Heavily edited video, ummm not so much.

[mayhem]

Blah, blah, blah

What part of blatantly unconstitutional does your feeble mind not understand?

[/quote]

Of course it is:

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.[/quote]

Sorry, I thought there was this huge group of the largely dissatisfied who are contending that the income tax is not constitutional. If I stepped in it again, I apologize. But I dunno that the constitution had any direct say over how the money was collected and (maybe) how it was utilized.

[Mark]

The Constitution authorizes the federal government to do certain things, such as maintain a standing army, maintain a court system, the post office, etc. Anything not specifically assigned to the federal government in the constitution is reserved to the states. That is the 10th Amendment. At least 95% of what our federal government does is unconstitutional. Most people do not understand this because most people are woefully ignorant.

As far as the 16th amendment goes, it is a fact that it was never properly ratified.

[mayhem]

OK, granted and well said. (My snarky comment might be, "If the constitution provides for our Postal Service, can anything be ruled out?" That is an intended slam against the postal system.)

But I do get your meaning.

I'm part of two organizations that have very tight rules but have some provision to adapt to radical changes in the environment (not meaning the weather) other than another amendment. Especially how long it takes to amend would be problematic.

I would say that adapting to new realities is basic and necessary, but I don't know what would validly trigger that sort of adaptation. I'd put forward the internet as an example of a new reality that is both very local and supremely national and worldwide and is danged difficult to ride herd upon. How does the Constitution anticipate that sort of thing?

Also: what about this? "Even if Congress lacks the power to regulate a particular activity, the tax will be upheld if it has the "dominant intent" of raising revenue. In other words, even if a tax might have a substantial regulatory effect, if it raises revenue, it will be considered valid." ? (From the Legal Info Institute out of Cornell.)

Thanks for the response.

I don't mean to start a thread on the Constitution. Not opposed to it.

The Constitution authorizes the federal government to do certain things, such as maintain a standing army, maintain a court system, the post office, etc. Anything not specifically assigned to the federal government in the constitution is reserved to the states. That is the 10th Amendment. At least 95% of what our federal government does is unconstitutional. Most people do not understand this because most people are woefully ignorant.

As far as the 16th amendment goes, it is a fact that it was never properly ratified.

[planosteve]

I think the problem is that we never been able to devise a method of government. that works for very long. Neither has anyone else. So, we have to invent ways to stretch the meaning of the Constitution to cover new situations. For example "implied powers".

[Mark]

If you want the federal government to do more than is provided for in the constitution, then amend the constitution. That process is also part of the constitution.

The further we get away from our constitution, the more screwed up our nation becomes. 100% of our $19 trillion debt and $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities is due to unconstitutional actions.