POLITICS: New Bill Seeks to Nullify Constitution

I wrote my senators and represenative to tell them I do not want this bill passed and will be holding them accountable if it does. I suggest youi do the same.

Great. Now morons in the Congress are going to screw up the U.S. laws!!

Weird question here...lets say that this bill passes and becomes a law. Then someone challenges this law and it goes all the way to the Supreme Court who then declares that this law is unconstitutional. Can this law then be used to undo that Supreme Court decision? Can that scenario even happen that way?

zerotime, you are absolutely correct. This will create an endless loop and possible the law could never be abolished.

This bill can not pass. I have stewing about this all day. We just have to send emails and letters to our congressman and senators.

I wonder if we can start a petition to have the bill tabled forever? Just a thought.

This is old news!

I think we can all relax a bit. Number 1 - This bill was actually introduced on March 4, 2004. We can all see what kind of momentum it has. Number 2 - Does anybody think that it has any chance at passing. Number 3 - Even if it did pass, remember, it requires a 2/3 vote in each house to work. When was the last time either party held that kind of majority in both the House and the Senate at the same time. Number 4 - I don't think many republicans would want to vote for it even with Bush as president. This type of bill is a double edged sword and everyone knows it. Number 5 - If an issue is that contentious, we already have a method for dealing with it. It's called a Constitutional Amendment.
BTW, AD, Congress isn't screwing up our laws, they make the screwed up laws. What some bozos try to do is screw up the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[edit on 7/11/2004 by CommonSense]

Originally posted by CommonSense
This is old news!

I think we can all relax a bit. Number 1 - This bill was actually introduced on March 4, 2004. We can all see what kind of momentum it has. Number 2 - Does anybody think that it has any chance at passing. Number 3 - Even if it did pass, remember, it requires a 2/3 vote in each house to work. When was the last time either party held that kind of majority in both the House and the Senate at the same time. Number 4 - I don't think many republicans would want to vote for it even with Bush as president. This type of bill is a double edged sword and everyone knows it. Number 5 - If an issue is that contentious, we already have a method for dealing with it. It's called a Constitutional Amendment.
BTW, AD, Congress isn't screwing up our laws, they make the screwed up laws. What some bozos try to do is screw up the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Yeah, and the Patriot Act isn't a threat to our freedoms either!
Perhaps Jules Winnfield says it best,"Look, you want to play blind man, go walk with the shepherd. Me, my eyes are wide-#ing open."

It's always better to error on the side of caution, then it is to assume everything will work out on its own and go back to sleep. Jefferson once said, " The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." and he couldn't have been more right.

Common Sense, did you know if you put a toad in boiling water it will hop out, if you put it in cool water and slowly heat it up it will sit there and die. You should be VERY CAREFUL about dismissing this as nothing. This bill shows a total contempt for the Constitution of the United States. These people are tying to r*pe the constitution. Don't be complacent or quiet. Let people know you support the Constitution and not some people trying to do a legislated coup and turn this into a police state.

Let no one be a couch potato on this one.

it's not like "they" suddenly got the desire on 9/11 to do away with the constitution and bill of rights, after decades of dutiful guardianship of our liberties.

there's been a faction of powerful people behind the scenes chipping away at those liberties for many years, and long before this proposed legislation they snuck the option of "suspending" the constitution into the options menu of the president (or his handlers). to use an outdated expression....our goose is already cooked.

First, to deal with the actual topic: doesn't it take 2/3s to ammend the constitution? This law is just a simplification. If 2/3s want to overturn a ruling of unconstitutional, they can just introduce an ammendment anyway. It's just a smoke screen to defeat the resistance to change that makes ammendments so difficult- it still sits on the idea that 2/3s of congress can decide what is and is not constitutional. So what am I missing?


Now for all the stuff about the government...

Although I honestly didn't understand 100% of the legalese that was just thrown around, I already knew that Taxes, most federal and state organizations and actions, the conduct of our courts, the enforcement of our laws, and many of our foriegn dealings are unethical, illegal, unconstitutional, and contrary to the intent of the founding fathers (at least as presented to us). The government is not on our side, they just work around us for their own reasons, and god only knows who is actually ruling this world... no sh!t sherlock.

They can come arrest my whole family tomorrow, take everything of ours, and let us starve to death in prison, and nobody would ever hear about it. Of course, even if the government wasn't so corrupt, that would still theoretically be within their power- it just wouldn't be legal then.
I don't care though. I'm well off... most of us are doing pretty good. We could be doing better if we weren't being screwed, but we can't change it... all we can do is ruin everything by rebelling- so why not just accept good enough.
They may technically be able to do anything they want... but they can't actually DO IT. They could try.. but they better not fail the first time, because Osama Bin Laden is a hoax. 3 men with a couple thousand dollars or less could make 9/11 look like a fire drill, and I know exactly how. For a good dinner and some car parts i'll tell the CIA everything they want to know about it too.

Ok, help me out here.

I just spent over 1/2 hour on the congress.org site and found NO HR 3920. ANYWHERE. Not in current bills, not in all bills, not in EITHER judiciary committee, zip, nada.

I didn't see any links to an actual official copy of this supposed legislation here.

I can't find anything about it anywhere except for the petition.com site, where anyone can put in a petition for anything. It doesn't have to be about a real issue.

Did I miss something, has anyone found a reference to this bill on any government site? If so please post a link.

Or is this just another troll fart?

If this bill passes, it can send us back to before the revolution, and if it does Ill be more than willing to take a stand.

Im gonna write a letter to the president and house representatives, to tell them that this bill cannot pass PURE AND SIMPLE.

Originally posted by Montana
Ok, help me out here.

I just spent over 1/2 hour on the congress.org site and found NO HR 3920. ANYWHERE. Not in current bills, not in all bills, not in EITHER judiciary committee, zip, nada.

Let me show you the way....
thomas.loc.gov...

Bill Number: HR3920

There it is.

neomoniker: Please do not cut and paste entire articles.
www.wealth4freedom.com...

OK, Found it. My bad!

I think we can breathe easy, it was reffered to the rule committee. It's as good as dead there.

Again, my apologies.

Originally posted by BeingWatchedByThem
thomas.loc.gov...
Bill Number: HR3920
There it is.

I did find it here at
www.theorator.com...

However, a search of Thomas does not show anything a search of the congressional record using the phrase "judicial activism" did reveal a speech made by a Kentucky representative "Mr. Lewis" titled "JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, A GRAVE AND GROWING PROBLEM -- (House of Representatives - March 04, 2004)" however, it is just a speech, not a bill etc.

All this talk has me humming "Im just a bill, sitting here on capital hill"



[edit on 12-7-2004 by FredT]

I think we should also keep in mind the process by which Supreme Court Justices come into their prestigious posts. Is that entirely fair either? Theoretically speaking (really it's only a theoretical question) let's say the Democrats(or Republicans, take your pick) controlled the Congress and Presidency for the next 30 years. Would the Supreme Court still be properly balanced anyways.

What really needs to happen is for politicians to have their grubby hands removed from the Supreme Court appointments process.

Refer to the following:

www.supremecourtus.gov...

The power to nominate a Justice lies with the President. The power to confirm the Justice's appointment lies with the Senate.

So this bill... well, do you believe that Congress doesn't already have a pretty large power hold over the Court anyways?

[edit on 7-12-2004 by Djarums]

Originally posted by neomoniker
Who Owns You?

1. The IRS is not a U.S. Government Agency. It is an Agency of the IMF. (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.)

Read more

MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

[edit on 12-7-2004 by Banshee]

i just checked Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al, and it seems to state quite plainly that the IRS is a government agency.

-koji K.

[edit on 12-7-2004 by koji_K]

Originally posted by koji_K

Originally posted by neomoniker
Who Owns You?

1. The IRS is not a U.S. Government Agency. It is an Agency of the IMF. (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.)

Read more

MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

[edit on 12-7-2004 by Banshee]

i just checked Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al, and it seems to state quite plainly that the IRS is a government agency.

-koji K.

[edit on 12-7-2004 by koji_K]

Koji, would you mind posting the section of Public Law which unequivocally states the IRS is a government agency? I'd appreciate it.

Banshee, sorry about that. I'm new, still at the bottom of the learning curve

Originally posted by neomoniker

Originally posted by koji_K

Originally posted by neomoniker
Who Owns You?

1. The IRS is not a U.S. Government Agency. It is an Agency of the IMF. (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.)

Read more

MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

[edit on 12-7-2004 by Banshee]

i just checked Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al, and it seems to state quite plainly that the IRS is a government agency.

-koji K.

[edit on 12-7-2004 by koji_K]

Koji, would you mind posting the section of Public Law which unequivocally states the IRS is a government agency? I'd appreciate it.

Banshee, sorry about that. I'm new, still at the bottom of the learning curve

???

I never said there is one. But the Constitution comes to mind.. one of the amendments gives the state the right to levy taxes and of course congress is granted the right to set up the bodies it sees fit to carry out its duties.

Why are you asking me to back up arguments I never made?

This "IRS is part of the IMF" thing sounds far fetched, if not downright crazy. If you could find me a copy of the laws, case, and report you cited I would be appreciative. I don't even know what "Public Laws" are. Is it part of the US Code?

-koji K.

[edit on 12-7-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 12-7-2004 by koji_K]

Originally posted by koji_K

Originally posted by neomoniker

Originally posted by koji_K

Originally posted by neomoniker
Who Owns You?

1. The IRS is not a U.S. Government Agency. It is an Agency of the IMF. (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.)

Read more

MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

[edit on 12-7-2004 by Banshee]

i just checked Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al, and it seems to state quite plainly that the IRS is a government agency.

-koji K.

[edit on 12-7-2004 by koji_K]

Koji, would you mind posting the section of Public Law which unequivocally states the IRS is a government agency? I'd appreciate it.

Banshee, sorry about that. I'm new, still at the bottom of the learning curve

???

I never said there is one. But the Constitution comes to mind.. one of the amendments gives the state the right to levy taxes and of course congress is granted the right to set up the bodies it sees fit to carry out its duties.

Why are you asking me to back up arguments I never made?

This "IRS is part of the IMF" thing sounds far fetched, if not downright crazy. If you could find me a copy of the laws, case, and report you cited I would be appreciative. I don't even know what "Public Laws" are. Is it part of the US Code?

-koji K.

[edit on 12-7-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 12-7-2004 by koji_K]

I must have misinterpreted your post, Koji: "i just checked Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al, and it seems to state quite plainly that the IRS is a government agency", implies you've found something, a record or document, that "seems to state quite plainly" the IRS is a government agency.

As for Public Laws and are they a part of the US Code query. I have no idea, I simply got that from the source which cited "Public Law" in the Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al case file.