Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: NC found to be gerrymandering - but they'll still use the ones for election day, huh

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    NC found to be gerrymandering - but they'll still use the ones for election day, huh

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/50fe2...tive-districts

    Federal judges on Thursday struck down nearly 30 North Carolina House and Senate districts as illegal racial gerrymanders, but will allow General Assembly elections to be held using them this fall.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Gerrymandering is how you rig an election.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Gerrymandering is how legislative districts are fairly distributed among the population. Some hypersensitives ox will always be gored.

    That's why electing TRUMP 2016 and turning out progressive jurists is so important. TRUMP the SNOWFLAKES
    Last edited by Nightmare; 08-13-2016 at 09:37 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by JTHunter View Post
    Not in Illinois! You ought to see the shapes some districts take!
    why the districts cover cemetaries...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Gerrymandering is how legislative districts are fairly distributed among the population. Some hypersensitives ox will always be gored.

    That's why electing TRUMP 2016 and turning out progressive jurists is so important. TRUMP the SNOWFLAKES
    That sounds like the definition that republican incumbents tell themselves after getting fewer votes and still winning their election so they can sleep at night. I prefer a definition that reflects the proper negative connotation of the term:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    So Bobby B has never been responsible for much, particularly re-drawing legislative districts.

    At dinner last night, Milady Wife related to me that an acquaintance lived in the Sherman Park, Milwaukee neighborhood, and I expressed great concern. She went on to expand the meaning of Sherman Park to include the gentrified suburban areas in defense of a decision to buy there, and that the riotous protesters are threatening to burn.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    So Bobby B has never been responsible for much, particularly re-drawing legislative districts.

    At dinner last night, Milady Wife related to me that an acquaintance lived in the Sherman Park, Milwaukee neighborhood, and I expressed great concern. She went on to expand the meaning of Sherman Park to include the gentrified suburban areas in defense of a decision to buy there, and that the riotous protesters are threatening to burn.
    I'm trying to decipher what redrawing legislative districts has to do with overall responsibility. That duty fall on the party that has power and it is done every 10 years after the national census, so no, I have never been involved in redrawing districts, but I have been responsible for other things.
    Are you trying to say that gerrymandering has something to do with the unrest in Milwaukee?

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    That sounds like the definition that republican ...
    Only a complete, mindless, dishonest, partisan hack can make any claim about gerrymandering being the purview of one party vs another. Every party to achieve legislative power in this nation has used Gerrymandering. It certainly wasn't the GOP who drew the 2013 Illinois 4th District map this way:



    Ignoring the subtle bias of the Wiki article on Gerrymandering (that tends to specifically point out GOP efforts as Republican, while leaving Democratic efforts mostly unnamed), even the troll's favored article makes clear that Gerrymandering is a worldwide issue not limited to any particular party.

    Indeed, I'd bet the most common use of "gerrymandering" is to protect incumbents of both parties. If most members of the legislature retain safe seats that make their own re-election easy, neither side complains too much.

    The Progs scream loudly when gerrymandering hurts their electoral chances, but are silent when it benefits them. In fact, in Utah, the Progs have gone so far as to more or less openly advocate for gerrymandering to assure one Democrat seat in our congressional district. This, of course, would result in far fewer Progs living in the other 3 congressional districts meaning we'd end up with one radical Prog and 3 hard-core right wing members of Congress. None of our 4 seats would be competitive, and all would tend toward the more extreme edges of the party who had a majority member.

    Fortunately, our legislature has chosen a more sensible course of creating 4 districts that all look similar. All include a mix of urban and rural. All cover fairly significant geographic areas: we do not have 3 geographically small urban districts and 1 huge districts that mixes urban and rural. We are fortunate not to have the issues of race that seem to give the activists courts cause to meddle in what the constitution clearly recognizes as a legislative prerogative.

    North Carolina can't seem to win. They spent years being told they must draw districts to allow black candidates to win. Now they are told they must not consider race so much. The courts are clearly playing the Goldilocks game where "just right" means more Progs being elected than would be under any sensible district boundaries. It is notable that those quoted in the article linked in the OP concede that whites are willing to vote for black candidates. No such concession is made about black voters in majority black areas.

    Frankly, we'd be much better off if we could overturn the unconstitutional, judicial activism of "one man, one vote" and instead increase the relative representation of geographic areas. Most States with bicameral legislatures would probably be far better off if they'd more closely mirror the federal legislature by providing one State senator per county (or group of counties) regardless of population, while retaining proportional representation in the State house. "One man, one vote" violates the anti-democratic principles of the constitution that were intended to protect the rights of rural residents against the mobocracy of large urban/business/financial interests.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Only a complete, mindless, dishonest, partisan hack can make any claim about gerrymandering being the purview of one party vs another. Every party to achieve legislative power in this nation has used Gerrymandering. It certainly wasn't the GOP who drew the 2013 Illinois 4th District map this way:



    Ignoring the subtle bias of the Wiki article on Gerrymandering (that tends to specifically point out GOP efforts as Republican, while leaving Democratic efforts mostly unnamed), even the troll's favored article makes clear that Gerrymandering is a worldwide issue not limited to any particular party.

    Indeed, I'd bet the most common use of "gerrymandering" is to protect incumbents of both parties. If most members of the legislature retain safe seats that make their own re-election easy, neither side complains too much.

    The Progs scream loudly when gerrymandering hurts their electoral chances, but are silent when it benefits them. In fact, in Utah, the Progs have gone so far as to more or less openly advocate for gerrymandering to assure one Democrat seat in our congressional district. This, of course, would result in far fewer Progs living in the other 3 congressional districts meaning we'd end up with one radical Prog and 3 hard-core right wing members of Congress. None of our 4 seats would be competitive, and all would tend toward the more extreme edges of the party who had a majority member.

    Fortunately, our legislature has chosen a more sensible course of creating 4 districts that all look similar. All include a mix of urban and rural. All cover fairly significant geographic areas: we do not have 3 geographically small urban districts and 1 huge districts that mixes urban and rural. We are fortunate not to have the issues of race that seem to give the activists courts cause to meddle in what the constitution clearly recognizes as a legislative prerogative.

    North Carolina can't seem to win. They spent years being told they must draw districts to allow black candidates to win. Now they are told they must not consider race so much. The courts are clearly playing the Goldilocks game where "just right" means more Progs being elected than would be under any sensible district boundaries. It is notable that those quoted in the article linked in the OP concede that whites are willing to vote for black candidates. No such concession is made about black voters in majority black areas.

    Frankly, we'd be much better off if we could overturn the unconstitutional, judicial activism of "one man, one vote" and instead increase the relative representation of geographic areas. Most States with bicameral legislatures would probably be far better off if they'd more closely mirror the federal legislature by providing one State senator per county (or group of counties) regardless of population, while retaining proportional representation in the State house. "One man, one vote" violates the anti-democratic principles of the constitution that were intended to protect the rights of rural residents against the mobocracy of large urban/business/financial interests.

    Charles
    A wordy way of saying "But the other guys do it too!" Something a progressive would say.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    There is not a spit of Pearl Jam difference among the ruling parties, progressives all. Bad cop/worse cop played on the political stage.

    TRUMP the SNOWFLAKES. TRUMP the establishment. TRUMP the Grumpy Old Party. TRUMP 2016. TRUMP U.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    Holding that only legislatures can pass election laws would "run up against the Constitution's animating principle that the people themselves are the originating source of all the powers of government," she wrote.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...maps/27400015/
    ...except where guns are concerned...of course...
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    ...except where guns are concerned...of course...
    From the URL

    "He [Chief Justice Roberts]noted that under the majority's reading, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution ó requiring that senators be elected directly by the people instead of legislatures ó wouldn't have been necessary.

    "What chumps! Didn't they realize that all they had to do was interpret the constitutional term 'the legislature' to mean 'the people?'" Roberts wrote with sarcasm. "The court today performs just such a magic trick with the elections clause."

    I lay much of our dire straits at the feet of the Seventeenth Amendment. Federalism would be healthier and stronger were the senators the representatives of the sovereign states, and not merely senior assemblymen.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    ...except where guns are concerned...of course...
    From the URL:

    "Arizona voters took the power to draw district lines away from the Legislature and gave it to an independent commission in 2000. Since then, Democrats have gained three congressional seats."

    "Independent", "bi partisan', or even "non partisan" redistricting commissions are not without the same kind of ideological or even partisan bias as may be present in the legislature itself. The difference of course is that we all fully recognize the biases present in partisan legislatures, and individual legislators are directly accountable to the voters. Redistricting commissions are often not directly accountable.

    Ideally, we'd allow greater variation in population differences in favor of maintaining greater geographic, cultural, and socio-economic commonality within a given district. In most cases, most everyone knows where neighborhood boundaries are, where communities of common interest start and end. Those communities ought to be kept together even if it means that population within districts vary by a bit more than allowed today. I should think a 20% variation in population among districts would be a perfectly acceptable and workable cost to keep communities of interest together. A lot larger variation than that often comes to exist over the course of the decennial redistricting.

    For example, when Utah redistricted our legislature following the 2000 census, we had a 90% to 100% difference in population among some of our districts in Salt Lake County. A couple of our suburban legislative districts had nearly twice as many residents in them as did some of our downtown urban districts. The districts were nearly equal when created following the 1990 census. But 10 years of growth in the suburban areas of the county, with no growth or even loss or population in the downtown area had created that disparity. The disparity during the 2000, 1998, and 1996 elections had certainly been more than 50% larger suburban than urban districts. So a 20% disparity at the onset doesn't seem unjust or unworkable if done for the purpose of preserving communities of interest along natural or pre-existing political lines.

    It might be interesting to have the State Senate draw the boundaries for the House and vice versa. But I do no like un-elected, independent commissions. Let's be honest and open about bias and leave it to the voters to effect change when needed.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    I lay much of our dire straits at the feet of the Seventeenth Amendment. Federalism would be healthier and stronger were the senators the representatives of the sovereign states, and not merely senior assemblymen.
    +1

    Coupled with the 16th amendment power to lay direct taxes without regard to the census, the 17th amendment represents a major shift in power away from the States. Both the 16th and 17th ought to be repealed.

    Instead of the feds taxing the citizens and then bribing the State legislatures with "free" money while federal Senators tout how well they bring home the bacon to the electorate, imagine federal Senators coming home each year to their legislature, the ~100 men who elect them, to deliver the federal tax bill for the State. The legislators will have to figure out how to raise that money from their constituents and send it to the feds. I suspect fiscal conservativism would quickly get very popular at both the federal and State levels.

    I've often wondered whether the 17th amendment could be ignored by certain States under the power of Article V:


    Article. V.

    ...Amendments [to the Constitution], ... shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified ....; Provided .... that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

    Some might argue that all States still have 2 Senators.

    I would argue that allowing the voters of Utah to elect California's two Senators would deprive California of its true, equal Suffrage in the Senate. Allowing the natural person voters in Utah to elect the two Senators for Utah State has the same effect of denying the STATE of Utah (as an entity) its equal Suffrage in the Senate in materially the same way.

    I would argue further, than any State that did not ratify the 17th amendment has not given its consent to be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. One might go so far as to suggest that any ratification of the 17th amendment via popular vote rather than by legislative vote is not consent on the part of the State.

    States derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. But the States are separate, distinct entities from the people residing within their boundaries.

    Of course, no modern court is going to see it this way. We are now government of the judges, by the judges, for whatever higher good the judges may deign to bestow on the ignorant, unwashed masses for their own good.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    A wordy way of saying "But the other guys do it too!" Something a progressive would say.
    No. It was a detailed way of honestly saying, my side is as guilty as your side, is as guilty of every side that preceded us both.

    As demonstrated by your post singling out "Republicans" on the issue of Gerrymander and by your latest attempt at diversion, honesty is a trait rarely hindering Progs or trolls.

    Try again ****/*****.

    Charles
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 08-16-2016 at 05:19 PM. Reason: Unnecessary personl remark deleted.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    No. It was a detailed way of honestly saying, my side is as guilty as your side, is as guilty of every side that preceded us both.

    As demonstrated by your post singling out "Republicans" on the issue of Gerrymander and by your latest attempt at diversion, honesty is a trait rarely hindering Progs or trolls.

    Try again ****/*****.

    Charles
    You could have stopped after the first sentence and made your point, but you are compelled to try and add a little snark to your comments. The reason I mentioned republicans is this:

    "Gerrymandering has a long history in the United States, pursued enthusiastically by both Democrats and Republicans. But the GOP’s success at it this decade has been historic: In 2012, Republicans maintained a 33-seat majority in the House, even though GOP candidates as a group got 1.4 million fewer votes than their Democratic opponents.

    It was only the second time since World War II that the party receiving the most votes failed to win a majority of House seats, according to statistics compiled by the House Clerk. Democrats gained eight seats but were still a minority."
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...ht-dems-house/

    Many of the republican redistricting efforts have been shot down because it was found that they were racially based.
    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/new...e58792828.html
    Last edited by beebobby; 08-16-2016 at 07:13 PM.

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    You could have stopped after the first sentence and made your point, but you are compelled to try and add a little snark to your comments.
    Coming from the guy who dismissed my entire post with "A wordy way of saying "But the other guys do it too!"" your complaint about snark is beyond rich. It is downright hypocritical. Which is exactly what we expect from Progs.


    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    The reason I mentioned republicans is this:

    "Gerrymandering has a long history in the United States, pursued enthusiastically by both Democrats and Republicans. But the GOP’s success at it this decade has been historic: In 2012, Republicans maintained a 33-seat majority in the House, even though GOP candidates as a group got 1.4 million fewer votes than their Democratic opponents.
    So you mentioned it because it was the GOP who used it successfully rather than the Democrats? Isn't that what I wrote in my first post?

    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper
    The Progs scream loudly when gerrymandering hurts their electoral chances, but are silent when it benefits them.
    Thanks for conceding my assertion.

    Or is there an acceptable level of Gerrymandering and it was the GOP who crossed that line? Show me where you've ever complained about Prog gerrymandering or else you are a hypocrite.


    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Many of the republican redistricting efforts have been shot down because it was found that they were racially based.
    And many of the Prog/Democrat gerrymandering efforts have not been shot down because discriminating against rural voters is perfectly acceptable to our courts.

    To claim that GOP efforts are racially based is shallow thinking. Republicans care less about skin color than do Progs. It is just that racial minorities tend to vote Democrat so GOP efforts to gerrymander will often affect racial minorities. In contrast, Progs gerrymander the other direction and so racial minorities tend to benefit. Same "racial" bias (which is to say very little to do with actual race), just in different directions.

    And of course, Progs love to disenfranchise rural voters, overwhelming them with the numbers in urban areas. But since most of them tend to be white, "rednecks", conservative, perhaps even (heaven forbid) Christian (oh the horror), Progs figure they deserve to be oppressed. The party and ideology that so often attempts to lay claim to being in favor of individual rights despite popular opinion, is very selective in which individual rights they really want to protect. And they are utterly hostile to the constitutional mechanisms intended to protect the individual rights of rural areas. Your much beloved "One man, one vote" is anti-constitutional. Progs scream "democracy" when it means letting inner city progs run the system. They turn around and scream "rights are not up for a vote" when judges will create brand new "rights" that were never included in the constitution nor agreed to by the population. Progs are utter hypocrites.

    Finally, why would you find the term "Prog" to be offensive? You are a progressive, are you not?

    And if you don't like being called a troll, stop acting like one.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 08-16-2016 at 08:10 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    Gerrymandering is how you rig an election.
    Everyone uses Gerrymandering to gain advantage. Most often this is a bipartisan effort to protect most all incumbents, in both parties.

    Progs rig elections through vote fraud. Hostility to voter ID laws is a key component of Progs' attempts to steal elections.

    Motor voting, mail in votes, and early voting all make widespread vote fraud much easier. Progs are experts at this. People who have no trouble getting ID to receive welfare benefits suddenly can't get ID to vote. Right.

    With good reason are there so many jokes about dead people voting in Prog controlled Chicago/Illinois.

    Selectively recounting votes only in certain areas also tends to yield desired results for lying, thieving, cheating Progs.

    When these methods are insufficient, Progs are more than willing to use outright voter intimidation:



    Let see if any Progs will actually try to justify or downplay this.
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 08-16-2016 at 08:09 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    With two consecutive posts, you have proved my point. I'm not going to try and "teach a pig to sing". Please proceed without me. I'm out.

  20. #20
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by beebobby View Post
    You could have stopped after the first sentence and made your point, but you are compelled to try and add a little snark to your comments. The reason I mentioned republicans is this:

    "Gerrymandering has a long history in the United States, pursued enthusiastically by both Democrats and Republicans. But the GOPís success at it this decade has been historic: In 2012, Republicans maintained a 33-seat majority in the House, even though GOP candidates as a group got 1.4 million fewer votes than their Democratic opponents.

    It was only the second time since World War II that the party receiving the most votes failed to win a majority of House seats, according to statistics compiled by the House Clerk. Democrats gained eight seats but were still a minority."
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...ht-dems-house/

    Many of the republican redistricting efforts have been shot down because it was found that they were racially based.
    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/new...e58792828.html

    Of course, the D's would never want to admit that the country was not interested in their particular brand of politic in the many senate and house races that have gone R in the last few years.... They would much rather blame "gerrymandering"!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  21. #21
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    --quote deleted by Moderator--
    good heavens mate are you alright...

    you are responding quite irrationally and manifesting schemes of slights which are not in play.

    this particular outburst is truly out of character, even for you, in its exhibited venomous and caustic language.

    therefore, I reiterate my question...are you alright with you and yours, as your grasp on reality seems to be slipping. please seek assistance if your immendiate family is saying the same thing about your acting out of character or strangely.

    ipse
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 08-17-2016 at 12:41 AM. Reason: deleted quote
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,268
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    Of course, the D's would never want to admit that the country was not interested in their particular brand of politic in the many senate and house races that have gone R in the last few years.... They would much rather blame "gerrymandering"!
    The underlined has been the facts of the matter for many years. Where the smoke and mirrors come to play is the liberal media pointing to gerrymandering as the reason for R victories and not that reasonable-liberty seeking citizens have been rejecting liberal policies for years.

    Unfortunately, politicians are more focused on gerrymandering to save their seats than restoring individual liberty. Restoring individual liberty (reigning in government) is noticed and voters reward liberty centric politicians...except in the urban sectors of our nation...liberty centric citizens are few and far between.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  23. #23
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    +1

    Coupled with the 16th amendment power to lay direct taxes without regard to the census, the 17th amendment represents a major shift in power away from the States. Both the 16th and 17th ought to be repealed.

    Instead of the feds taxing the citizens and then bribing the State legislatures with "free" money while federal Senators tout how well they bring home the bacon to the electorate, imagine federal Senators coming home each year to their legislature, the ~100 men who elect them, to deliver the federal tax bill for the State. The legislators will have to figure out how to raise that money from their constituents and send it to the feds. I suspect fiscal conservativism would quickly get very popular at both the federal and State levels.
    SNIP.

    Charles
    Hey, I have to correct your mistating the 16th amendment. It did not allow for direct taxation.

    "[T]he command of the amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived, forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imports subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class."12 "[T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged."13
    http://law.justia.com/constitution/u...ncome-tax.html

    Please do not spread bad information about taxes anymore.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 08-18-2016 at 09:20 AM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Hey, I have to correct your mistating the 16th amendment. It did not allow for direct taxation.

    Please do not spread bad information about taxes anymore.
    Until the tax protesters are able and willing to explain their interpretations and applications in a way that can be utilized by common folks, being paid a wage or salary by an employer, I will continue to understand the amendment and various income tax laws in ways that will keep me and others out of prison.

    I have repeatedly asked tax protesters to clearly and publicly explain their rationale and procedures for legally not paying federal income tax. None have been willing to personally do so, which leads me to conclude that their methods will not withstand scrutiny. Whether is because the methods are flawed, or because government will engage in "might makes right" makes no material difference.

    If it works for you, great. But if you can't show me how to have it work for me, do not presume to correct me or complain about my verbiage in the absence of your willingness or ability to show others how to make it work for them.

    You and I agree on much. But I have long since grown weary of those insist federal income taxes are something vastly different than commonly understood, yet refrain from offering actionable information to back up such claims.

    If my information is bad, do not merely call it bad. Rather, provide good information to counter it. Good information must be more than a few excerpts from old court cases that may have since been overturned in part or in whole.

    From your cite:

    During the interim between the Pollock decision in 1895 and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the Court gave evidence of a greater awareness of the dangerous consequences to national solvency which that holding threatened, and partially circumvented the threat, either by taking refuge in redefinitions of "direct tax" or, and more especially, by emphasizing, virtually to the exclusion of the former, the history of excise taxation.
    ...
    The Court conceded that taxes on incomes from "professions, trades, employments, or vocations" levied by this act were excise taxes and therefore valid. The entire statute, however, was voided on the ground that Congress never intended to permit the entire "burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations" after real estate and personal property had been exempted, 158 U.S. at 635.
    ...
    Under this approach the Court thus found it possible to sustain a corporate income tax as an excise "measured by income" on the privilege of doing business in corporate form.10 The adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, however, put an end to speculation whether the Court, unaided by constitutional amendment, would persist along these lines of construction until it had reversed its holding in the Pollock case.

    In other words, income was going to be taxed with or without the 16th amendment, but the amendment removed all doubt about what the SCOTUS was going to do.

    Or put in yet other words, while the 16th amendment may not have conferred any new powers on congress, it limited the power of SCOTUS to remove taxing powers from congress.

    Simply put, I believe the nation would be far better off if Congress did not have the power to tax incomes (or gasoline, or much anything else except imposing import duties) but instead had to apportion their budgetary needs among the States based on population, with the States then raising the monies in whatever way they saw fit. One might tax mineral extraction, another might tax income, yet another gambling.

    Whether achieving this could be done simply by repealing the 16th, or whether additional limit would need to be imposed on Congressional delegated power is mostly a moot question as any properly worded amendment to repeal the 16th would do both.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 08-18-2016 at 04:14 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    utbagpiper ..I'll take a shot !

    Insofar as state tax ....

    Why can people "opt" out of paying state taxes in my state?

    Simple: the budgets and tax laws have all been created behind closed doors in violation of our natural rights, common law rights, and FOIA laws ....

    I think that the method in which laws are created also have a bearing on their legality .... so I would not find anyone guilty of violating any tax laws of the state of CT (possibly others if they can show the same defects).

    With the fedz? Anyone who can demonstrate that they violated open records/meetings laws ... I would lean the same.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •