access to US institutions if they fail to comply I believe (just like Iran).
Deuce, do you have any foreign bank accounts? Anything in Costa Rica? Does the Costa Rican bank know you are a US citizen? Have you notified the IRS of the amounts in the accounts? You are supposed to do this annually on all acounts that you have access to:
"If you have a financial interest in or signature authority over a foreign financial account, including a bank account, brokerage account, mutual fund, trust, or other type of foreign financial account, the Bank Secrecy Act may require you to report the account yearly to the Internal Revenue Service by filing Form TD F 90-22.1, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR).
The FBAR is required because foreign financial institutions may not be subject to the same reporting requirements as domestic financial institutions. The FBAR is a tool to help the United States government identify persons who may be using foreign financial accounts to circumvent United States law. Investigators use FBARs to help identify or trace funds used for illicit purposes or to identify unreported income maintained or generated abroad."
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=148849,00.html
Interestingly enough the US was formed through a revolt over taxation by the British on their subjects overseas (Boston Tea party anyone?)
You already know my answer Ash. Would you prefer it in large caps or small?
DeleteIn Canada the banks will be forced to disclose to the IRS the accounts of US citizens unless they succeed in their fight for an exemption. If, say, Costa Rica, goes the same route and they report your holdings in their banks then the fine is 10k per year per account I believe (I'm writing from memory here). Not peanut change in my world anyway.
DeleteWASHINGTON -- The American Legislative Exchange Council, the controversial corporate-sponsored lobbying group whose push for "stand your ground" gun laws and voter ID legislation ignited grassroots protests, announced Tuesday that it is getting out of the social policy field to focus on core economic issues.
ReplyDeleteLink
I sort of like the idea of voter ID but I haven't written a PhD thesis yet.
Maxine, right now, I could vote in three states, within a 90 mile drive.
DeleteOf course, I'd have to have a driver's license to actually get there, but what the hell.
I am telling you, not that it means much to me anymore personally, but our 'society' is on a very dangerous course.
In a few years even, I may look back, if I am still alive, and say "told you so".
The whites are getting pissed.
I should pay taxes, and watch some wetback from Mexico vote here?
And ask for me to pay for his education?
I am too old to fight, but my son is not.
There is that ass hole Farrakhan telling me?
What exactly?
Try Zimbabwe, the breadbasket of Africa,
starving, whose leader said "We don't need all these people around here anyway."
Try Zimbabwe.
He is a 'muslim' Maxine, which means, given the power, he would put you in place.
I am not sure our society can be saved.
Have you thought about trying to teach Emerson to Rufus?
That is what we are up against.
I think sometimes democracy was a huge mistake.
Think again, the task of teaching Emerson to even one Rufus.
Multiply by 200 million.
Bob (assuming that is you):
DeleteSituation hopeless but not critical.
Once the foreign policy pressures abate, the country will begin the long-needed process of naval-gazing and domestic clean-up, which is happening now.
I think I will let the more piece-by-piece guys respond to the individual items in your post. Theses can and have been written on each subject.
Short answer: I don't think our society is going anywhere. We have more and bigger and more reliable weapons. At the end of the day that's all that counts. And that will never change. We'll know in a few hundred years.
Things seem bad right now because the west, USA in particular, is emphasizing the DIE in DIME and let's face it, just isn't as effective. The end-game always includes a big stick and just about all of the players know that very well.
So there it is.
All that counts is big honkin' weapons - really? Boobie is moaning on about wetbacks voting to get free education, Muslims mistreating women, and whites getting pissed and you fall back to 'big honkin' sophisticated weapons' are all that really count. It seems like the opposite is true - that big assed weapons have nothing to do with the issue boobie's worried about; "our 'society' is on a very dangerous course." What the heck will a tactical nuke do to correct that course?
DeleteI should have said "hot" foreign policy pressures as opposed to "cold."
DeleteMaybe, perchance, your comments relate to another thread?
DeleteI only read boobie's comment because you had replied to it otherwise I skip past his befuddled musings. Having suffered through his tripe a second time I still don't see any reference to foreign policy issues where, I agree, big honkin' weapons make a difference but, even in that case, they aren't all they are cracked up to be. There are only a few jobs for that hammer.
DeleteThere are only a few jobs for that hammer.
DeleteOne of them is MADD, which keeps the peace, providing security and stability, a convenient if not necessary prerequisite for engaging in domestic reforms, all of which are subject to a rather specific set of optimal policy parameters - another way of saying societal improvement is a multi-front situation-specific effort. Can't just add water and mix. Furthermore, it's hard to build a self-help group out of vaporized rock - a seminal reason why Afghanistan is stumbling - too little security and too little stability.
Thinking that to be obvious, I have to assume another combatant has entered the ring.
No fucking thanks.
Loads of countries exist engaging in domestic reforms who don't have nuclear weapons. Canada, Australia, Sweden immediately spring to mind. Nor do they have particularly strong armies.
DeleteLoads of countries exist engaging in domestic reforms who don't have nuclear weapons. Canada, Australia, Sweden immediately spring to mind. Nor do they have particularly strong armies.
DeleteIf you're itching to make the case for disarmament don't be coy. Go for it.
DeleteI'm doing no such thing but I am providing evidence which directly contradicts your assertion that "Short answer: I don't think our society is going anywhere. We have more and bigger and more reliable weapons. At the end of the day that's all that counts."
DeleteNo, that is not all that counts. You wouldn't have grown up immersed in the military/industrial complex would you?
I will concede that the NORK leadership would agree with that a strong military is sufficient to make a great country.
DeleteHundreds of ALEC’s model bills and resolutions bear traces of Koch DNA: raw ideas that were once at the fringes but that have been carved into “mainstream” policy through the wealth and will of Charles and David Koch. Of all the Kochs’ investments in right-wing organizations, ALEC provides some of the best returns: it gives the Kochs a way to make their brand of free-market fundamentalism legally binding.
ReplyDeleteLink
ALEC Exposed Link
ALEC Watch Link
OK back to pieces.
ReplyDeleteHundreds of ALEC’s model bills and resolutions bear traces of Koch DNA: raw ideas that were once at the fringes but that have been carved into “mainstream” policy through the wealth and will of Charles and David Koch. Of all the Kochs’ investments in right-wing organizations, ALEC provides some of the best returns: it gives the Kochs a way to make their brand of free-market fundamentalism legally binding.
Link
ReplyDeleteCheck out ALEC Exposed and ALEC Watch sites for more information.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteThe process is obvious to anyone who pays attention whether it’s the Kochs and their ilk on one side or Soros and his on the other. Lobbyists provide the mother’s milk that nourishes D.C. However, I didn't realize it was so coordinated across such a broad section of the nation rather than just individual companies and sectors pursuing legislation that affects their own specific interests.
This is an instance where using the word venal is likely appropriate.
One would think these activities would run afoul of corruption or RICO laws. Evidently, one would be wrong. Hopefully, Citizens/United will be reversed as a first step in slowing or reversing (wishful thinking?)this trend.
Thanks for the link. Very informative.
.
Yes. Surprising coordination. We're all a little late to the party.
Delete