Constitutional Cowards

In the past several weeks, I have encountered a peculiar type of citizen in our nation. They come from all walks of life and part of the country, yet have a few interesting aspects in common. Most prominently, they seem to be showing up at my brother’s website in increasing numbers and I actually believe my brother is turning into one of them if it weren’t for the fact that I know his political barometer a little better than he realizes.

The type of citizen I am referring to, I call a Constitutional Coward. Their political beliefs, as a whole, may vary as widely as any other group, but their common denominator is a reliance for shielding by the United States Constitution.

Before I go on, I want to point out that I am also a citizen of the United States and a great admirer of the Constitution. I believe some parts of it could have been better worded, but I agree with nearly all that it both says and represents where my life in this country is concerned.

However, there are those who wrap themselves in the Constitution as wholly as some do the flag, and often the two are the same person. Every agenda, every ideology they ascribe to is not DICTATED by the Constitution but shielded from criticism with a mere invocation of the document. They will claim otherwise, of course, but here are a few items from one such Constitutional Coward, Chuck Baldwin, a former Vice-Presidential nominee from the Constitution Party:

You might be a Constitutionalist if ...

... you believe that the income tax is both unconstitutional and immoral and, along with the I.R.S., should be abolished.

... you believe the federal government had no authority to tell Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore that he could not display a monument containing the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery.

... you believe that neither Congress nor the White House nor any sovereign state is required to submit to unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings such as the Roe v Wade decision.


And so on and so on. The full list of Baldwin’s assertions can be found on his website. What you should notice about these examples and more from the rest of the list is the use of the word “unconstitutional”. Further still, some of his items clearly have nothing to do with the Constitution at all and are more concerned with a different type of agenda.

Baldwin is not only setting himself up, and others like him, to be the judges of what is and what is not Constitutional, but also intermixing his own warped politics and calling it all within the framework of the revered document itself. Nothing about gay rights is mentioned in the Constitution, yet Baldwin will tell you it’s in there, somewhere, and only according to HIS interpretation. Never mind that the Constitution calls for the Supreme Court to be the final authority as to what the document does and does not say. Chuck Baldwin is here to tell you that Roe v. Wade was un-Constitutional.

The Constitutional Cowards are a new kind of uber-patriot. They deify nationalist ideals, especially those that usually agree with a conservative religious dogma. If it doesn’t fit THEIR idea of what the Constitution says, then it’s the enemy, logic and reason be damned.

They are no better than those who claim that to question the government is unpatriotic, though they will shrilly cry this is not so since they have lots of criticism of the government. Yet, they are only offering us a different flavor of Kool-Aid than what other groups of their nature offer. It once again comes down to “trust us, we know the answers” and the average citizen is once again told he or she is too stupid to just figure things out all alone.
12 Comments

Bill
You know, Brain, you are really an idiot. According to you, if the USSC decided that the first Amendment really means that there is no freedom of the press, that it is Constitutional to place protesters in "free speech" zones, that some religions are preferable to others, that the government does not have to answer any stinking petitions of grievances, then we should just go along with the decision, because, after all, the USSC has the final word on what is and what is not Constitutional. Right?
Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 04:18 PM

WV
In a word, that's right. If the Supreme Court decides it's legal, that's the way it is. You have the choice to remain or stay.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 04:25 PM

Bill
WV, looks like you are on about the same intelligence level as Brian, room temperature IQ and a moron to boot. So, let's see if I have this right, the USSC renders a decision that says the first amendment is null and void, then my ONLY choice is to accept it or immigrate to another country? I don't think so TIM. Taking this further, if the USSC decides that it is fine to round up certain ethnic types, put them in detention centers, torture and kill them, my only choice is to accept this or leave the country? You guys are really tiresome fools and I am getting a quick lesson in how we got to this point of a fascist police state, people like you who will grovel before the government as long as they aren't dragging you off to a camp.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 04:56 PM

Bill
I got to keep coming back here, you guys are just too funny with your idiotic rants on the Constitution, economics, and the government. You keep me in stitches, thanks for the laughs, I got tears streaming down my face from laughing at you idiots. It would be even funnier if you weren't actually voting Americans.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 05:01 PM

David C
Doesn't the constitution mention something about all debts must be paid in gold & silver? If so, why r we using paper currency that's not backed by gold and /or silver?

Also, if what the justices of the USSC states is always true, accurate, and legal - then the justices of the USSC who stated that the term 'income' and/or 'income tax' has the same meaning as 'income' in the corporate tax act of the early 1900's knew exactly what 'income' meant, and we should follow their lead?

Lastly, the justices of the USSC have stated that 'income' doesn't mean everything that comes in, therefore if we adhere to their words, I guess some 'person' has income while other persons do not, correct?
Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 07:01 PM

Keith
So , Brian , the USSC has the final word , eh? Ever hear of a little thing called "jury nullification"? Yes , jury nullification , say it with me ... It's a little instrument in the hands of the legally non-qualified average Joe American , (who never served on the Supreme Court mind you) that allows him to vote not guilty and render a stupid USCC decision null , or any other bogus law , statute , decision , or precedent regardless if was USCC or local DC . Oh , wait , I'm hiding behind the constitution like a coward ... sorry , I forgot that according to you , the USCC can do away with jury trials .
Seriously , stop being such a lapdog to the Government that you serve and stand up , be free , and demand the the government serve YOU , the way it was intended .
Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 10:17 PM

Parcival
"BillYou know, Brain, you are really an idiot. According to you, if the USSC decided that the first Amendment really means that there is no freedom of the press, that it is Constitutional to place protesters in "free speech" zones, that some religions are preferable to others, that the government does not have to answer any stinking petitions of grievances, then we should just go along with the decision, because, after all, the USSC has the final word on what is and what is not Constitutional. Right?"

No, you don't have to go along. You can have Congress change the law that the SC overturned. If the new law is constitutional, everything's fine. That is one aspect of the checks and balances built into the system. What you can't do is impose your interpretation of the constitution on someone else. The SC can do that because the constitution expressly gives them that power.

BTW, all petitions are answered. Sometimes the answer is "no".
Friday, August 18, 2006 - 06:06 PM

Parcival
"KeithSo , Brian , the USSC has the final word , eh? Ever hear of a little thing called "jury nullification"? "

Brian was talking about legal authority, not merely the ability to break the law with impunity. Of course juries can ignore the law and the facts and vote any way they want to. They could probably roam the streets knifing old ladies, too. But neither of those options are legal and honest jurors will obey the law.
Friday, August 18, 2006 - 06:10 PM

Parcival
"Doesn't the constitution mention something about all debts must be paid in gold & silver?"

No, it doesn't. The constitution isn't that long a document. Read it sometime.

"Also, if what the justices of the USSC states is always true, accurate, and legal - then the justices of the USSC who stated that the term 'income' and/or 'income tax' has the same meaning as 'income' in the corporate tax act of the early 1900's knew exactly what 'income' meant, and we should follow their lead?"

Absolutely. US courts have been following their lead for 90+ years.

"Lastly, the justices of the USSC have stated that 'income' doesn't mean everything that comes in, therefore if we adhere to their words, I guess some 'person' has income while other persons do not, correct?"

No, that doesn't follow. Most of what comes in that is not income is return of capital. Unless a vender is content to sell his goods at cost, he receives both return of capital and profit. The profit is income.
Friday, August 18, 2006 - 06:21 PM

David C
Parcival,
I asked, "Doesn't the constitution mention something about all debts must be paid in gold & silver?"

You responded w/ “No, it doesn't. The constitution isn't that long a document. Read it sometime.”

Well, I heeded ur advice and took a look at the fed constitution.

Article I
Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
________
Apparently ur incorrect Pacival. Apparently the US const does in fact mention gold & silver but apparently, California isn’t supposed to make any Thing but gold & silver coin a tender of payment of debts within it’s state.

Question:
Where is the statute that says every worker, working for a company, MUST sign a Form W-4 and give it to the payroll dept. / accountant / payor??
Someone said on your site something to the effect, that a ‘signed’ W-4 is mandatory for everyone who works for someone else in America. Yet,’they’ refuse to show a portion of the statute or the statute in its entirety.

Question:

Since justices of the USSC have stated that the 16th Amend gave Congress no new power of taxation, then Congress can only tax directly and indirectly, and directly must be by apport., correct?

Which I believe Pres Lincoln was the last Pres to asked Congress to invoke this power.

Question:
Would u kindly define ‘compensation for labor’ according to the U.S. supreme Court?

It’s apparently a different term than “compensation for services”, and the IRS will not inform me. Justices of the USSC have stated something to the effect that when I (an American) work and receive Fed Res Note as an equal exchange that is called, “compensation of labor.”

Question:
What is the difference between a ‘legal taxpayer’ and a ‘legal nontaxpayer’?
Please bear in mind, judges have repeatedly stated there are legal taxpayers and legal nontaxpayers. The judges did not say nontaxpayers are taxpayers who file exempt forms. Taxpayers who file exempt forms are still taxpayers however they’ve simply filed exempt forms. These are not ‘nontaxpayers’ because the judges have stated congress has made no rules for nontaxpayers.

Question:
Would u kindly provide an example of an American nontaxpayer, and what work an American does that him /her a nontaxpayer the judges where reffering?


Question:
If an American NEVER applied for a SSN, and as an adult works w/o an SSN – what government year-end information form does the working American file?

(the IRS will not inform me.)

Question:
What is the difference between a ‘U.S. Citizen’ and a ‘U.S. Individual’? (the IRS will not inform me).

Form # 2555 reads “U.S. Citizen”, while Form # 1040 reads, “U.S. Individual”. Logically, the terms U.S. Citizen, and U.S. Individual mean two different entities.

Question:

What is the difference between ‘work’, and ‘employment’?

Since the SS administration’s letters say something to the effect of u do not need a SSN to work and live in America however u need a number for employment – thus employment must mean something different from simple ‘work’. Otherwise, the SS administrations letter probably would say something to the effect of u do not need a SSN for employment or to live in America.

Question:

W hen I read the ‘term’ ‘taxpayer’ is doesn’t say every man, woman, child, who works and makes money anywhere in the world is subject to all revenue taxes.
§ 7701. Definitions
(14) Taxpayer

The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

Therefore is it logical for me to believe that some work and /or compensation for labor may be completely non taxable?

Please bear in mind, many, many, many justices of the USSC specifically state the words in the statute mean what they say and say what they mean. The statutes are not open to interpret.

Question:
The statutes say something to the effect that all ‘taxpayers’ must first have a certified assessment from a certified official, and said certified assessment must be on a Form 23 C ?

Question:
Then logically, if there is no ‘certified’ assessment (form 23 C ?) on ‘record’ by a certified assessment officer then I haven’t been assessed a ‘taxpayer’, and thus would not have any year end information form to file, correct?

Suggestion: For a little fun and educational experiment, why don't all of u who believe u owe a tax, when next January roles around, send in ur check along w/ ur 1040 or whatever form to the IRS – write ‘U.S. Department of Treasury’ after ‘pay to the order of’ w/o writing IRS anywhere on the check. Let’s see if the U.S. department of Treasury' cashes it.

Lastly Parcival, I wrote -

"Also, if what the justices of the USSC states is always true, accurate, and legal - then the justices of the USSC who stated that the term 'income' and/or 'income tax' has the same meaning as 'income' in the corporate tax act of the early 1900's knew exactly what 'income' meant, and we should follow their lead?"

You responded -

Absolutely. US courts have been following their lead for 90+ years.
____

Then 'income' doesn't have the same meaning that most Americans believe it does, nor is my 'compensation for labor' considered 'income' by statue, nor by the justices of the USSC.

thx for the forum -
Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 02:24 PM

Bill
David, it would appear that Parcival is just as stupid and arrogant as his mento, the pure idiot Brian. Both of them are just a couple of government boot licking apologists that have no clue what they are talking about. Just the fact Parcival so condescendingly told you "no it doesn't, the Constitution isn't that long. You should read it some time." Proves he is full of himself. Well you called his bluff and proved him wrong, good for you. Although I temper my praise by reminding you of the fact that these two morons couldn't mount an intelligent conversation with a chimp.
Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 05:42 PM

Keith
Parcival , you really think jury nullification is illegal ??? If so , what is the people's last resort against idiots like you who think that if men write a law , it must be constitutional and therefore must be obeyed ? Perhaps you should do some research of the first SC case ever and you'll fing that the cheif justice in the case EXCPLICITLY stated that the jury was responsible for determining not only the facts but the LAW AS WELL . This is the people's safeguard against tyrannical lemmings like you who lick the boots of every man who wears a black robe , or a badge and would rather imprison an innocent man for breaking a law that doesn't exist or is un-constitutional than stand for what you know to be right .
Equating the people's ability to overturn a law based on common law principles and common sense with " knifing old ladies in the street " shows clearly your lack of intelligence , lack of knowledge of jury duties and rights , lack of understanding of republican principles , and basic closed eye view of your personal responsibilities as a human being . My advice to you is to continue to ignore what you know to be right , keep licking the hand that feeds you , and may posterity forget you were our countryman . Or better yet , move to a socialist or communist country , as that type of system seems to better compliment your trane of thinking that people owe someone for their rights , and that you need the protection of the government in all aspects of your servant life .
Friday, September 22, 2006 - 09:45 PM