"Why do you distort?"
What is the point?
Your opinion is couched as a fact, and from that opinion couched as a fact you move onto the opinion you give me (which is false) as being a distortion.
What is the point of this: other than blatant character assassination?
If you refuse to admit that your words are patently false, then why go any further in producing more falsehoods?
I don't do that, so why do you do that?
"the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force was never considered outside the character of the Sovereignty of the States"
That is demonstrably false and the fact of the matter has nothing to do with me at all. The word choice "was never" is an absolute statement in English and it is a false absolute statement in English because people who spoke English well enough prove the fact that "the jurisdiction of the Constitution as a binding force WAS (in fact) destroying the Sovereignty of the State just as predicted by at least Patrick Henry and George Mason and one of the first examples of that binding force was George Washington's conscripted army of invaders as that National Army invaded Pennsylvania to crush a money monopoly competitor which was any farmer daring to produce whiskey and use whiskey instead of Gold, since the funny money liars like Hamilton drove all the Gold out of the Country (except whatever was horded by the war profiteers or whatever) and that occurs by way of a thing called Gresham's Law.
Evidence of your false statement include:
"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs? It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people: history also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shows us that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic governments ever so extensive a country, but that popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this general rule? Was there ever an instance of a general national government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, &c., where the people retained their liberty? I solemnly declare that no man is a greater friend to a firm union of the American states than I am; but, sir, if this great end can be obtained without hazarding the rights of the people, why should we recur to such dangerous principles? Requisitions have been often refused, sometimes from an impossibility of complying with them; often from that great variety of circumstances which retards the collection of moneys; and perhaps sometimes from a wilful design of procrastinating. But why shall we give up to the national government this power, so dangerous in its nature, and for which its members will not have sufficient information? Is it not well known that what would be a proper tax in one state would be grievous in another? The gentleman who hath favored us with a eulogium in favor of this system, must, after all the encomiums he has been pleased to bestow upon it, acknowledge that our federal representatives must be unacquainted with the situation of their constituents. Sixty-five members cannot possibly know the situation and circumstances of all the inhabitants of this immense continent. When a certain sum comes to be taxed, and the mode of levying to be fixed, they will lay the tax on that article which will be most productive and easiest in the collection, without consulting the real circumstances or convenience of a country, with which, in fact, they cannot be sufficiently acquainted."
I took OUT much of the CONTEXT of the words that PROVE your words to be false.
That is false, and demonstrably false, and the false character of those words has nothing to do with me or my intent to expose those false words as being false words. Those are false as a self-evident fact, as if saying one plus one equals six hundred and sixty six.
Here are false words:
Here is the proof of those words being false:
"The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government."
George Masons published words during ratification of the so called "Constitution":
[The Convention Recorder expresses his frustration: "Mr. HENRY strongly expatiated on the probability of the President's enslaving America, and the horrid consequences that must result."]
Mere hearsay? Taken out of context? Whatever other lie will cover up the first one?
Here is "The President" in action:
"And whereas, James Wilson, an associate justice, on the 4th instant, by writing under his hand, did from evidence which had been laid before him notify to me that "in the counties of Washington and Allegany, in Pennsylvania, laws of the United States are opposed and the execution thereof obstructed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshal of that district";
"And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;"
Oh, so the Rebels won't pay their tax, well, well, well, that can't be tollerated, can it, such a fatal spirit as refusal to pay a tax on home grown money for barter is inexcusable since, well, we are trying to create a Central Bank and all, right boys!
Might makes right, of course.
What is the point of all the lies?
I don't want to be associated with a liar, so please stop the continued character assassination that you are currently producing, in fact, on this public access forum. It is against the rules, and it isn't nice.
If you can admit that your sentence is false, for its abuse of English, for the choice of adding the absolute wording, as if no one, ever, thought bad about "The Constitution" or in your words:
If that were true, which it is not, then what George Mason said was not said.
What the court recorded said could not have been said, were your absolute false statement true:
What George Washington did, on the other hand, is not the same exact subject as your false words, so I see no point in wandering off the false words you wrote, and moving onto another subject that wanders off the false words that you wrote, when your failure to even admit that your false words are false, added to a constant barrage of falsehoods about what I write, discredits what you may or may not think about the true meaning, purpose, intent, and consequences of what George Washington did, as predicted by Patrick Henry which was:
To be more precise, and less wordy:
"the President's enslaving America"
Repeating the fact:
Not yet sinking in?
How about now?
Did anyone, ever, question the fact that the Nationalists who were hiding behind the thin veil of a false Federalism as those same Nationalists set about to destroy State Sovereignty here in America?
In other words: is the following English words false?
Yes, Joe, as a matter of fact those words are patently false, demonstrably false, and therefore those false words aught to be known as false words, since the nature of the subject matter is abject belief in falsehood without question as those who earn anything worth stealing are sending their hard earned earning to those who consume everything in the necessary work required to keep stealing everything.
Really. Case closed. Take your lies and try them on someone who wants to be lied to, take your lies to someone willing to pay a high price for your lies, because you will be called out if you continue to lie about me.
And...I saw no reason to read your entire message due to the demonstrable lies read at the beginning - again.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: