Ted Cruz may not be the constitutional conservative he claims to be

[Silhouette]

Ted Cruz may not be the constitutional conservative he claims to be

There's one thing for sure he's not a fundamentalist on when it comes to the Constitution: the requirement that a presidential candidate not possess a foreign birth certificate.....well...he and his friends probably were when Obama was running/took office...but not now...you understand...

 

[Pete7469]

Fine.

Vote for the world's richest professional clown then.

When he loses to hitlery I don't want to hear people piss and moan.

 

[Silhouette]

Fine.

Vote for the world's richest professional clown then.

When he loses to hitlery I don't want to hear people piss and moan.

Tiny Hands can be easily taken down when a panel of experts appears on Fox News discussing the dangers of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, from which many experts have opined that T. Rump suffers from.

You act as if John Kasich doesn't exist. You realize of course that if the Canadian dropped from the race, that Kasich would then command the 2/3 of voters who are the "anti-Trump" vote? Kasich would then rapidly begin picking up delegates, enough to keep Tiny Hands from the nomination and then at the convention delegates who are interested in voting the second time for a candidate who consistently polls beating Hillary by a sound margin (John Kasich, consistently by over 10 points), can cast for Kasich.

The public would see Kasich has having the more legitimate claim on the nomination....instead of Cruz's eventual inevitable surrender when the USSC reminds the public of the natural born requirements...and the public will feel like Kasich's win is more legitimate.....some more well placed expose's on Narcissistic Personality Disorder with a video-montage showing Trump's antics after each symptom is discussed...and the Trumpsters would feel ashamed that they even cast a vote in the primaries for him. The public doesn't really know about the disease NPD. They can be educated about it though; and about its dangers when a person with NPD gains a position of power...

Add Chris Christie to the Kasich ticket as Veep, and you have a T. Rump endorser on the ticket. This isn't rocket science...

 

[Mac1958]

Never would I have expected to see a major party eat itself like this.

 

[Skylar]

The reason that taxes on income are exempt from the apportionment requirement.....is because the 16th amendment removed that requirement for taxes on income. Exactly as the Eisner court found. You insist that wasn't the 16th amendment but the Flint case. The Eisner court explicitly contradicts you.

Let us look at what the Eisner case really states.

”This limitation [“those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal”] still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.”

In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

The fundamental relation of 'capital' to 'income' has been much discussed by economists, the former being likened to the tree or the land, the latter to the fruit or the crop; the former depicted as a reservoir supplied from springs, the latter as the outlet stream, to be measured by its flow during a period of time. For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term 'income,' [252 U.S. 189, 207] as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue.”

The court then goes on to discuss and elaborate upon the nature of a stock dividend and in so doing writes the following:

”And we are considering the taxability of bona fide stock dividends only. [252 U.S. 189, 212] We are clear that not only does a stock dividend really take nothing from the property of the corporation and add nothing to that of the shareholder, but that the antecedent accumulation of profits evidenced thereby, while indicating that the shareholder is the richer because of an increase of his capital, at the same time shows he has not realized or received any income in the transaction.”

Finally the Court concludes:

“ In so far as this seems to uphold the right of Congress to tax without apportionment a stockholder's interest in accumulated earnings prior to dividend declared, it must be regarded as overruled by Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 627 , 628 S., 637, 15 Sup. Ct. 912. Conceding Collector v. Hubbard was inconsistent with the doctrine of that case, because it sustained a direct tax upon property not apportioned [252 U.S. 189, 219] AMONG THE STATES, THE GOVERNMENT NEVERTHELESS insists that the sixteenth Amendment removed this obstacle, so that now the Hubbard Case is authority for the power of Congress to levy a tax on the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the corporation even before division by the declaration of a dividend of any kind. Manifestly this argument must be rejected, since the amendment applies to income only, and what is called the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the company is capital, not income. As we have pointed out, a stockholder has no individual share in accumulated profits, nor in any particular part of the assets of the corporation, prior to dividend declared.

Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

The bottom line is, simply because Congress declares a tax to be a “tax upon incomes” does not make it so. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it still requires an apportionment among the state as found in the Eisner Case.

Blithering nonsense. The Eisner case never says any such thing. Again, the reason that pro-rata dividends were not covered by the 16th amendment wasn't because they were 'like a direct tax'. But because pro-rata dividends were not income as there was nothing derived from them. No cash, no property, not even a larger proportion of the company.

As the Eisner court makes ludicriously clear here:

"Throughout the argument of the Government, in a variety of forms, runs the fundamental error already mentioned—a failure to appraise correctly the force of the term "income" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment, or at least to give practical effect to it. Thus, the Government contends that the tax "is levied on income derived from corporate earnings," when in truth the stockholder has "derived" nothing except paper certificates which, so far as they have any effect, deny him [or "her" — in this case, Mrs. Macomber] present participation in such earnings. It [the government] contends that the tax may be laid when earnings "are received by the stockholder," whereas he has received none; that the profits are "distributed by means of a stock dividend," although a stock dividend distributes no profits; that under the Act of 1916 "the tax is on the stockholder's share in corporate earnings," when in truth a stockholder has no such share, and receives none in a stock dividend; that "the profits are segregated from his [her] former capital, and he has a separate certificate representing his [her] invested profits or gains," whereas there has been no segregation of profits, nor has he any separate certificate representing a personal gain, since the certificates, new and old, are alike in what they represent—a capital interest in the entire concerns of the corporation."

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)
​

Nothing is derived from the stock dividend. That's why it isn't income. And that's why the it isn't covered by the 16th amendment. With the Eisner court making it equally clear that the 16th amendment removed all apportionment requirements from taxes on income:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration."

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)
​

You pretend this finding doesn't exist in the Eisner decision. Yet the 16th amendment still removes all apportionment requirements for taxes on income. That you pretend otherwise doesn't matter.

As neither the courts nor any rational person is obligated to pretend with you.

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

A ruling from 1895.......which came almost 2 decades BEFORE the 16th amendment lifted apportionment requirements on taxes on income. The 16th amendment was created to address Pollock specifically and remove any apportionment requirements to taxes on income.

Which is exactly what it did.

You lose again.

 

[Skylar]

Fine.

Vote for the world's richest professional clown then.

When he loses to hitlery I don't want to hear people piss and moan.

Tiny Hands can be easily taken down when a panel of experts appears on Fox News discussing the dangers of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, from which many experts have opined that T. Rump suffers from.

You act as if John Kasich doesn't exist. You realize of course that if the Canadian dropped from the race, that Kasich would then command the 2/3 of voters who are the "anti-Trump" vote? Kasich would then rapidly begin picking up delegates, enough to keep Tiny Hands from the nomination and then at the convention delegates who are interested in voting the second time for a candidate who consistently polls beating Hillary by a sound margin (John Kasich, consistently by over 10 points), can cast for Kasich.

The public would see Kasich has having the more legitimate claim on the nomination....instead of Cruz's eventual inevitable surrender when the USSC reminds the public of the natural born requirements...and the public will feel like Kasich's win is more legitimate.....some more well placed expose's on Narcissistic Personality Disorder with a video-montage showing Trump's antics after each symptom is discussed...and the Trumpsters would feel ashamed that they even cast a vote in the primaries for him.

Add Chris Christie to the Kasich ticket as Veep, and you have a T. Rump endorser on the ticket. This isn't rocket science...

You pretend like John Kasich has anywhere near the delegates necessary to secure the nomination. He's in dead last place....by literally hundreds and hundreds of delegates. He would have to win over 100% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination. Which is mathmatically impossible. He couldn't even win 50% of his own state.

Even Romney, the establishment spokesman, is dismissing Kasich's continued participation in the primary as a joke.

And if there is a brokered convention where Kasich is given the nomination despite being dead last, the GOP loses. As many of Trump and Cruz's voters simply walk away or create a third party. If the GOP runs Trump, he loses as he trails Hillary be almost double digits and is the most loathed candidate to reach the general election in modern history.

The GOP is fucked either way.

 

[Silhouette]

Never would I have expected to see a major party eat itself like this.

They don't have to. See post #63...

 

[Skylar]

Ted Cruz may not be the constitutional conservative he claims to be

There's one thing for sure he's not a fundamentalist on when it comes to the Constitution: the requirement that a presidential candidate not possess a foreign birth certificate.....well...he and his friends probably were when Obama was running/took office...but not now...you understand...

There's no such requirement. Remember, you made that up, citing yourself. And your imagination isn't the constitution, the law, or any legal requirement.

Which might explain why every 'suit' against Cruz's eligibility has either been dismissed or stalled dead in the court it was submitted in.

 

[Skylar]

Never would I have expected to see a major party eat itself like this.

They don't have to. See post #63...

Yes, they do. As Kasich can't mathematically win the nomination. And if being dead last he's given the nomination through a brokered convention......about 15 million GOP voters walk away from the republican party. Roughly 1 in 4.

Your proposal is yet another profound misreading of the situation....where you predictably project what you *want* to occur in exclusion of what the evidence overwhelmingly indicates will occur.

Its one of the reasons your legal predictions have an absolutely perfect record of failure. In defiance of math and the law of averages, you've literally never been right.

 

[Pete7469]

You act as if John Kasich doesn't exist.

Add Chris Christie to the Kasich ticket as Veep, and you have a T. Rump endorser on the ticket. This isn't rocket science...

Kasich?

You're joking right?



Christie Kreme as veep?

A crazy bernie/moonbeam ticket would be about equally repulsive.

Every election cycle I have been aware of I've listened to people complain the candidate wasn't conservative enough. We settled for W, and how did that work out?

A massive police state and debt.

Mclame and Romney were the worst possible choices, and they managed to hang on. This time around we have the most conservative and IMO brilliant guy in close second and so called conservatives are bashing him.

So fuck it.

I'll end up voting for Dump if he wins, but Kasich is a moonbat. No chance I would have voted for Jeb, Graham or Christie either. If we are going to roll off the cliff with statists from either party, we may as well let a democrook mash the gas peddle and get it over with.

Ted Cruz is not perfect, but I have total confidence he would wipe the floor with hitlery and that she would fake a stroke to get out of a debate.

Dump has given money to the political whores who broke the government. I don't trust him to fix it. I trust the guy who rebelled against it from within.

 

[Silhouette]

The point is I think it's ironic that Cruz would be even remotely connected with defending the Constitution since a Cruz presidency itself would be a violation of it personified. That Canadian birth certificate...you haven't heard the last of that...on that you can go to the bank..

 

[Skylar]

The point is I think it's ironic that Cruz would be even remotely connected with defending the Constitution since a Cruz presidency itself would be a violation of it personified. That Canadian birth certificate...you haven't heard the last of that...on that you can go to the bank..

I find it ironic that you still put any weight behind your pseudo-legal gibberish given that your record of predicting legal outcomes is one of absolute and perfect failure.

You've literally never been right. Yet you still quote you as if you have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Weird.

 

[Silhouette]

You could be banned for trolling...but I would ban you for sheer repetition. If someone had the stomach and the time to research your posts, they'd find that same line you just spouted repeated over and over and over and over and over, without a single substantive rebuttal. It's an ad hominem and yet the mods let you go on. The only thing I can conclude is that you know the mods personally or have contributed so much (Soros) money to this website that your mouth is allowed free reign.

 

[Skylar]

You could be banned for trolling...but I would ban you for sheer repetition. If someone had the stomach and the time to research your posts, they'd find that same line you just spouted repeated over and over and over and over and over, without a single substantive rebuttal. It's an ad hominem and yet the mods let you go on. The only thing I can conclude is that you know the mods personally or have contributed so much (Soros) money to this website that your mouth is allowed free reign.

Nope. Again, I'm just critiquing your sources. For example, you insist that anyone with a foreign birth certificate is forbidden by law to be president.

The law doesn't say this. You're not citing the law. You're citing yourself. And as such, I'm checking your sources. Your source (yourself) has a perfect record of failure in legal predictions. You are literally always wrong. You can't point to a single example of you ever getting a legal prediction right.

Why then would you or anyone else put the slightest weight in what you have to say on legal matters? Your pseudo-legal gibberish simply has nothing to do with our laws. Nor has the slightest relevance to the outcome of any case.

As demonstrated by virtually every 'eligibility' suit against Cruz being dismissed. With the 2 remaining having stalled utterly in the courts they were submitted in.

 

[thanatos144]

so in other words another worthless thread from a demented mind.

 

[johnwk]

You pretend this finding doesn't exist in the Eisner decision. Yet the 16th amendment still removes all apportionment requirements for taxes on income. That you pretend otherwise doesn't matter.

The Court in Eisner concludes:

“ In so far as this seems to uphold the right of Congress to tax without apportionment a stockholder's interest in accumulated earnings prior to dividend declared, it must be regarded as overruled by Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 627 , 628 S., 637, 15 Sup. Ct. 912. Conceding Collector v. Hubbard was inconsistent with the doctrine of that case, because it sustained a direct tax upon property not apportioned [252 U.S. 189, 219] AMONG THE STATES, THE GOVERNMENT NEVERTHELESS insists that the sixteenth Amendment removed this obstacle, so that now the Hubbard Case is authority for the power of Congress to levy a tax on the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the corporation even before division by the declaration of a dividend of any kind. Manifestly this argument must be rejected, since the amendment applies to income only, and what is called the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the company is capital, not income. As we have pointed out, a stockholder has no individual share in accumulated profits, nor in any particular part of the assets of the corporation, prior to dividend declared.

Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

The bottom line is, simply because Congress declares a tax to be a “tax upon incomes” does not make it so. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it still requires an apportionment among the state as found in the Eisner Case. Each case, as the court has eloquently stated, is to be decided ”… according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

JWK

 

[Skylar]

You pretend this finding doesn't exist in the Eisner decision. Yet the 16th amendment still removes all apportionment requirements for taxes on income. That you pretend otherwise doesn't matter.

The Court in Eisner concludes:

“ In so far as this seems to uphold the right of Congress to tax without apportionment a stockholder's interest in accumulated earnings prior to dividend declared, it must be regarded as overruled by Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 627 , 628 S., 637, 15 Sup. Ct. 912. Conceding Collector v. Hubbard was inconsistent with the doctrine of that case, because it sustained a direct tax upon property not apportioned [252 U.S. 189, 219] AMONG THE STATES, THE GOVERNMENT NEVERTHELESS insists that the sixteenth Amendment removed this obstacle, so that now the Hubbard Case is authority for the power of Congress to levy a tax on the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the corporation even before division by the declaration of a dividend of any kind. Manifestly this argument must be rejected, since the amendment applies to income only, and what is called the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the company is capital, not income. As we have pointed out, a stockholder has no individual share in accumulated profits, nor in any particular part of the assets of the corporation, prior to dividend declared.

And the Eisner court's conclusion destroys your entire pseudo-legal argument:

Manifestly this argument must be rejected, since the amendment applies to income only, and what is called the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the company is capital, not income.
​

You insist that the 16th amendment doesn't lift the apportionment requirement on taxes on income. Your own quote affirms that it does. Killing your entire argument.

Your argument breaks in the same place every time, John. It doesn't matter how many times you spam the exact same passage.....you still lose.

 

[johnwk]

You pretend this finding doesn't exist in the Eisner decision. Yet the 16th amendment still removes all apportionment requirements for taxes on income. That you pretend otherwise doesn't matter.

The Court in Eisner concludes:

“ In so far as this seems to uphold the right of Congress to tax without apportionment a stockholder's interest in accumulated earnings prior to dividend declared, it must be regarded as overruled by Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 627 , 628 S., 637, 15 Sup. Ct. 912. Conceding Collector v. Hubbard was inconsistent with the doctrine of that case, because it sustained a direct tax upon property not apportioned [252 U.S. 189, 219] AMONG THE STATES, THE GOVERNMENT NEVERTHELESS insists that the sixteenth Amendment removed this obstacle, so that now the Hubbard Case is authority for the power of Congress to levy a tax on the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the corporation even before division by the declaration of a dividend of any kind. Manifestly this argument must be rejected, since the amendment applies to income only, and what is called the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the company is capital, not income. As we have pointed out, a stockholder has no individual share in accumulated profits, nor in any particular part of the assets of the corporation, prior to dividend declared.

And the Eisner court's conclusion destroys your entire pseudo-legal argument:

Manifestly this argument must be rejected, since the amendment applies to income only, and what is called the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the company is capital, not income.
​

You insist that the 16th amendment doesn't lift the apportionment requirement on taxes on income. Your own quote affirms that it does. Killing your entire argument.

.

Wrong. The Court in Eisner found the "income tax law" imposed upon Eisner violated the direct taxing clauses of our Constitution. The Court concluded:

"In so far as this seems to uphold the right of Congress to tax without apportionment a stockholder's interest in accumulated earnings prior to dividend declared, it must be regarded as overruled by Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 627 , 628 S., 637, 15 Sup. Ct. 912. Conceding Collector v. Hubbard was inconsistent with the doctrine of that case, because it sustained a direct tax upon property not apportioned [252 U.S. 189, 219] AMONG THE STATES, THE GOVERNMENT NEVERTHELESS insists that the sixteenth Amendment removed this obstacle, so that now the Hubbard Case is authority for the power of Congress to levy a tax on the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the corporation even before division by the declaration of a dividend of any kind. Manifestly this argument must be rejected, since the amendment applies to income only, and what is called the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the company is capital, not income. As we have pointed out, a stockholder has no individual share in accumulated profits, nor in any particular part of the assets of the corporation, prior to dividend declared.

Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."

The bottom line is, simply because Congress declares a tax to be a “tax upon incomes” does not make it so. If the tax takes the form of a direct tax, it still requires an apportionment among the state as found in the Eisner Case. Each case, as the court has eloquently stated, is to be decided ”… according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

JWK

 

[Skylar]

You pretend this finding doesn't exist in the Eisner decision. Yet the 16th amendment still removes all apportionment requirements for taxes on income. That you pretend otherwise doesn't matter.

The Court in Eisner concludes:

“ In so far as this seems to uphold the right of Congress to tax without apportionment a stockholder's interest in accumulated earnings prior to dividend declared, it must be regarded as overruled by Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 627 , 628 S., 637, 15 Sup. Ct. 912. Conceding Collector v. Hubbard was inconsistent with the doctrine of that case, because it sustained a direct tax upon property not apportioned [252 U.S. 189, 219] AMONG THE STATES, THE GOVERNMENT NEVERTHELESS insists that the sixteenth Amendment removed this obstacle, so that now the Hubbard Case is authority for the power of Congress to levy a tax on the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the corporation even before division by the declaration of a dividend of any kind. Manifestly this argument must be rejected, since the amendment applies to income only, and what is called the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the company is capital, not income. As we have pointed out, a stockholder has no individual share in accumulated profits, nor in any particular part of the assets of the corporation, prior to dividend declared.

And the Eisner court's conclusion destroys your entire pseudo-legal argument:

Manifestly this argument must be rejected, since the amendment applies to income only, and what is called the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the company is capital, not income.
​

You insist that the 16th amendment doesn't lift the apportionment requirement on taxes on income. Your own quote affirms that it does. Killing your entire argument.

.

Wrong. The Court in Eisner found the "income tax law" imposed upon Eisner violated the direct taxing clauses of our Constitution.

Obvious nonsense. The Eisner court found that the income tax law on pro-rata stock dividends violated the direct taxation clause.....because pro-rata stock dividends weren't income, but capital. And only income was exempted from the apportionment clause by the 16th amendment. As your own quote makes clear:

Manifestly this argument must be rejected, since the amendment applies to income only, and what is called the stockholder's share in the accumulated profits of the company is capital, not income.
​

The 16th amendment applies to income only. You're literally ignoring your own quote.

It doesn't matter how many times you spam the same passage when you have to ignore what you're spamming. Your own quote contradicts your claims. With the Eisner Court exploding your pseudo-legal nonsense yet again with this passage:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration."

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income.

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)

You have to ignore both my quote of Eisner and your own quote of Eisner. Your argument is refuted by either. You simply haven't done sufficient research on this topic to discuss it intelligently.

Try again. This time reading what you're posting.

 

[Silhouette]

stop spewing your pseudo-legal gibberish Skylar!