- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 16th, 17th or 19th Amendment: which is the worst?
Posted on 1/13/19 at 9:46 am to udtiger
Posted on 1/13/19 at 9:46 am to udtiger
quote:
Actually, it was necessary because the SCOTUS held an income tax enacted during the Civil War was unconstitutional.
Jesus. Money grubbing whores. That’s all our politicians are.
I knew there was a precedent for this in special circumstances, like war, but I’ve never been of the opinion that the income tax is legal or necessary.
1
Posted on 1/13/19 at 10:00 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
I knew there was a precedent for this in special circumstances, like war, but I’ve never been of the opinion that the income tax is legal or necessary.
I think the withholding tax was implemented during the war to assure needed income, with the "promise" that it would be repealed after the war. Once the got a taste of that sweet early money, they forgot that part.
Posted on 1/13/19 at 11:24 am to Dale51
quote:
I think the withholding tax was implemented during the war to assure needed income, with the "promise" that it would be repealed after the war. Once the got a taste of that sweet early money, they forgot that part.
Of course they did, politicians are thieves for the most part. They’re the ultimate welfare recipients
This post was edited on 1/13/19 at 11:26 am
Posted on 1/13/19 at 11:32 am to td01241
quote:Really? I think it did quite the opposite. It stripped the States of their traditional role in the Republic.
17th further nurtured the States.
Please explain your thoughts.
This post was edited on 1/13/19 at 11:55 am
Posted on 1/13/19 at 11:34 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:Maybe I am missing something. Can you explain how a Constitutional Amendment can EVER be unconstitutional? Isn’t it “constitutional” BY DEFINITION?
Read the text of the 16th amendment though and tell me how fricking ominous this sounds.quote:frick this. Did it ever go in front of SCOTUS?
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.
Posted on 1/13/19 at 11:35 am to udtiger
quote:THIS is a valid inquiry.
I am still at a loss as to how a progressive income tax passes constitutional muster.
Posted on 1/13/19 at 11:37 am to udtiger
19th. While inevitable due to movements brewing at the time, it was a horrible decision and only increased, long term, the rate in which this country will fall into disrepair
Posted on 1/13/19 at 11:49 am to udtiger
Republicans hate the constitution?
Posted on 1/13/19 at 12:12 pm to udtiger
quote:
And, if you could snap your finger and one of them would be erased from history - never to have existed, in any form - which would you dispose of?
Second amendment easily. It's the only amendment that Supreme Court justices have spoken out about repealing.
quote:
Retired Associate Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has an idea for addressing gun violence in America: repeal the Second Amendment.
In an op-ed published in the New York Times Tuesday, the 97-year-old former Supreme Court justice argues that advocates for stricter gun control legislation should take the next step and demand the removal of the Second Amendment entirely.
“That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform,” Stevens, who was appointed by former President Gerald Ford and was then a registered Republican, wrote. “It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.”
The former Supreme Court justice also cited the 2008 Supreme Court ruling District of Columbia v. Heller, which affirmed the Second Amendment protects the right of an individual to own a firearm without serving in a militia. Stevens, along with retired Supreme Court justice David Souter and sitting justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, dissented from the majority opinion in that case.
“Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the NRA’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option,” Stevens wrote.
LINK
Posted on 1/13/19 at 12:19 pm to GumboPot
quote:This. Followed closely by the 17th.
16th, easily.
Posted on 1/13/19 at 12:29 pm to udtiger
add the 14th to that list
they never should have done it by amendment, they should have just passed a law declaring all former slaves and children of former slave to be full citizens.
they way that amendment got bastardized into something it was never written to be was a crime
they never should have done it by amendment, they should have just passed a law declaring all former slaves and children of former slave to be full citizens.
they way that amendment got bastardized into something it was never written to be was a crime
Posted on 1/13/19 at 12:38 pm to Dale51
quote:
BOOM!!...Sex....not gender! There is nothing unconstitutional about barring trannys, etc, from voting!!!!
I have no dog in this fight, but regardless of how an American citizen does or does not identify personally WRT descriptors, they still can’t be barred from voting.
Posted on 1/13/19 at 1:17 pm to udtiger
quote:Example A: everyone on the Poli Board.
Adding an illogical, emotion-driven element to the voting population is the reason for a lot of the current ills in society.
Posted on 1/13/19 at 2:03 pm to udtiger
quote:
Adding an illogical, emotion-driven element to the voting population
By that argument most of the Politards shouldn't be allowed to vote either.
Posted on 1/13/19 at 2:05 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Please explain your thoughts
I think he meant neutered.
Posted on 1/13/19 at 2:17 pm to fr33manator
quote:
fr33manator
quote:
19th
Shocker
Posted on 1/13/19 at 2:18 pm to Bard
17th, because of the 16th.
Posted on 1/13/19 at 2:28 pm to udtiger
As soon as the 19th was passed we became an emotional nanny state because women have an innate fear/need of being cared for, its science.
Posted on 1/13/19 at 2:30 pm to Dale51
quote:
BOOM!!...Sex....not gender! There is nothing unconstitutional about barring trannys, etc, from voting!!!!
i don't think you thought this through.. unless you think a law banning heterosexuals from voting would be legal
Posted on 1/13/19 at 2:31 pm to AlterDWI
quote:
The 19th amendment was the first wave of feminism which has been a total disaster for women(and men) in our society.
link? women seem to be doing pretty damn well
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News