[QUOTE=chalsall;337194]Jason... Have you considered studying law?

Doing so might teach you a few things....[/QUOTE]
You mean like the actual definition of what a republic is? A republic, which is what the US of A is, is a nation of written law, which means rights are defined by the written word. So if a judge had the right to change the law, it would be written somewhere, there would be a law that specifically gave them that right. But I've never encountered such a law.

In the case of Title 26, though, and other Titles, for that matter, it's possible to sit down and read the law. Unlike what people claim, tax law is not a mishmash that can only be understood by people with training. You start at point A and go through the law to figure out what does and doesn't apply to you. In the case of the 16th Amendment, the claim is it repealed the right of a citizen to not be directly taxed. Unfortunately, when you go back and compare it to the stuff before it, you got the possibility of multiple conclusions. If you start at the beginning of the Constitution and don't make any assumptions about meaning(dictionaries define meaning, specifically dictionaries from the time the law was written) or case law, or whatever, then the only logical conclusion is that the 16th Amendment didn't change anything, but is a confusing restatement of stuff the Constitution can already do.

Why would this be done? Well, if a cat wants to eat a canary, then convincing you your pet mouse is the one in actual danger can be very helpful. The 16th Amendment's income tax roots are what is referred to as American mythology, a belief encouraged by the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank, who don't give a flying f*** about the rights of United States citizens, they only care about power and the bottom line.

But I digress. Ultimately, the only thing that truly matters is what the laws ACTUALLY say. And, today more than ever, with the power of the Internet, anyone can research the laws on the books. It isn't fun, it's actually rather tedious, but it's very informative.

Looky what I found :)

[url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26[/url]

If the right to tax a citizen directly exists, than the particulars should be in here, right? Fuck Reading Rainbow(if it's still around), this is the sort of stuff that needs to be read by all American citizens.

[QUOTE=xilman;337200]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.[/QUOTE]
[deleted stuff because I misread his post]

[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/judge-fines-himself-cell-phone-courtroom-195436521.html"]Judge fines himself for cell phone use in the courtroom[/URL]
Hmmmm... (in a good way)

[url]http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/What-William-Shatner-Would-Put-on-His-Gravestone-162718066.html[/url]

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22283117]Virtual keyboard[/url]

But will it succeed?

I definitely intend to try it for a month or so.

[url]http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/01/29/the-fake-townhouses-hiding-mystery-underground-portals/[/url]

[QUOTE=chappy;338808][URL]http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/01/29/the-fake-townhouses-hiding-mystery-underground-portals/[/URL][/QUOTE]

Hmmmmmm.....

[QUOTE=chappy;338808][URL]http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/01/29/the-fake-townhouses-hiding-mystery-underground-portals/[/URL][/QUOTE]When I saw the abbreviated URL, ending with "...round-portals/" I wondered whether it might be about hobbits.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;338840]When I saw the abbreviated URL, ending with "...round-portals/" I wondered whether it might be about hobbits.[/QUOTE]
I got the wrong idea too. While I did register the whole URL at first glance, I thought it was about wormholes, i.e. portals to elsewhere in space and time. "Portal" seems a strangely grand word to use after all, but the article does justify that word by emphasising the all-is-not-what-it-seems nature of the set-ups.

slightly NSFW
[code]
[SPOILER]U.S. District Judge Fred Biery has spoken. The Texas judge issued a ruling in the case
he called "The Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Bikini Top v. the (More) Itsy Bitsy Teeny Weeny Pastie."
Yes, indeed. At issue was a strip club's request for a preliminary injunction that would block
enforcement of a San Antonio ordinance requiring its dancers to wear bikini tops while entertaining.
The club had asked that its employees be allowed to wear nipple-covering "pasties" instead.[/SPOILER]
[/code]
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/texas-judge-issues-double-entendre-filled-ruling-strip-151235719.html[/url]

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22380611]Damnit, I didn't mean THOSE sharks.[/url]