ron vrooman Loc: Now OR, born NV

you have a right to bear arms. that does not cover gun explicitly. weapon is another word to be careful of. then read your state constitution. then comprehend that the corporate governance that is enforcing the code,could give a shit about any of that. unless they are specifically and correctly told.

Raylan Wolfe Loc: earth

And yet, the fact remains!

ron vrooman Loc: Now OR, born NV

He had some great script writers. and excellent directing from his kitchen cabinet.

Kazudy

My vote is ,YES unconstitutional. An example,SoCaS restricts freedom of religion. If the clergy informs it's flock that a candidate is in favor of abortion&homosexuality that clergy cannot endorse nor un endorse said candidate. Thus freedom of religion denied. Liberals love that. You must be one.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Of course you can do something about it. Simply withhold your consent to be taxed. It really is that simple. If you fill in a W-4 form each year, look toward the bottom, after all the 'numbers' stuff at box 7, it says:

"I claim exemption from withholding for 2017, and I certify that I meet both of the following conditions for exemption.
• Last year I had a right to a refund of all federal income tax withheld because I had no tax liability, and
• This year I expect a refund of all federal income tax withheld because I expect to have no tax liability.
If you meet both conditions, write “Exempt” here .................... <Box 7, write EXEMPT>"

See, filling out the exemptions and signing at the bottom grants your consent for the IRS, through your employer, to withhold taxes from each paycheck. A W-4 form is only valid for one year. If you do not sign one each year, then the payments you make are considered voluntary after that first year, and are not liabilities. Most employers have you sign a W-4 form at the beginning of your employment and don't bother after that. If that is the case, simply ask for a W-4 form, fill it out just by writing the word EXEMPT in box 7 and sign and date. Hand it back in and you're good to go. Next paycheck, no taxes withheld.

I did this 20 years ago and apart from one (somewhat 'scary') letter after the first year, I have been left in peace. There's nothing they can do and they know it. No more filing 1040 forms in the hope of getting 'something' back. No more looking at half your paycheck going to pay for someone's idea of 'democracy', just a more honest paycheck. There's a book written about this and some other little 'gotchas', you can read it here:

https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/sovereignty/errant-sovereign-handbook.pdf

OK, that's my good deed for the day, Enjoy!

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

what does your vote, or mine either have to do with the Constitution?

http://blog.hillsdale.edu/online-courses/did-the-founders-intend-to-separate-church-and-state
https://constitutionminute.hillsdale.edu/episode3

https://online.hillsdale.edu/document.doc?id=262

vettelover Loc: Richmond Va

Sooooooo you believe in theory of "Nothing made Everything"?

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Of course there is a level of separation, in that they may not establish a single religion.

CounterRevolutionary

Larry, actually you touched upon the real issue: "Without that permission slip, there will be no marriage, yet there is no delegation of power over marriage that I can find."

Here is that delegation of US power over religion, set by legal precedence in the Courts. This very issue was addressed back in 1878 where the Federal Government challenged polygamy in Utah. The case went to the Supreme Court:

Reynolds v. U.S.. Polygamy was banned because it was deemed a threat to families, mothers, children and society. The Court agreed to the First Amendment rights for freedom of religion, admitting it could not arrest people for thought crime, but - but -but, when people put into action specific religious practices that threatened other individuals, the law could step in and ban that threatening behavior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

PeterS

So what real issue was touched upon? What specific religious practices threaten individuals?

PeterS

So government can establish several religions? Is that what the founders wanted?

woodssprite 17

Very interesting thank you for posting it.

PeterS

Something tells me Linda had a tax liability last year--after all, she is an honest hard working person...

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Thank You I'm going to check into this book as it's peaked my curiosity .,.

Unfortunately being self employed I'm not able to do as suggested but I still want to check it out.. Thank You, Larry...

PeterS

Nothing, my comment was directed at whether one thought Sessions was right or wrong. It was meant as an opinion poll nothing more.