2. _Resolved_, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the -- day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.

Thomas Jefferson

No, it hasn't.

The issue: Was the US Constitution Amended in Order to Authorize Federal Courts to Consider Common Law Crimes? If so, when?

The issue: Was the US Constitution Amended in Order to Authorize Federal Courts to Consider Common Law Crimes? If so, when?

Kindly provide some examples of the crimes in question.

There has been no such amendment. However, an expansive application of the commerce clause has had the same effect as such an amendment. This and other instances where Supreme Court has filled in holes in the Constitution by amending from the bench, instead of through the procedure indicated in the Constitution, are the most disappointing and troublesome decisions by the Supreme Court.

The Commerce Clause, as clearly discussed by Marshall in Ogden vs Gibbons, is there to handle areas where disputes between states exists. It is not there for the court to say, "Any and everything which satisfies the Kevin Bacon test for being related to crossing a stateline is under our jurisdiction."

The U.S. vs Lopez involving the gun free zone around schools where the court got it right by saying such laws have no direct commerce application. Unfortunately, four justices dissented. The opinion of the majority should be applied to other cases to end the involvement of U.S. courts in many crimes. These crimes should be handled by the states as the Constitution has purposely stated this should be the means to their resolution.

I was on a Federal District jury last year involving possession of a sawed off shotgun. The gun had crossed state lines since its original manufacture. The federal law broken was based upon the commerce clause. The crime of having a sawed off shotgun has nothing to do with interstate commerce. A proper Supreme Court needs to toss this law out.

There are a gazillion examples. But most notably those where the Department Of INjustice and the so-called Federal Courts wanted to grandstand for the zombified masses - not where a crime was commited per se -, aka Moscow Show Trials:

(1) Martha Stewart
(2) Dennis Kozlowski
(3) Michael Vick
(4) any one "convicted" of federal money laundering charges
(5) any one convicted of "income" tax evasion
(6) actually any one railroaded for a crime not identified hereinabove



Contumacious rests.




The ***ONLY*** manner in which the Constitution may be lawfully amended is Via Article V. All other instances where the constitution was "amended " because the so-called supreme court "filled in the holes" are usurpations. They are null and void and of no legal effect.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate

You contradict yourself. The income tax is a product of constitutional amendment.



Amendment XVI was ratified in February, 1913 – long before the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt - whom you seem to blame for everything from lice to diarrhea. It seems reasonable, that if income taxes are imposed by Constitutional Amendment, the federal government is allowed to setup enforcement machinery.

If the amendment is there, and Congress has passed enabling legislation, the matter - even under your standards - is within the jurisdiction of federal courts.

Although it was a miserable failure, Amendment XVIII, called prohibition, outlawed “manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors.” Although prohibition was perhaps the low point in constitutional history, Congress had every right to pass the Volstead Act in an attempt to enforce prohibition.

Contumacious your posts are long on theory, short on reality an seem to be driven by anger.

BOF, Your posts are long on theory, short on reality an seem to be driven by anger.

The 16th Amendment was NEVER ratified.

In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states, and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that [/color]many states had not ratified the Amendment. Continuing his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC, Bill Benson discovered his Golden Key. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process!

I have personally seen the book. Each page has been certified by the secretary of state from each state. But not to worry. The welfare-warfare courts will never allow the facts or the evidence in our .....well... their courts.

The 16th Amendment is nothing more than a Fraud perpetrated by the welfare-warfare state purveyors.

But even more bad news for you . Most Americans are being subjected to "Withholding Tax". The withholding tax was first imposed in 1942 pursuant to the "Victory Tax" which was a 2 year emergency Levy which was supposed to have been repealed 2 years thereafter. But since we are being governed by criminals the tax was kept on.


The present withholding system has a later origin in the Victory Tax imposed by the Revenue Act of 1942, 172, 56 Stat. 884. This, with its then new 465 ( of the 1939 Code, embraced the basic definition of "wages" now contained in [435 U.S. 21, 27] 3401 (a) of the 1954 Code. The Victory Tax was replaced by the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, 57 Stat. 126, and was repealed by the Individual Income Tax Act of 1944, 6 (a), 58 Stat. 234. The structure of the 1943 Act survives to the present day.

U.S. Supreme Court
CENTRAL ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERV. CO.v. UNITED STATES, 435 U.S. 21 (1978)

Have you ever heard of the Individual Income Tax of 1944? No you said? Well neither have I, nor any of the millions of US Taxpayers.

The Federal Income Tax (1913) was an idea which was encouraged of the "progressives" which later became the Left wing of the democratic party. (Can you say marxists?] It was designed to soak the rich. The Congressmen who voted for it were under the impression that 99.5% of American workers would be exempt .

You have wasted a lot of gaudy red ink - not necessary for getting your point across (unless you think that's the only way you can be heard) - on someone who is not widely accepted. Maybe Benson is the fraud.





http://www.fraudsandscams.com/Benson/benson.htm

Whether or not Benson is a "fraud" is irrelevant. The Supreme Court case I provided clearly shows that the basis for the withholding tax is the Victory Tax of 1942 and not the so-called 16th Amendment.

Bill E. Branscum, a former IRS agent, and now a tax advisor has an economic interest in destroying - William J. Benson - the competition.

Please note that in his ad hominen attack Branscum did not, and could not, duspute the evidentiary record that he has obtained.

As I indicated in the previous post there is no way that any welfare-warfare state court will accept the evidence . Maybe on your next post you will be able to identify the Constitutional Authority which permit the so-called federal court's to conduct Moscow Show Trials.