Here is an example from a ruling by Federal District Court Judge James C Fox for the Easrern District of North Carolina on March 21,2003 in the
...more »
Here is an example from a ruling by Federal District Court Judge James C Fox for the Easrern District of North Carolina on March 21,2003 in the case of Sullivan v USA (03-CV-39)
"THE COURT: WELL,i THINK IT HAS OCCURED OVER...I DON'T DISAGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT YOU SAY. I THINK THAT IT HAS OCCURED OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, AND CONCEQUENTLY, THERE IS LESS HESITENCY ON THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO PRESERVE ANYHTING, IT'S JUST LIKE KIDS WHO BREAK A RULE THE FIRST 200 TIMES AND AFTER A WHILE THEY DON'T CARE; THEY DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE RULE EXISTS. I DON'T SAY THAT YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE WITHOUT MERIT. I REALLY DON'T.
Further, at page, 23 line 24-25 and page 23, line 1-22
"THE COURT: I WILL SAY I THINK, YOU KNOW, COLONEL, I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT THERE ARE CASES WHERE A LONG COURSE OF HISTORY IN FACT DOES CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, AND I CAN THINK OF ONE INSTANCE I BELEIVE I AM CORRECT ON THIS. I THINK IF YOU WERE TO GO BACK AND TRY TO FIND AND REVIEW THE RATIFICATION OF THE 16NTH AMENDMENT. WHICH WAS THE INTERNAL REVINUE INCOME TAX, I THINK IF YOU WENT BACK AND EXAMINED THAT CAREFULLY, YOU WOULD FIND THAT A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF STATES NEVER RATIFIED THAT AMENDMENT."
MY, SULLIVAN: TRUE STATEMENT.
"THE COURT: AND NONE THE LESS, I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT IT IS PART OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND I DON'T THINK ANY COURT WOULD EVER-WOULD SET IT ASIDE. WELL, I'VE SEEN THAT-I'VE SEEN SOMEWHERE A TREATISE ON THAT, AND I THINK IT WAS-I THINK I'M CORRECT IN SAYING THAT ACTUALLY THE RATIFICATION NEVER REALLY PROPERY OCCURED.
MR, SULLIVAN: CORRECT SIR.
"THE COURT: YET NONE THE LESS, I'M SURE NO COURT'S GOING TO SAY THAT THE 16NTH AMENDMENT PERMITTING THE INCOME TAX IS VOID FOR ANY REASON, ALTHOUGH I WOULDN'T MIND FILING FOR A REBATE MYSELF."
So, a case of fraud by the federal government is to be upheld by the courts after they get by with it over a period of time. After which the courts rule that it is a paert of the constitution, because they got by with it over time.
So, in the future another foriegner runs for president, will the courts rule that it is constitutional because some one else got by with it? PEOPLE WE AE IN MORE TROUBLE THAN WE KNOW.
« less
full details »
Social Web