From: lcs Mixmaster Remailer <mix@anon.lcs.mit.edu>
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Message Hash: b395f74e78e33c75a2b0b255dda9a134dfc097fe6bdca9ec25e950b612088be6
Message ID: <19971125042001.3010.qmail@nym.alias.net>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-11-25 04:32:45 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:32:45 +0800
From: lcs Mixmaster Remailer <mix@anon.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:32:45 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Further costs of war
Message-ID: <19971125042001.3010.qmail@nym.alias.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Robert Hettinga wrote:
>Of course, all the pseudoconstitutionalist claptrap about the 16th being
>unconstitutional is, of course, that. The constitution's what the Supreme
>Court says it is, unfortunately.
I don't agree with you on this one, Bob.
The fact is that the 16th was never properly ratified. It slid through the
cracks, contrary to the procedure for ratifying amendments as outlined in
the Constitution. The reason there was no public outcry was because the
initial tax was 1% on anyone earning more than $4,000 a year (roughly
$80,000 in today's money). Besides, I seriously doubt many people rushed
down to the Treasury to cough up their 1% either.
This deceptive non-ratification is clearly documented by Bill Benson in his
book "The Law That Never Was" <http://www.trustclarks.com/theman.html>.
Although his book has been in print for several years, I have yet to hear of
anyone who has refuted his claims.
The "pseudoconstitutionalist claptrap" that should be pointed out is
your claim that "the constitution's what the Supreme Court says it is."
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court judicial
power "...to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution..."
The words "under this Constitution" imply that the Supreme Court must work
by the letter of the law as outlined in the Constitution. How can the
Supreme Court pass a decision involving the 16th when the amendment was
never ratified as outlined in Section V? These are the kind of shenanigans
one would expect from a banana republic tribunal, not the Supreme Court.
>Doesn't mean the damn thing shouldn't be repealed, though there's fat
>chance of that.
Why bother to repeal what never existed? When enough people learn what
really happened, and when they couple it with the fact that most of their
tax money is wasted and could be better "redistributed" according to their
own individual judgement, the house of cards will collapse.
> Oh well. Fortunately, we can fight back with digital bearer
>settlement. Someday. Soon, I hope.
I hope so, too. But I don't advocate waiting until that day to fight back.
We can start now by learning the facts and then passing on that knowledge.
Consider it to be the creation of a ready and willing market for digital
bearer certificates.
Nerthus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNHowuBa1d3zm4nqOEQKtwwCg6gUxAKS4LcDpSG1h6g6Bfm9JmVcAn0Cn
+lvOs1E10vZ5oXWl/GcHqKaW
=wg93
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Return to November 1997
Return to “lcs Mixmaster Remailer <mix@anon.lcs.mit.edu>”
1997-11-25 (Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:32:45 +0800) - Re: Further costs of war - lcs Mixmaster Remailer <mix@anon.lcs.mit.edu>