I might hold a different view of the Founders based on Colonial Masonry. And the absence of uniform ideology other than land development took Civil War to settle.
allodial property ownership and direct and un-apportioned taxation are total and complete uniform concepts with the latter being an actual tacit law, yet all is subverted.
and now we may add the "unvaccinated" or anti-"vaxxers" as homo sacer.
Do you feel this is Federalism? If the Articles had held would property be more secure? Or would each state have her crazy quilt with little uniformity and Federalism provided a layer of uniformity?
It would have been just like direct un-apportioned taxation today subverted by the federal gov. EDIT: using a private corporation like the IRS as the legitimization of illegal theft via taxation.
The federal gov as outlined by the Founders is a foreign nation with the most essential and minimal more at restricted role or function in securing borders and enforcing the Constitution and Bill of Rights across the united (lowercase "u") States of America. That is it. Nothing more.
On the state level then property taxes would be unconstitutional because the Constitution overrides any state law(s).
Basically, the Constitutional Republic was subverted by the likes of the spy Hamilton and the Federalists, and then of course 1913 was when the nation was (un)constitutionally taken over. Even the ratification of 16A is questionable, and it could not be ratified legally anyhow. It would be like creating an Amendment in direct opposition to any of the Bill of Rights amendments i.e. gun grabs on federal level and the existence of the ATF. Etc. & etc.
https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-giorgio-agamben-the-state-and-the-concentration-camp/
Put another way: https://2ndsmartestguyintheworld.substack.com/p/original-social-engineering-sin
I might hold a different view of the Founders based on Colonial Masonry. And the absence of uniform ideology other than land development took Civil War to settle.
uniform ideology was subverted from day 1.
allodial property ownership and direct and un-apportioned taxation are total and complete uniform concepts with the latter being an actual tacit law, yet all is subverted.
and now we may add the "unvaccinated" or anti-"vaxxers" as homo sacer.
Do you feel this is Federalism? If the Articles had held would property be more secure? Or would each state have her crazy quilt with little uniformity and Federalism provided a layer of uniformity?
It would have been just like direct un-apportioned taxation today subverted by the federal gov. EDIT: using a private corporation like the IRS as the legitimization of illegal theft via taxation.
The federal gov as outlined by the Founders is a foreign nation with the most essential and minimal more at restricted role or function in securing borders and enforcing the Constitution and Bill of Rights across the united (lowercase "u") States of America. That is it. Nothing more.
On the state level then property taxes would be unconstitutional because the Constitution overrides any state law(s).
Basically, the Constitutional Republic was subverted by the likes of the spy Hamilton and the Federalists, and then of course 1913 was when the nation was (un)constitutionally taken over. Even the ratification of 16A is questionable, and it could not be ratified legally anyhow. It would be like creating an Amendment in direct opposition to any of the Bill of Rights amendments i.e. gun grabs on federal level and the existence of the ATF. Etc. & etc.