TAXES

> GOOD BEHAVIOR is requiring the courts to stay within the
> Consitution's confines rather than acting as a Supeior Legislative
> body. Good Behavior is requiring they follow the Original intent
> of the founding fathers rather than resort to chicanery

If you're going to have Congress or some bureaucracy making up their
idea of what they think Original Intent was (hint: it will always
match their ideology and the interests of their cronies), and
overruling the courts on the basis of it, why not cut out the
middleman and just eliminate the courts entirely?

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "terrierkeeper"
wrote:
>
> GOOD BEHAVIOR is requiring the courts to stay within the
> Consitution's confines rather than acting as a Supeior Legislative
> body. Good Behavior is requiring they follow the Original intent
of
> the founding fathers rather than resort to chicanery of
fraudulently
> introducing foreign laws and Judicial rulings to justify their
> legislating from the bench. The United States was established by
the
> American people not the EU or the UN.
>
> Congress needs to crack down on this. The Constitution gives them
the
> means. Good Behavior is one of the better means.
>
> And the Supreme Court wasn't created as a check against The Mob it
> was created to apply the laws enacted by Congress fairly.
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In spacesettlers, "terrierkeeper" wrote:
> >
> > > Hate to be a Kill Joy on this but the United States
Constitution
> > > is the most restrictive of constitutions on the power of
> > > government.
> > > Unfortunately it left the Government the job of enforcing it.
> >
> > Well, the government oand the people who vote for them. The
courts
> > are not elected so that they won't be swayed by public opinion.
> It's
> > really amazing that it has done as well as it has over more than
> two
> > centuries, considering that it's main job has been to keep
American
> > free in spite of ourselves.
> >
> > > Liberal judges have taken to reading things into the document
> > > through 'evolving' standards giving government all kinds of
> powers.
> >
> > Not just liberals. Any time a right-wing judge decides that the
> > Fourth Amendment(*) means that the cops can, in fact, do any
damn
> > thing they like any damn way they like any damn time they like,
> said
> > conservative judge is just as engaged in judicial activism as
any
> > liberal ever hatched.
> >
> > > They routinely redefine their power. They have
redefined 'Cruel
> and
> > > Unusual Punishment'. Some are trying to redefine Marriage and
> > > Family.
> >
> > One wonders why government should have any power to define or
> > redefine Marriage and Family in the first place.
> >
> > > If I were to ammend it. I would first transfer tax collecting
to
> > > the states with the power to withhold what they collect when
ever
> > > the Feds get too big for their britches.
> >
> > Which means that the states would decide that the Feds were
getting
> > too big for their britches every time the states decided that
they
> > wanted the movey for themselves. Which means that the Feds
would
> > officially be too big for their britches all the time, no matter
> what
> > they actually did.
> >
> > > Then I would give people the power to withold their taxes
whenever
> > > their state government gets too big for its britches.
> >
> > Which means that whenever I want to hold on to every last
dollar, I
> > simply declare the state to be too big for its britches, and the
> > roads don't get built.
> >
> > > At the same time I would certainly set up standards of Good
> > > Behavior by which Judges can be paid and hold office.
> >
> > Good Behavior has to be more "they make decisions I like."
> Elsewise
> > they are nothing more than pollsters with power.
> >
> > > Ultimately, the only means to restrict Government is if People
> take
> > > it upon themselves to do the job.
> >
> > Absolutely. Having a press that will DO IT'S JOB would help.
> >
> > (*) The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses,