I’d love to see you explain how taking property from citizens to give to a corporation constitutes “public use.”

The income tax is actually an enumerated power, established by the sixteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. Article I, Section 8 establishes the power of Congress to “lay and collect” uniform “Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.”

The Federal Reserve is a private entity from which the federal government borrows money, as allowed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

As to the Supreme Court, it’s not nearly as inviolate as you think. Only the /existence/ and /powers/ of some (as opposed to any particular) supreme court are established in the constitution. In theory, any of all of the justices could be replaced by executive order or act of congress. The court could be expanded or reduced in number of justices, or a term of service could be established without even amendment to the constitution, which has always been and remains possible.

Lacking even this, the Justices of the United States Supreme Court are subject to impeachment, trial, and removal for “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” (such as judicial misconduct.)

The recourse of citizens to an unfair decision by the Supreme Court, then, is to enist the aid of their Senators, Representatives, and President. No one branch of government can ultimately stand against the other two united.

As to Kelo v. City of New London (which I’ll admit I had to look up,) the Supreme Court’s decision appears to be correct in terms of the current form of the Constitution. The power of eminent domain is not provided but limited by the Fifth Amendment, which does not actually limit its use to public use, but only requires compensation (which was provided.) If Kelo offends you, I might suggest that you advocate a bill banning such use of eminent domain, or move to one the the states where it is already illegal.

What you said was:

Real patriots are people that fight for the majority’s right to dictate to our leaders how they want to be led as much as equally hard as they fight for the minority’s right to disagree with the majority.

So according to this it is the majority’s right to decide the rules. The minority can disagree with the rules, but it ultimately the majority that makes the decision. That is not how it works. The ability of the majority to make decisions is explicitly and carefully limited under the U.S. constitution, as I explained. The only place where a majority of the population makes a decision is in the House of Representatives, and the sort of decisions it is able to make are limited to specific sorts of decisions.

I am not incorrect about the Constitution, I never said the role was to only protect the rights of the majority.

What I said was that Phil was incorrect saying that it’s role is to protect the rights of the minority.

That’s why many of the founders didn’t want Supreme Court justices to rule for life. There’s really no checks and balances with that body, and no real recourse for the people if they make horrible anti-freedom decisions like Kelo.

Our founders ALL knew that government will try and grab any piece of power it can justify. The “necessary and proper” clause is being abused, because the clause specifically says that it’s only the ones necessary and proper for executing an enumerated power. That part of the clause is being completely ignored.

Really, it’s the Income Tax and the Federal Reserve that allow them to do all of this. Otherwise, they just wouldn’t have the resources. Before 1913, our Federal government ran just fine (and had more than its share of abuses as it was), but now there’s just nothing stopping the machine of government. As long as they can tax incomes with impunity, and as long as they can print up enough money to cover whatever shortfalls they want, they’ll have the power to act against anyone they like, at any time.