[URL="http://www.guerrillaexplorer.com/mysteries-of-history/the-lost-amendment/"]The Lost Amendment[/URL]

[QUOTE=rogue;336905][URL="http://www.guerrillaexplorer.com/mysteries-of-history/the-lost-amendment/"]The Lost Amendment[/URL][/QUOTE]
I say bring it back, simply because, if I'm not mistaken, there are a few Hollywood jackasses that would no longer be American citizens and would no longer be able to vote. That alone would make it an awesome idea.

[QUOTE=jasong;336989]I say bring it back, simply because, if I'm not mistaken, there are a few Hollywood jackasses that would no longer be American citizens and would no longer be able to vote. That alone would make it an awesome idea.[/QUOTE]

Yes, jackasses like Alan Greenspan and Billy Graham and Colin Powell and Rudy Giuliani and Norman Schwarzkopf. It certainly would be worth it to keep them from voting. And, of course G.H.W. Bush (all the presidents who have received the Order of the British Empire have been Republican--Ike, Reagan, and Bush I. Ike also recieved a title from Denmark and while I wouldn't have minded stripping the presidency from RR and GHWB, DWE was the last decent Republican President and I'd hate to take that away from the FGOP [Formerly Grand Old Party.]) I'd trade all those votes for the single Hollywooder that I can find who has a foreign title: Stephen Spielberg.

It gets a bit more complicated when you start figuring in the non-noble titles like the French Legion of Honor, but I'll assume that only the super-extra-crazies would have a problem with that--you know the ones I mean, the ones who make up stuff like the "real" thirteenth amendment as a reason that taxes are illegal or that lawyers (who have the title esquire) or judges (who are referred to as 'your honor') cannot hold public office or vote. I wish I were making this up, but people really are that idiotic.

I'm coming to this a bit late, but this seems a bit silly and stupid since this proposed amendment is already basically covered in the Constitution only without the arbitrary and draconian language of the amendment in question. (Article 1, Section 9) And if you look into the rational (the vague chance that Napoleon's heir could someday run for President) given for voting yea, it seems even more petty. But, that just proves that people were reactionary and stupid even in the days of yore.

See also [url]http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title5/pdf/USCODE-2011-title5-partIII-subpartF-chap73-subchapIV-sec7342.pdf[/url]

see also[YOUTUBE]D0yYwBzKAyY[/YOUTUBE]

The chalice from the palace has the brew that is true!

[QUOTE=chappy;337017]You know the ones I mean, the ones who make up stuff like the "real" thirteenth amendment as a reason that taxes are illegal[/QUOTE]
Not sure what this suggested actual 13th Amendment is supposed to have to do with taxes, maybe you mean the 16th Amendment? The one that's so vague that it could be interpreted in half a dozen different ways? The one that never in any way uses any term that could possibly refer to a human being?

[QUOTE=jasong;337021]Not sure what this suggested actual 13th Amendment is supposed to have to do with taxes, maybe you mean the 16th Amendment? The one that's so vague that it could be interpreted in half a dozen different ways? The one that never in any way uses any term that could possibly refer to a human being?[/QUOTE]

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

The only people who see that as vague or complicated are the ones who want it to be so they can deny that it has legal authority.

But, since I meant the unratified 13th amendment and not the 16th amendment the point is unimportant. The idiotic argument I refer to is that Lawyers can't hold office, therefore: all the laws passed since the supposed ratification of the amendment in question are null and void (including any taxes and tax legislation.) Also, Judges are not able to hold public office therefore their rulings that continually point out how wrong and silly the anti-taxers are are invalid. (Though this one does beg the question exactly who would fill the Constitutionally required Judiciary if not judges, but anti-tax crazies aren't exactly first rate logicians.)

[QUOTE=chappy;337026]"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

The only people who see that as vague or complicated are the ones who want it to be so they can deny that it has legal authority.[/quote]
The reasoning behind why the 16th Amendment is crap is simple but long-winded. It starts with the fact that we're not legally a democracy, but a constitutional republic, a nation of written law. It then heads into the long-winded part, which involves convincing someone to read the Constitution with no pre-conceived notions, including the notion that it's a living document.
[quote]But, since I meant the unratified 13th amendment and not the 16th amendment the point is unimportant. The idiotic argument I refer to is that Lawyers can't hold office, therefore: all the laws passed since the supposed ratification of the amendment in question are null and void (including any taxes and tax legislation.) Also, Judges are not able to hold public office therefore their rulings that continually point out how wrong and silly the anti-taxers are are invalid. (Though this one does beg the question exactly who would fill the Constitutionally required Judiciary if not judges, but anti-tax crazies aren't exactly first rate logicians.)[/QUOTE]
This, again, heads back to the idea that we're a republic, rather than a democracy. If the citizens of the US don't like the idea of being ruled by ink on paper(that's a metaphor for the pedantic flamers out there) then they should actually pass laws that give judges the right to change or create law. It's not so much that I have a problem with the particulars of law, it's more that I'm extremely rigid in my thinking and disapprove of the clusterfuckery(sorry if this term offends, it just really defines my feelings) known as the US legal system.

On re-reading the article, I think a more interesting question is what did the limo look like 200 years ago. The article talks about, in the last paragraph, how the law has been in a limo for 200 years.

I'd love to see a picture of the this limo. ;)

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21720318]Blind people driving cars[/url]
Rather than asking whether or not blind people should be given licenses, I think it would be more appropriate to ask whether people without licenses should be allowed to use autonomous vehicles.

Driver's licenses should come with the assumption that you can actually drive, so it's meaningless to try to give blind people these licenses.

[QUOTE=jasong;337121]It starts with the fact that we're not legally a democracy, but a constitutional republic, a nation of written law.[/QUOTE]

Jason... Have you considered studying law?

Doing so might teach you a few things....

[QUOTE=jasong;337192][url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21720318]Blind people driving cars[/url]
Rather than asking whether or not blind people should be given licenses, I think it would be more appropriate to ask whether people without licenses should be allowed to use autonomous vehicles.

Driver's licenses should come with the assumption that you can actually drive, so it's meaningless to try to give blind people these licenses.[/QUOTE]If the blind people aren't driving, why should they be required to have a license?

I don't see why a licenseless person should be forbidden to take, e.g., a taxi.

License the driver, whether human or otherwise, not the passenger.