AGStacker
-
Posts
219 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by AGStacker
-
-
Yes, AGStacker, the federal government can act on States that defy the law of the US Constitution. Unfortunately, there is NO LAW in the US Constitution that prohibits taxation. Therefore, the States can do what they please with it. If your State wants to tax you everytime you fart, they can.
And, interestingly, there is NO LAW in the US Constitution that prohibits the States from killing its citizens. That is why there is capital punishment in most States. The only thing that the Federal Government can do about the Mormons being killed is the Fourth Amendment whereby a State cannot arrest, and therefore kill, anybody without "probable cause". But, the Federal Government has to first prove that there was no probable cause. During the time that the Missouri law was enacted, Mormons were considered a rebel faction and was deemed a danger to the State of Missouri. Wrong or not, that was their probable cause, signed into law by the Missouri Congress by which the Federal Government at the time couldn't overturn.
Haha! You just don't understand do you! According to your logic, we might as well as had Satan as the savior so that he could tell us everything we can and cannot do. That is the big difference between Christ and Satan right? Christ promotes free choice and not being commanded in all things whereas Satan would force/tell people EVERYTHING they can and cannot do.
God never intended to tell us all things from cradle to grave. He wants us to exercise our agency intelligently only asking Him for help with more important matters.
The 16th Amendment had to slither its way in so that the government could tax people on their income. If you think it is OK for big brother to take from the poor and middle class to give to the lazy and hopeless than by all means vote for Obama or Romney or Hunstman or Gingrich etc.
America's reign is over. The politicians overburdened us with so much debt it cannot be serviced. This happened because we didn't follow the Constitution and not because we were following it.
-
You said:
You are saying here that the Federal Government should make sure that the State governments don't overstep their bounds.
This is backwards. It is the STATE governments that make sure that the Federal government doesn't overstep its bounds. The Federal Government has no say in State Affairs unless it contradicts a Federal Law. Therefore, the Federal Government CANNOT at any time say that a State overstepped its bounds... because, the States grants the Federal Government its powers. So that, the Federal Government cannot tell a state to abolish property tax.
It is not.
The state governments make laws as the please that don't go against the Constitution. The federal government can say hey "New York, that law is against the Constitution." The states do not need the go ahead from the federal government to make a law.
Here's a perfect example we all should be aware of. Governor Boggs signs an executive order saying that the Mormons can be killed or driven out. The federal government was obligated under the Constitution to do something. They did nothing.
-
The whole system is flawed which is why this originally was so simple. Let the people have the power and dictate their own lives. The increase of flaws in the system is directly related to bigger government and more taxes. Unfortunately we have dug ourselves so deep that only someone with high morals and a proven track record could actually save the system. America entered a depression in 07 or 08 and wont recover from it until many years down the road.
Many of the signs are here even though it isn't accepted by the majority.
-
I get it. The Constitution is divine up until the point that we disagree with it. That makes sense to me.
Not disagree with it but dishonor it.
-
So is your argument that it is no longer comes from the divine?
And on that note, if President Benson said that the Constitution was Divine in 1987, wouldn't that suggest that all of the amendments up to that point in time were also divine?
That it no longer comes from the divine? I am not trying to argue about where it came from but you keep bringing it up. I simply think the Constitution should be honored and obeyed. Why would a people establish a law only to disobey it? Seems stupid to me.
He is referring to when it was created. He was openly against income taxes and the welfare state.
-
Nope. Still not seeing the Constitution as divine. You can persuade me that those men who wrote it had divine qualities, but the document itself is another matter.
Now if you want to go down the route of "inspired," you'll get no argument from me. But bear in mind that many inspired documents of the Church have been revised, edited, and corrected over time in order to suit the changing needs and culture of the saints.
I am not saying the actual piece of paper is divine and should be worshiped but it did come from the divine.
-
There is no doubt that the Constitution was inspired by God. If inspired by God, we should try to honor and obey it as much as possible.
-
And, if that were the case that the "Divine Constitution" wasn't supposed to be a living document, shouldn't the latter-day saints be opposed to the nullification of the three-fifths compromise?
Personally, I think President Benson did a disservice by using the term "Divine Constitution." There's nothing more divine about the Constitution than there is about the Church Handbook of Instructions.
From Wiki - Divinity and divine (sometimes "the Divinity" or "the Divine" ) are broadly applied but loosely defined terms, used variously within different faiths and belief systems — and even by different individuals within a given faith — to refer to some transcendent or transcendental power or deity, or its attributes or manifestations in the world. The root of the words is literally "godlike" (from the Latin deus, cf. Dyaus, closely related to Greek zeus, div in Persian and deva in Sanskrit), but the use varies significantly depending on which god is being discussed. This article outlines the major distinctions in the conventional use of the terms.
So something that refers to deity or "godlike"
Doctrine and Covenants 101
80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.
I suppose Joseph Smith was acting as a false prophet when he wrote this part.
George Albert Smith
"If there is any doubt in your minds about this being a blessed land in which you live, and that an all-powerful hand directs its destinies, remember that it was the Lord himself who raised up wise men to give to us our Constitution [D&C 101:80]—the greatest palladium of human rights that any people have ever known. . . .
. . . He [the Lord] watched over them [the Pilgrims] and safeguarded their descendants and those who followed them to America, and in due time, there came an opportunity to establish liberty such as humankind had not known before. The Lord raised up Washington, and with him that body of men who fought valiantly to establish for us in this land a government for which surely we are all grateful. . . .
The Lord has watched over his land: He directed Columbus to these shores: he led the Pilgrims here; he established the Constitution of the United States, and through the Prophet Joseph Smith restored the everlasting gospel to bless the children of men. If they will accept it and obey it, it will result in the salvation of the human family."
"No nation in the world has a constitution that was given to it by our Heavenly Father except the United States of America. I wonder if we appreciate that. The Lord gave us a rule of life for this great nation, and as far as we have lived up to it and taken advantage of it, the nation has grown, and the people have been blessed. But there are many people who prefer, or at least they seem to prefer, something else.
As one man said to me, “Why not try what Russia has tried and Germany has tried?” And my answer to him was, “Why try something that has already failed? Why not hold on to what the Lord has given?” The Constitution of the United States was written, it is true, by men, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and others who were their associates, but we have in this book that I have in my hand, the book of Doctrine and Covenants, a revelation in which the Lord tells us that the Constitution of the United States was prepared by men raised up by him for this very purpose.
As Latter-day Saints we ought to know that there is nothing better anywhere else. And so we should cleave to the Constitution of the United States and in doing so, earn the blessings of our Heavenly Father."
-
I skimmed it but I didn't see where it claimed it is a doctrine of the Church that the constitution is not supposed to be a living document. Honestly if that was the case they'd not have built into it a method of amending it.
I never said whether it should be a living document or not. I just want to follow it. We hardly honor or follow the Constitution here in America.
-
This sums up the reason the Constitution was created. The Constitution was created to allow a man, woman or child do whatever they want, however they want and wherever they want as long as they didn't molest another person or another person's property.
*I'm not using molest in the manner which it is usually written today.
-
Basically, the Federal Government cannot tell a State what to do unless it goes against a ruling in the US Constitution.
This is repeating what I originally said.
-
You got this backwards. The States make sure the Federal government don't overstep their bounds. All power that is not specifically ruled by the United States Constitution rests with the States. Basically, the Federal Government cannot tell a State what to do unless it goes against a ruling in the US Constitution. And all ammendments to the Constitution has to be ratified by at least 3/4 of all the States. There is no ruling in the US Constitution that prohibits property taxes, so the States CAN collect it if they find it necessary to do so. If the people want to prohibit State property taxes for ALL States, it has, first to convince their State Legislatures to agree to it, then have it proposed to Congress, then have 3/4 of all the State governments to ratify it.
What do you think I meant when I said "overstep their bounds"?
-
Two comments:
1) Inherent in your question, or at least there seems to be, is the idea that the US constitution was not meant to be a living document. I don't particularly feel like getting into a debate over if it is or not, but it's not the only way to view the US constitution. That men in 2011 view and interpret the US constitution different then men in the 1780s is not necessarily a perversion of it.
2) Constitutionality is determine by the supreme court even if in some sense it is 'wrong'. One can argue a ruling is against the intent or spirit of the constitution, but the power to rule on the Constitutionality of cases is the US Supreme court's.
1) I suggest you read this. Our Divine Constitution - Ensign Nov. 1987 - ensign
2) You are right about the Supreme Court but you must recognize if they interpret it incorrectly a citizen should not be forced to follow the interpretation. In fact there was a specific court case in the 1800s that discussed this. I will try to find it.
-
That hardly has anything to do with the taxes being constitutional. Of course no one wants their taxes to be wasted or spent on things they dont like. And why do you insert Christian in your comment. Other people live here besides Christians and they are represented as well, not that they want to waste their tax money either.
Truth is there is no tax that is fair to everyone. Probably the graduated tax system is more fair than anything else if there are few, if any, exclusions.
I erred in saying just Christians but a virtuous people is necessary.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin
-
Property Taxes cannot be against the Constitution of the United States because property taxes are not taxed by the Federal Government.
If your State Constitution or your County/City Law rules that you have to pay property taxes to the State/County/City, then it is completely constitutional.
Right but the Federal government is to make sure the state governments don't overstep their bounds. Meaning the Federal government could rule that property tax is not Constitutional and abolish the property tax.
-
Others have address the first part, but I'd like to comment on the second half of your post. One thing to keep in mind is the 10th Amendment:
This amendment makes the constitution a limiting document on the authority of the Federal government. What it boils down to is if authority to do something isn't granted to the Federal government that authority isn't theirs. Now obviously what powers are granted the Federal government are up to debate and ultimately the interpretation of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, but absent authority granted by the constitution to the Federal government it is overstepping the limitations of powers given it by the constitution. Or in other words the exercise of such authority is unconstitutional.
That said a lot of people like to cry, "Unconstitutional!" when the powers they interpret in the US Constitution are different then powers the US Supreme Court interprets in the US Constitution.
Do you believe that even the Supreme Court could be swayed to interpret the Constitution differently from what the Founders intended? Even the Saints of old know this first hand. It was the government who persecuted the Saints, created an extermination order, drove them out, went to war against them, imprisoned them for polygamy and threaten them that if they didn't cease it they would never become a state.
Income taxes fill the Supreme Courts members pockets more fully. That is for sure and every politician at that. The American empire is coming to an end soon.
-
My use of the pronoun "you" in the slavery example wasn't pointed at you (AGStacker). It was a nonspecific pronoun. If we lived 150 years ago in England, I would have used "one" instead of "you".
I agree it is not what the Founders envisioned, and I agree that to a large extent it is corrupt. But to be fair, our modern society incorporates technology-related facets that the Founding Fathers did not envision, indeed could not have envisioned. And even in 1789, the Constitution was a patchwork of compromises, so in that sense we really are not that far off today.
I think you and I think similarly. The main difference is that I believe we have strayed light years away from the Constitution. Especially since 9/11.
While the Constitution remains intact, I believe a Western world depression is approaching where I can foresee a global elite trying to replace the Constitution. The visions I have read, along with quotes from the Prophet Joseph and early leaders, indicate that this will not happen but America will be cleansed with bloodshed worse than the Civil War.
If this seems extreme to you, read about the Weimar's Republic of Germany account of hyperinflation and the rise of Hitler.
-
I do not remember taxes being mentioned in the constitution. If its not then how can it be against the constitution?
Do you think it is right that the government taxes you and then wastes it through some ways I'll list below. Don't forget some of the ways they waste are totally against a virtuous and Christian people.
*Wars without a declaration (haven't had one since WWII)
*Michelle Obama's personnel staff cost taxpayers $1.75 million per year (Michelle Obama's personnel staff cost taxpayers $1.75 million per year - San Diego County Political Buzz | Examiner.com)
*Planned parenthood who funds abortion and promotes no child bearing (Media Ignores What Planned Parenthood Does With Govt Funds | LifeNews.com)
*Along with the abortion issue, ~50 million babies have been aborted in the US, dwarfs the Holocaust
*Social Security which is neither social or secure, SS it 100% a ponzi scheme therefore it is not secure and you are forced to do it therefore it isn't social
This is a very, very small list. The Constitution prevented taxation because they knew how government would wast trillions of dollars on hooking up their buddies. I believe that many of the political heads are Gadiantons.
-
Though I'm a proponent of the so-called "Fair Tax" and am generally in agreement with you, I think it should be pointed out that the taxes mentioned among the Nephites in the Book of Mormon are far different from ours. They were not taxes on earnings; they were taxes on possessions. Nothing prevented the government from taxing the same property every year, as for example the Lamanite kings did with the Nephites in subjection to them when they required half of all they had yearly. And, of course, it was tribute money, used by the overlords for themselves and (maybe) their own people, with no thought of it being used for public works among the taxed people. It was purely a form of slavery. However much you dislike the US tax system, I think you would be engaging in hyperbole to claim that it amounts to slavery. It does not.
So how is 50% of our earnings per year, money, and 50% of the Nephites farm yields any different? It is 50% of your time and production. The fact is that you are better with your money than the government is. I never said slavery; you did.
We haven't even mentioned property tax which is totally against the Constitution. You are never a true property owner with property tax because even if your mortgage is paid off and you don't pay the tax, your house will get auctioned off. This was never what the Founder's envisioned. I think we all would agree here that they are rolling over in their graves.
-
Where exactly did you hear that China and Russian announced they would attack us if we attack Iran?
"China will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a third World War" (subtitles) - YouTube
Russia, China Warn US Against Attacking Iran -- News from Antiwar.com
-
So back to the agrarian society it is! Thanks for your input.
I shouldn't have said yes necessarily. I am not all too familiar with the agrarian society. I believe Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson studied them thoroughly. I believe in the free market. I believe the free market will provide services far better than any government service ever. I believe in living a Constitutional law and free markets and not Keynesianism.
Income taxes and most taxes are tyrannical. The Book of Mormon people, the righteous ones at the time, said they were taxed 50% under a king and it was burdensome and hard.
I don't know why people would think that taking from a individual to give to another without consent is OK. Boggles my mind.
-
So you're suggesting that a tax system envisioned within an agrarian society where the vast majority of business was conducted locally (or at least within state boundaries throughout the life of a product) and where international trade wasn't anywhere near as fast or easy (or necessary) as it is now would be sufficient for the United States in the present industrial economy?
Yes. How do you envision Zion? While your scenario sounds ideal in the long term it is dangerous and we will see the danger shortly. It is far better for a family to be self sufficient therefore it would likewise be far better for cities and states to be self sufficient. When we add other countries into the equation we also add many unwanted variables.
For example, China produces much of what we consume. The United States, who has become a warmonger, acts as if they'd love to attack Iran. China and Russia have both announced that they will attack the US if we attack Iran. This could greatly hurt or disrupt supply chains like one wouldn't believe.
It is always best for smaller communities to become self sufficient. These self sufficient communities combine to build something like a hospital. Moses led the children in mini tribes or groups. I think 70 or 100 families would exist together. Cleon Skousen elaborates on this greatly in his book "The Cleansing of America".
-
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I have read all the anti Mormon literature I could find and to me it is comical at best. Much of science is a farce and is manipulated. Not a bishop, stake president or Apostle committing heinous sin would even do so. I have had too many Spiritual visitations to ever deny them PLUS the Gospel makes perfect sense to me.
I do have a question though and would appreciate some feedback. The parable of the ten virgins. I always focused on the 5 having oil and the other having little or none. I also was told that this represented the membership of the Church but recently I stumbled upon something that made me think of the parable in a light I never have before even though it is so obvious. The fact that these women were virgins makes me to believe that they are pure or holy. What then does the oil represent? Food storage? A garden?
-
So what form of taxation do you propose?
I propose less government spending and smaller government. The Founders never intended for government to grow so large. Yes I know the population has grown but government has grown far greater as a percentage when compared to our country's birth.
The government could do its duty, as advised by the Constitution, without income taxes. They couldn't now, when they've assumed so many responsibilities not authorized in the Constitution, because our debt is so large and becoming unmanageable. That's why debt is so bad because it doesn't only destroy, or temporarily burden, families and individuals but it can destroy governments too. The United States is not immune to this and in fact we are headed for some serious trouble soon.
The Constitution does authorize either direct or non direct taxes. Please excuse my forgetfulness on this manner. I think non direct taxes. Either way, they can tax items that aren't necessary for people to live. They also have tariffs.
recent convert
in Introduce Yourself
Posted · Edited by AGStacker
Congrats!
Mormon.org
Scriptures l LDS.org
You should have or will be getting some manuals when you attend Sunday School. You could also ask your bishop and he could provide you with some material.
This is one of my favorites.
MormonMessages's Channel - YouTube