The Liberal Bill of Rights

My brain works in crazy ways. While trying to think of a post worthy of posting, I asked myself one question: What if the liberals had written the Bill of Rights within the Constitution? Bingo! My dilemma was solved.

The Liberal Bill of Rights

Amendment I -- Congress shall make no law respecting religion, or encouraging the free exercise thereof; or advocating the freedom of speech (unless you agree with us) , or of the press (We'll handle the press.); or infringe on the right of the people peaceably to assemble (unless you're pro-life).

Amendment II -- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not exist.

Amendment III -- No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but eminent domain will be used to change ownership to the government.

Amendment IV -- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not exist.

Amendment V -- No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation to be determined by the government.

Amendment VI -- In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. This is only applies to those of us who agree with our agenda. All others will be pursued by the government to the fullest extent.

Amendment VII -- In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Unless, of course, we feel you're guilty. Then it's your duty to prove your innocence.

Amendment VIII -- Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Said punishment shall be determined by those in government. We know better than you what just punishment is.

Amendment IX -- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, dependent upon whether the individual believes in the power of the government to do the right thing.

Amendment X -- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution shall be allotted to to the proper authorities. Federal government shall be the last arbiter and interpreter of those rights.


Thank you, Founding Fathers, for a Constitution based on a moral, ethical, and God-given principles. Yinz did great!

R.I.P. Freedom: July 4, 1776-March 21, 2010

Last night at the bar, a customer asked if we could put C-SPAN on as the Obamarxcare vote was set to start soon. The fact that we are a sports bar would usually discourage such requests, but we complied with the customer's wishes.

A myriad of people from all socio-economic groups of the American landscape watched intensely as the vote began. I stopped my work doing the weekly beer and liquor inventory to join my fellow Americans in watching freedom slip away.

As the votes started coming in, the chatter started. The majority of people sharing a moment in history were pulling for freedom to once again prevail. Of course, you had your few jagoffs applauding as liberty took its last breath, and there were also the "Who-gives-a-f***" people. A few more drinks, and things would've gotten ugly. I wasn't in the mood to break up a fight; I was in mourning.

The final tally appeared, and those who danced on the grave of freedom quickly finished their drinks and left. The rhetoric as they left was laced with the sarcastic rantings about finally defeating the policies of those mean Republicans. Yes, the entitlement crowd likes to stop at the bar for a few.

I went back to doing my inventory with a heavy heart and little concentration. I had just witnessed the symbolic burning of my beloved Constitution. I questioned whether the Founding Fathers were crying. They were. And their sacrifices and hard work were all for naught last night. I was ashamed of what this country has become.

I pray that a Constitutional challenge is filed posthumously on behalf of the victim here: freedom. It's going to be a long, hard challenge to resurrect freedom once again, but, just like the mythical Phoenix, liberty will rise from the ashes once again. For the sake of future generations, it has to.

One thing you can count on, though. Those who are celebrating today will make sure they're standing there with a fire hose to extinguish the rise of the Phoenix.

It's time to make our stand, folks.

For the Next Generation

As a kid, I remember watching cartoons on Saturday morning and waiting for the next edition of "Schoolhouse Rock" in between shows. Covering topics in grammar, math, science, and history, these have become a real gem over the years. I now own the DVD collection of them and enjoy passing them on to my children.

One of the most important ones is simply called "The Preamble." To this day, I'm unable to recite the Preamble of the Constitution, but I can sing it!

For all those kids out there: This is what this great country is about. May the ideals in it continue to live on with you when we adults are long gone. Pass them on to your children and be proud to say, "I'm an American!"

Is This Our 'Anthem?'

I was very glad to give my copy of Ayn Rand's book, Anthem, to my Limbaugh baby this weekend for him to read when he's not working on his senior project for college. The only Rand book I've read yet, it has become one of my favorite books of all-time behind A Tale of Two Cities by Dickens.

In recent generations, we've headed down the road to collectivism while destroying the idea of people as individuals. How did we get here?

Many liberals see the Constitution as a set of collective, not individual, rights. They could not be any further from the truth. Yet we now have leadership in this country that seeks to confer rights on the population as a whole. Their reasoning is always the same: It benefits the country as a whole. Do they really believe that the First Amendment is a collective right and that the stifling of such is a necessary evil to benefit the collective population? I'd say the answer to that question lies in the mere fact that an appointment of a Diversity Czar was made. How long will it be before we start speaking like the characters in Anthem, using "we" for "I"?

We have already seen that the Second Amendment has been argued as a right bestowed to the state as a separate entity instead of free, law-abiding individuals. Thankfully, the Supreme Court saw fit in District of Columbia v. Heller to rule on the side of the individual's right to keep and bear arms. But for how long? Will another case eventually reach the high court on the same premise, and will they rule the same?

The colonial settlers of Jamestown experimented with collectivism and redistribution of property. People raised crops and produced goods that went into a common "pool," and then all gathered goods were distributed equally among the settlers. Of course, it took little time for some to realize that they didn't have to work as hard as their neighbor because they were still going to get the same amount of goods. It was, in some respect, a fledgling welfare program. Governor Bradford realized the coming destruction of a young settlement through collectivism and put a stop to the madness. He alloted each family a parcel of land to work as they saw fit, or not, if they so desired. The redistribution of goods was no longer going to be a practice in Jamestown. The birth of capitalism in this infant country had been brought about.

The Great Society programs of the 20th century succeeded only in destroying the ideal of the individual. Taking from those who prosper and giving to those deemed "worthy" in the name of compassion has gone from something abhorred by the Founding Fathers to what some consider an entitlement. Once again, the free choice of the individual has been trumped in favor of the collective. The rebirth of Communism and collectivism in this great country has been realized. And the Founders are weeping.

Communist countries still exist, bringing nothing but misery to the individual in favor of the State. Do you ever hear of anyone risking their lives on a raft to sail TO Cuba? Many nations, however, have seen fit to allow for individual liberty, and those nations have done well for the most part. They've seen the greatness of free people and have spoken resoundingly in favor of individualism. Our nation, unfortunately, is on a fast track to what those countries once were.

We now stand poised on the brink of implementing yet another form of collectivism in the name of "compassionate healthcare for all." When did we lose sight of the individual? Free individuals given the capacity to be creative for their own prosperity and that of their fellow citizens have accomplished many wondrous things, from life-saving medical breakthroughs and procedures to conveniences that have brought joy and comfort to the nation as a whole. THAT is what has made our nation unparalleled in the world. To take the individual out of the equation in the name of "the better good" is erasing just another line of the Constitution.

We, as individuals, must stand as one collective entity in voicing our opposition to those who wish to change our language from "I" to "we". Should we lose our individual uniqueness, we will never get it back.

Remember the sacred word: EGO.

Beware the Constitutional Convention

I got an email from the United States Justice Foundation via newsmax.com warning of what could be the scariest thing we've seen yet: a Constitutional Convention. If this information is true, we may be on the verge of a total takeover.

The only Constitutional Convention ever held was in 1787. The Founding Fathers met to give us a representative republic, as they felt (and rightfully so) that a pure democracy gave too much power to the masses. The Electoral College and checks and balances were put in place to evenly distribute power among the three branches of government and to guard against tyranny by mob rule.

According to Article V of the Constitution, it takes three-quarters of the states to approve any changes to the most precious document written next to the Bible. In those days, it was 9 out of the 13 original colonies. Today, 34 states would have to sign on to convening a Constitutional Convention. Many have the number of states in agreement at 32.

Should a Con Con be called, delegates from each state would be sent to the convention with the purpose of scrapping the Constitution of 1787 and starting over. Imagine the ramifications that would have considering the current occupant of the White House.

The First Amendment: gone. No more free speech for you. It would be touted as necessary to guard against viscious, hateful words coming from those who dare disagree with policy. And freedom of religion? HAH! You will be able to choose only from those religions the government would approve of. We'd all be sitting either in the front pew at Reverend Wright's church or in a mosque.

The Second Amendment: gone. We couldn't have an armed citizenry, now, could we? They might use them against those who wish to bring peace and harmony to this land. And how could the law be enforced if officers have to worry about being met with a firearm? No need for self-defense when the only ones with guns are the government, eh?

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments: gone. Your rights against illegal search and seizure and your rights against self-incrimination would cease to exist. They could take what they want when they want, and a warrant would not be required to search your property for whatever reason they deem worthy.

The Tenth Amendment: gone. States would no longer be allowed to declare their sovereignty over those issues not spelled out as Federal Powers in the Constitution. States would only be lines on a map.

Make no mistake about it. If a Con Con were held today, abortion, euthanasia, affirmative action and gay marriage would all become constitutional rights. The left would guarantee it. Also, no need to worry about that pesky 22nd Amendment that limits a president to two terms. It would vanish like cockroaches in the light.

I plan on keeping an eye on this, and I advise everyone else to keep an ear to the ground. Given this administration's track record, it would not surprise me if this is being considered. Please pray that this never happens. Stay vigilant.

A Letter to the Left

Dear Lefties:

In recent days, there has been much said about those of us in America who disagree with you on Obamacare. While that is only one issue we disagree on, conservatives and libertarians are being painted as an unruly, out-of-control mob. Do you really know who we are?

We are supporters of the Constitution. We believe in free speech for all, including you. Respectful and intelligent debate is what matters to us. We may not agree with what you say, but we will defend with our dying breath your right to say it. Can you say the same thing?

We believe in and encourage religion. We do not believe in the establishment of a state religion, but we believe that our Founding Fathers based the principles of this nation in religion for a reason: To make the statement that our rights descend from God, not man. We don't care what religion you are, but we don't want you telling us that we can't espouse our faith whether it be in city hall or in the schools. That leads to the establishment of atheism as the state religion.

We believe in the sanctity of innocent life. I make the distinction because while supporting the rights of the unborn, I believe the dregs of society who commit unspeakable acts forfeit their rights. It's the basic biblical principle of "An eye for an eye..." Using the death penalty while opposing abortion puts a value on human life. Why does your side support abortion? Do you realize the cure for cancer or AIDS may have been aborted?

We believe the government should play an extremely limited role in our lives. The role of government is not to take care of us from cradle to grave; that is the role of free people. We do not believe the government should be stealing from Americans every pay to fund their programs that are stuffed full of corruption and abuse.

We believe that we should not be told what kind of car to drive or how much water our toilet should hold. The free market should determine that. While we do believe in being good stewards of the earth, we also believe that God gave us precious gifts for our use. To abuse those gifts or to place the earth above all else further decreases the value of human life.

We do not see skin color. Despite the picture that has been painted lately, we believe in equality among all races. We abhor supremacy and separatism; those ideas are counter to what the Founders intended. Why do you have a double standard on race? Average Americans protesting encroaching fascism are racist in your book, but Reverend Wright and the Black Panthers aren't? It makes no sense; wrong is colorblind.

We come from all walks of life. We are your neighbors, your doctors, your policemen, and a myriad of other people you encounter every day. We will gladly interact with you, but don't expect us to sit back quietly while the Constitution is trampled on.

Sincerely,
Blackandgoldfan

Tie-In to Left Coast Rebel's Post from 7/13

This image is supposedly of a boy at a school named for Dear Leader in Kogelo, Kenya. The site is supposedly his birthplace.Don't know, never been there, never will. Too many snakes!

While I keep trying to compile the earmarks, I thought I'd give all my wonderful peeps something to smile about. I'd like to think of it as a birthday present to my daughter (she turned 9 yesterday).

Last night, Left Coast Rebel had a post up about the eligibility issue. I wake up this morning, and SHAZAM!!! An article from worldnetdaily.com that complements LCR's post very well. Enjoy this, folks!

Eligibility arguments to get court hearing
'For 1st time, we have a judge who's listening'

---

Posted: July 13, 2009
9:52 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

In what ultimately could prove to be a turning point in the legal challenges to Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, a federal judge in California has planned a hearing on the merits of a federal court case raising those questions.

According to attorney Orly Taitz, who is working on multiple cases alleging Obama is a "usurper" because he doesn't meet the constitutional requirement that only a "natural born citizen" can be president, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled in a hearing today that her case will move forward.

The hearing was on her motion for a default order against Obama, because although Taitz said she notified him of the action, Obama's attorneys did not make an appearance.

Her complaint was filed against the president on Jan. 20, the day of his inauguration, over his actions before he became president.

Taitz has told WND if her motion for default is granted she immediately would request access to Obama's birth records and other documentation that could determine his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

"I have a very clear case," Taitz said. "I think they dropped the ball. They didn't figure out this case filed on Jan. 20th, on the day of inauguration.

The case was filed on behalf of former U.S. Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a contestant in the 2008 presidential race in California, and others. Taitz said the case might have been confused with another Keyes vs. Obama case filed in the state's court system, which was thrown out and now is on appeal.

"I will be asking for the release of his vital records," she has told WND.

The case, which also includes Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson as plaintiffs, names as defendant "Barack H Obama also known as Barack Hussein Obama II also known as Barack H Obama II also known as Barry Obama also known as Barry Soetoro."

"Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this Court's order finding or at least strongly suggesting that 4(e) service is insufficient, and requiring 4(i) service, regarding the subject matter of this lawsuit as against the sole served Defendant Barack H. Obama, is manifestly erroneous and plaintiffs accordingly request that the court reconsider its motion," she argued in her motion.

"In the alternative, plaintiffs move and request that this court exercise its sound discretion to certify a question for interlocutory appeal."

She told WND that at today's hearing, the judge issued no orders, but promised that the case would be moved forward and he would address the merits of the dispute. He said there would be no dismissals based on "procedural issues."

The judge said as a former Marine he recognizes the importance of having a constitutionally qualified president.

While no attorneys appeared on Obama's behalf, several members of the U.S. Attorney's office in California were in attendance, and sought to intervene on behalf of Obama over his actions before becoming president.

The judge ordered them to accept service of the lawsuit immediately and then continued the case to an unannounced date.

Taitz told WND, "For first time, we have a judge who's listening."

Multiple WND calls to various branches of the U.S. attorney's offices in California did not generate any response.

Taitz said she has some changes to make in the pleadings, but she was able to fully explain the reasons for her case.

"He [the judge] heard the whole thing," she said.

Keyes also is plaintiff in a separate case making its way through the California state court system. His opinions on the dispute have been captured on YouTube:

"We're either going to stop him, or the United States of America is going to cease to exist," he said. "That's not a laughing matter.'

Taitz' complaint cites Obama individually for his acts before he took office, specifically his refusal to provide the documentation that would show his eligibility.

The question over Obama's eligibility now also is being raised on billboards nationwide.

"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard in Pennsylvania

The billboard campaign follows an ongoing petition campaign launched several months ago by WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.

The billboards are intended to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard "long-form" birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.

The "Certification of Live Birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Heeeeere's Ayn!

"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

--Ayn Rand

There's Hope for Pennsylvania!!

Politico.com is reporting that Pennsylvania is joining the growing list of states whose Republican legislative members are introducing bills to exercise a state's rights under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. WOO HOO!!!!

State Representative Sam Rohrer (R) has led the way for Pennsylvania to assert itself in the dictation of its own affairs. The Tenth Amendment allows for states to invoke sovereignty over those matters not spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. While we would still have to deal with whatever Democrat or RINO occupies the Governor's office in Harrisburg (a true Republican would stand a snowball's chance at being elected governor), at least the federal government would be told to kiss off.

“This administration has the ability to stick it in the eye of the states and to really pointedly attempt to undo everything that’s been in place,” Rohrer said. “They want to throw Reaganomics out; they want to step in and tell companies what they can or can’t do.”

Pennsylvania would join Idaho, South Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee, Georgia, Texas, and other states whose people have had enough in combating intrusive actions by the federal government. In fact, Texas and Georgia have gone so far as to start talking secession.

I think the clouds have parted and the angels are singing over Pennsylvania today.

The Sotomayor Cartoon: One More Step to the Death of Free Speech

The Oklahoman in Oklahoma City ran a cartoon in Tuesday's paper depicting Judge Sonia Sotomayor as a pinata as Obamarx invites elephants to take a swing. Many hispanic and women's rights groups have been screaming that the cartoon is racist and sexist. Hmmm. Where were the feministas when Condie Rice was portrayed in a political cartoon as an Aunt Jemima figure? How about the race-baiting poverty pimps? After all, she is an intelligent, strong black woman (whom I would definitely have love to have seen on a Palin/Rice ticket!) who earned her position through hard work and not a gubment check. Where were you people?

While I don't advocate going out and whacking a judge with a stick, can these people not see the message that was being sent? The message: Obama is putting Sotomayor out there to take all the heat thrown her way, and he won't utter a word to her defense. Judge Sotomayor deserves VERY strong questioning of her opinions and statements. She is interviewing for a lifetime appointment to the the court that is to interpret our sacred Constitution, and to play softball with the questioning would be gross negligence.

The Constitution does not offer you the right not to be offended. Only people of strong character can rise up and overcome adversity.

Hey Sonia!! Life's tough; wear a cup!

The Amendment That Has Duped America

I was glancing at a comment from Bungalow Bill, and it got me thinking. I had always heard that the 16th Amendment of the United States Constitution was never fully ratified. I "Yahooed" and found this.

The Law That Never Was

CONTENTS

16th AMENDMENT WAS DECLARED "IN EFFECT" NOT RATIFIED

EDR Jurisdiction Links Miscellaneous Money Parties Taxes

The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never ratified by a majority of the sovereign States. This is the Amendment that allegedly entitled the Federal Agent (government) in the federal territory of Washington, D.C. and their private collection company, the IRS, to collect "income tax" was falsely declared to be ratified in February 1913 by Secretary of State Philander Knox. After an exhaustive year long search of legislative records in 48 sovereign states (Alaska & Hawaii were not admitted into the Union until after 1913), Bill Benson wrote his fact findings in The Law That Never Was, Vols. 1 & 2. He was able to unequivocally prove that the 16th Amendment was never Constitutionally, properly, or legally ratified. The only record of the 16th Amendment having been confirmed was a proclamation made by the Secretary of State Philander Knox on February 25, 1913, wherein he simply declared it to be "in effect", but never stating it was lawfully ratified. Even if the 16th Amendment were properly ratified, according to Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, it has always been unconstitutional for the U.S. Federal Government to directly tax We the People in their property, wages, salaries, or earnings. The judges of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected any claims that the 16th Amendment changed the constitutional limits on direct taxes in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, when they ruled that it "created no new power of taxation" and that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals". Alleged defects in the ratification of the Income Tax Amendment According to the investigations of Bill Benson and others, the following defects were found in the ratification of the Income Tax Amendment by the 48 states then existing, three-fourths or 36 of which were needed to ratify it: 01 - Not ratified by state legislature, and so reported 02 - Not ratified by state legislature, but reported as ratified 03 - Missing or incomplete evidence of ratification, but reported as ratified 04 - Failure of Governor or other official to sign, although required by State Constitution 05 - Other violation of State Constitution in ratification process 06 - Other procedural irregularity making ratification doubtful 07 - Approval, but with change in wording, accepted as ratification of original version 08 - Approval, but with change in spelling, accepted as ratification of original version 09 - Approval, but with change in capitalization, accepted as ratification of original version 10 - Approval, but with change in punctuation, accepted as ratification of original version State 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Alabama 1 1 1 Arizona 1 1 1 1 Arkansas 1 1 1 1 1 California 1 1 1 1 1 Colorado 1 1 1 1 Connecticut 1 Delaware 1 Florida 1 Georgia 1 1 1 1 1 Idaho 1 1 1 1 1 1 Illinois 1 1 1 Indiana 1 1 1 Iowa 1 1 1 Kansas 1 1 Kentucky 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Louisiana 1 1 1 1 Maine 1 1 Maryland 1 1 1 Massachusetts 1 1 1 1 Michigan 1 1 1 1 1 Minnesota 1 1 Mississippi 1 1 1 1 1 1 Missouri 1 1 1 1 1 Montana 1 1 1 1 Nebraska 1 1 Nevada 1 1 1 New Hampshire 1 New Jersey 1 1 1 New Mexico 1 1 New York 1 1 1 North Carolina 1 1 North Dakota 1 1 Ohio 1 1 Oklahoma 1 1 1 Oregon 1 1 Pennsylvania 1 Rhode Island 1 South Carolina 1 1 1 1 South Dakota 1 1 1 1 1 Tennessee 1 1 1 1 1 Texas 1 1 1 1 1 1 Utah 1 Vermont 1 1 1 1 1 Virginia 1 Washington 1 1 1 1 1 West Virginia 1 1 1 Wisconsin 1 1 1 Wyoming 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total 7 3 9 6 25 29 22 1 31 27 Additional 7 3 7 5 16 6 2 0 2 0 Accumulated 7 10 17 22 38 44 46 46 48 48 In the above table, the line "Additional" are the number of states for which that defect is in addition to previously indicated defects, and "Accumulated" is a running total of states with defects, from Defect 01 through 10. Since 36 states were required to ratify, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the first three defects, arguably the most serious. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only two states which successfully ratified. Note that in the above we are counting Ohio as a state, even though it was not admitted into the Union until 1953 (retroactively, which is ex post facto, and unconstitutional). We are not counting the failure to designate the Income Tax Amendment as the "XVII" amendment, since there was arguably a 13th Amendment that was ratified but which is not published in official copies of the Constitution with Amendments, and the number is not necessarily part of the amendment (It wasn't part of the first 10.). The authority usually cited for the criticality of ratification without errors of spelling, capitalization, or punctuation, is from DOCUMENT NO. 97-120, of the 97TH CONGRESS, 1st Session, entitled How Our Laws Are Made, written by Edward F. Willett, Jr. Esq., Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives, in which the comparable exactitude in which bills must be concurred under federal legislative rules is detailed: . . Each amendment must be inserted in precisely the proper place in the bill, with the spelling and punctuation exactly the same as it was adopted by the House. Obviously, it is extremely important that the Senate receive a copy of the bill in the precise form in which it passed the House. The preparation of such a copy is the function of the enrolling clerk. (at 34) (emphasis added) When the bill has been agreed to in identical form by both bodies (either without amendment by the Senate, or by House concurrence in the Senate amendments, or by agreement in both bodies to the conference report) a copy of the bill is enrolled for presentation to the President. The preparation of the enrolled bill is a painstaking and important task since it must reflect precisely the effect of all amendments, either by deletion, substitution, or addition, agreed to by both bodies. The enrolling clerk... must prepare meticulously the final form of the bill, * as it was agreed to by both Houses, for presentation to the President... each (amendment) must be set out in the enrollment exactly as agreed to, and all punctuation must be in accord with the action taken. (at 45) (emphasis added) It should be noted that in his report on ratifications of the Income Tax Amendment to then Secretary of State Philander Knox, the Solicitor of the Department of State, recognized many of the defects of wording, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, although he seemed ignorant of the constitutional and procedural defects at the state level. He also pointed out similar defects in the ratifications of the 14th and 15th Amendments. Therefore, Knox had plenty of clues to the problems in the ratifications, sufficient to justify that he inquire into the matter further and demand corrective action by the states. Because he failed to do so means that we now have adopted and enforced legislation for more than 80 years that is plainly unconstitutional, requiring not only that it be repealed, but that all the funds collected be refunded. The states could, of course, re-ratify the Income Tax Amendment, but they could not do so retroactively. That would allow re-enactment of the Internal Revenue Code, and re-issuance of all the supporting regulations, but none of them could apply to the period prior to proper ratification of the amendment and due notices of the regulations. Readers are invited to independently confirm or refute these results and to similarly investigate the ratifications of other constitutional amendments, both at the federal and state levels, and to issue similar reports on what they find. Reference: Bill Benson, The Law That Never Was: The fraud of the 16th Amendment and personal Income Tax. * Learn more about why the IRS back taxes * * Link does not imply endorsement

How in the world has the government (even the conservative administrations) gotten away with skirting this issue? If this is all true, we have fallen for the biggest scam the world has ever seen.