Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cheap Drink And Tobacco On Way To UK  
User currently offlineCosec59 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2823 times:

It seem that here in the UK we will soon be able to enjoy alcohol and cigarettes at the same prices as our EU neighbours.
It's about time something was done to bring an end to the extortionate amount of tax that is collected by the government on the sale of alcohol and tobacco in this country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...0?xml=/news/2006/11/12/nduty12.xml

72 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2789 times:

Another example of bizarre EU rule-making that totally ignores soverign rule and government. This will only lead to more deaths from alcohol and tobacco, and a reduce tax income to give health care free at point of use for those who choose to kill themselves in such a way.

User currently offlineExpress1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2765 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 1):

i agree,
also the Government want to make their minds up on smoking,because last month Health departments were saying they are thinking of refusing people operations to save their life if they dont pack up smoking,and drinking. now we get the EU saying we can by drink and tobacco on line and not pay the UK duty. This will give Gordan Brown a problem if this goes ahead!!!!.

Well i say the government has no say in the matter of people's health when it comes to smoking and drinking,if they continue to produce it, and selling it on the high streets,then the public will continue to buy drink and tobacco.

This is one topic that the Government and Health Athorities will never completley win.

dave


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2760 times:

Well, looks like someone didn't read the entire article.

"Businesses across Europe are gearing up for the changes, but the British Retail Confederation warns that UK businesses will lose unless action is taken to harmonise duty rates across the Continent."

Something that isn't going to happen, since the nominal and real income in newer EU countries is vastly lower than that of the rest of the EU, particularly Britain.

UK tax rates are not only good for the health of the country both economically and physically, they actually protect local businesses who would otherwise have to compete with ultra-cheap imports from cigarette hooked Eastern Europe. Additionally, the rates of taxation are not out of line with the real income levels in the UK.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2763 times:

Quoting Cosec59 (Thread starter):
the same prices as our EU neighbours.

Which EU neighbours ? I live in France, and I got to Italy to buy alcohol, because it's half the price across the border than it is here. So which prices are the UK getting, French or Italian ?

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 1):
Another example of bizarre EU rule-making that totally ignores soverign rule and government.

It's a single market, them's the rules. Although I doubt it will make much difference to how many people drink themselves comatose every day in the UK - binge-drinking is a social problem, and has nothing to do with the price of alcohol. If booze in Italy is 30% of the price compared to the UK, in theory all Italians would by lying around vomitting in the gutter - but they're not, so bang goes your theory.


User currently offlineExpress1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2755 times:

so in reality,the Government dont give a shite about us,so we just carry on regardless!!!!

dave


User currently offlineExpress1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2749 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 3):

I dont have to read the artical,as what i said is plain to see and true

dave


User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5681 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2741 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 3):
they actually protect local businesses who would otherwise have to compete with ultra-cheap imports from cigarette hooked Eastern Europe.

Eh? Overkill taxes ACTUALLY PROTECT local UK businesses because everyone who gets out of the UK comes back packed with cigarettes because they are way cheaper? Your argument has no logic.


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13040 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2730 times:

It's too bad the EU doesn't recognize the differences in taxing of tobacco and alcohol in each member country for their own reasons. It will badly affect the local corner smokes and alcohol merchants there. Will this affect other EU countries (especially Scandinavian countries) with extremely high tobacco and alcohol taxes?
In the USA, we have state by state laws as to alcohol and tobacco taxes, with considerable differences in taxes, even of adjacent states. It isn't uncommon for people to buy up to 10 cartons (a generally recognized 'personal use' limit) and resell them to friends, saving them considerable monies. In New Jersey, a 200 cigarette carton of Marlboro's is about $65.00 with all taxes. In Delaware, an adjacent state, they are about $35.00 as a very low taxes ($.05/pack, no sales tax).
Then there are American Indian reservations, many of which have on reservation and mail order tobacco sales, (most reservations cannot sell alcohol) which are not subject to a part of the Federal taxes and no state taxes (unless state-tribe agreements). What some states have done is to demand the mailing/shipping information of shipments to their states from these vendors to then send a bill to the recipient for unpaid state taxes. Some have gotten bills for $1000 +! Perhaps this is what the UK could do.
As to alcohol, we still have laws limiting alcohol sales by US mail/parcel delivery (UPS), They are not so much to protect taxes, but rather protect private and state agency distributors and retailers. There was a win for small wineries from a recent US Supreme Court Ruling to allow for winery mail order sales directly to customers, which would be the main interstate sale of alcohol in the USA. One law is that the products can only be delivered in person to an adult resident (21 or over, with proof required) by the shipping company (UPS, FedEx).
Some states can also enforce laws at their borders of people buying excess alcohol or tobacco in a lower price state into another.
As I suggested above, perhaps the UK ought to set a reasonable 'personal use' limit for mail order sales and beyond which a recipient has to pay taxes. With today's computer systems, it should be able to trace such sales. Of course, they could adjust downward their taxes to be more realistic and thus price differences that would not make it worth it to buy outside the country.


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2719 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 4):
It's a single market, them's the rules.

Them's the rules when it comes to normal products, not products that have heavy duty on them to raise money for the government to pay for the serious public health problems caused by the products.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 4):
Although I doubt it will make much difference to how many people drink themselves comatose every day in the UK - binge-drinking is a social problem, and has nothing to do with the price of alcohol. If booze in Italy is 30% of the price compared to the UK, in theory all Italians would by lying around vomitting in the gutter - but they're not, so bang goes your theory.

I never said high duty stops people smoking or drinking (though it is a factor, especially with regards to smoking; and the cheap price of alcohol does lead to more binge drinking).

However, this ruling will simply reduce tax revenue from smoking and drinking, meaning that those of us who look after our health have to pay even more to look after those who choose to kill themselves smoking, or drinking too much.


User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2712 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 9):
Them's the rules when it comes to normal products, not products that have heavy duty on them to raise money for the government to pay for the serious public health problems caused by the products.

It's not like the government spends the money it makes on tobacco and alcohol just on the NHS - they waste it on all sorts of crap. There are two possible solutions here...

a) Ban smoking and severely restrict alchohol sales ie. government owned outlets only, like in North Carolina.

b) Refuse NHS treatment of conditions caused by smoking and drinking. It's easy enough to determine the cause of things like cirrhosis and emphyzema, if its smoking or drinking, off to BUPA, loser ! If conditions can be exacerbated by alcohol or cigarettes, the patient must sign an undertaking to stop using either, otherwise treatment will be withdrawn. Simple.


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2707 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 10):
It's not like the government spends the money it makes on tobacco and alcohol just on the NHS - they waste it on all sorts of crap.

That's not the point. This ruling is still going to reduce the tax revenue of the UK - a sovereign country.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 10):
a) Ban smoking and severely restrict alchohol sales ie. government owned outlets only, like in North Carolina.

b) Refuse NHS treatment of conditions caused by smoking and drinking. It's easy enough to determine the cause of things like cirrhosis and emphyzema, if its smoking or drinking, off to BUPA, loser ! If conditions can be exacerbated by alcohol or cigarettes, the patient must sign an undertaking to stop using either, otherwise treatment will be withdrawn. Simple.

So to get around the atypical bureaucratic nonsense coming from Brussles, the UK should either prevent its citizens from doing what they like and imposing legislation that the majority will oppose, or they should completely change the principles behind the NHS and start refusing treatment based on very common liftstyle choices?

No. The simple solution would be to reject this ruling and decree that all cigarettes and alcohol consumed in the UK must pay UK duty. That's simple.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2702 times:

Dont worry, the government will legislate a way round this.

Good example is the recent BNP 'race hate' court case where the leader of the BNP and some other member were both accused of breaches of the racial hatred laws.

The government lost, the BNP won and their members walked free from court.

Within 20 minutes of the verdicts being read, the government had announced it was looking to tighten race hate law.

Dispicable.


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2692 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 12):

The government lost, the BNP won and their members walked free from court.

The government didn't lose, the CPS did.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 12):

Within 20 minutes of the verdicts being read, the government had announced it was looking to tighten race hate law.

Which is nonsense, and hopefully such 'ideas' won't get through Parliament. There should be no limits on freedom of speech. I'm glad the BNP activists walked free. Whilst they're disgusting and their words reprehensible, they have every right to say them.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2689 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 13):
The government didn't lose, the CPS did.

The government was backing the CPS case.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 13):
Whilst they're disgusting and their words reprehensible, they have every right to say them.

And they were said in private behind closed doors to a willing audience.


User currently offlineKaddyuk From Wallis and Futuna, joined Nov 2001, 4126 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2678 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 14):
And they were said in private behind closed doors to a willing audience.

It was private words behind closed doors which led to the July 7th Atrocity... Dont even think that just because you cant see it or hear it, that you accept the awful RACIST views of the BNP...



Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2672 times:

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 15):

It was private words behind closed doors which led to the July 7th Atrocity... Dont even think that just because you cant see it or hear it, that you accept the awful RACIST views of the BNP...

I accept the fact that a political party should be able to speak to its potential voting base on matters which directly affect them, even if those views are considered by others to be racist or not.

Should it be considered racist to appeal to a white voting base by talking about how immigrant ethnic populations are altering their societies?

Theres a huge difference in the background of the July 7th bombings and the campaigns ran by the BNP, to compare them is sick.


User currently offlineBHXFAOTIPYYC From Portugal, joined Jun 2005, 1644 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2650 times:

One problem with tax harmonisation is that theoretically it should come with wage harmonisation.

You might be able to harmonise the percentages, but you can't harmonise the monetary amount, so products will always vary in price.

I think this is a bit of a storm in a teacup for the UK. Realistically if you look at the price of booze in the UK, it has actually come DOWN in real terms. Wine / beer weigh too much - even if beer is 1/3 of the price in Latvia than the UK, the shipping costs would kill any such savings. Cigarettes are another matter, as they aren't heavy. Friends of mine have been posting ciggies back to relatives in the UK for years, so this is not actually new either.



Breakfast in BHX, lunch in FAO, dinner in TIP, baggage in YYC.
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2625 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 16):
Should it be considered racist to appeal to a white voting base by talking about how immigrant ethnic populations are altering their societies?

Yes it should be considered racist, it is racist, of course it is. Should it be illegal is the question in point, and the answer, sadly is no, it shouldn't. We have freedom of speech, period.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 16):
Theres a huge difference in the background of the July 7th bombings and the campaigns ran by the BNP, to compare them is sick.

No there isn't, not really. Both preach hatred based on ethnicity or religion, the BNP just haven't got round to saying it with bombs yet. But they will, Oscar, they will.


User currently offlineMatt72033 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1617 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2610 times:

Quoting Cosec59 (Thread starter):
It seem that here in the UK we will soon be able to enjoy alcohol and cigarettes at the same prices as our EU neighbours.

personally i hate smokers!

its a disgusting habit, and to be quite honest i'm completely fed up with the arrogance of smokers and smoking in public! especially pubs and resteraunts! i should be able to go to my pub and drink in clear un toxicated air

you may all wish to poison your own lungs but i do not wish to have mine poisoned in the process!


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2605 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 4):
It's a single market, them's the rules.

It is a single market, but individual countries are still allowed to set their own levels of taxation. Further, tobacco companies themselves set different prices based on different markets in order to optimize their ability to sell their product in each market, since the cost of making cigarettes is so miniscule.

Quoting Express1 (Reply 6):
I dont have to read the artical,as what i said is plain to see and true

Oh really? You don't need to read the article? Ok, then I guess we can all go home an accept whatever anyone else says.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 7):
Eh? Overkill taxes ACTUALLY PROTECT local UK businesses because everyone who gets out of the UK comes back packed with cigarettes because they are way cheaper? Your argument has no logic.

It wasn't my argument pal. I quoted that directly from the British Retail Association. As it is now, the vast majority of Britons don't rely on the continent for their smoking and drinking needs, so they buy in British shops where the goods are UK Duty Paid. If companies are allowed to import duty paid stuff from places like Latvia, then UK shop owners will lose business.

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 12):
Dont worry, the government will legislate a way round this.

Well, in a country with no constitution, that is entirely possible.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 18):
We have freedom of speech, period.

Actually, no the UK doesn't. Since they have no constitution, Parliament is free at any time to restrict freedom of speech, which they have done many times.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2594 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 20):
Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 12):Dont worry, the government will legislate a way round this.
Well, in a country with no constitution, that is entirely possible.

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 18):We have freedom of speech, period.
Actually, no the UK doesn't. Since they have no constitution, Parliament is free at any time to restrict freedom of speech, which they have done many times.

Sigh.

Quote:
It is often said that Britain has an unwritten Constitution. This is not quite true. Some of the British Constitution is written and some isn't. What is meant by 'unwritten' is that it is not written down in one volume as 'The British Constitution'. You could not go into a bookshop and order a copy of our Constitution in paperback!

Our Constitution is made up of four main parts called statute law, common law, conventions and works of authority. Of these, statute law is the most important and takes precedence over the others if there is a clash. Statute laws are the laws that have actually been passed by Parliament. The British Constitution can be considered to be 'living' as it is still developing.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2592 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 21):
Our Constitution is made up of four main parts called statute law, common law, conventions and works of authority. Of these, statute law is the most important and takes precedence over the others if there is a clash. Statute laws are the laws that have actually been passed by Parliament. The British Constitution can be considered to be 'living' as it is still developing.

That isn't a true Constitution. Parliament can do what they want, when they want, and the only thing the people can do about it is take it or revolt. Complete suspension of Habeus Corpus. Done. Complete end to freedom of the press. Stop them now.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2589 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 22):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 21):Our Constitution is made up of four main parts called statute law, common law, conventions and works of authority. Of these, statute law is the most important and takes precedence over the others if there is a clash. Statute laws are the laws that have actually been passed by Parliament. The British Constitution can be considered to be 'living' as it is still developing.
That isn't a true Constitution. Parliament can do what they want, when they want, and the only thing the people can do about it is take it or revolt. Complete suspension of Habeus Corpus. Done. Complete end to freedom of the press. Stop them now.

There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. N1120A says the UK has no "true" Constitution.

The BBC (where I got the quote in post 21) and countless other websites says the UK does indeed have a true constitution.

Any of our British friends wish to opine?


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2588 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 23):
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. N1120A says the UK has no "true" Constitution.

The BBC (where I got the quote in post 21) and countless other websites says the UK does indeed have a true constitution.

Show me how any of that has a constitutional nature. Leading constitutional scholars like Mark Tushnet and Pnina Lahav specifically use Britain as a liberal western democracy that has no actual constitution. While they may have laws that are constitutional in nature, they don't have the permanence of a slow changing true constitution as in the US, Canada or Germany.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
25 JGPH1A : He's right - there is no single codified constitutional document for the U.K. - there are various pieces of legislation that govern some "constitutio
26 Post contains links RichardPrice : No we dont have an embodied constitution, we have a set of laws dating back to the Magna Carta in the 13th century, compromises between king and parli
27 Post contains images Banco : The link Mr Price gives is perfectly adequate. On the subject at hand, those talking about tax harmonisation are missing the point. It has nothing wh
28 Willo : The number of people who will actually bother to order cigarettes and alcohol over the phone or internet will be a fraction of the number of smokers a
29 Post contains links 777236ER : Yes, this is fine when it comes to normal products. Alcohol directly killed 8386 people in 2005 (161 times the number of people killed on July 7th 20
30 RichardPrice : Remove the tax, add a law requiring smokers and alcoholics to have medical insurance to cover their increased likelyhood of medical problems. Oh, sor
31 Banco : No, either you have the free market or you don't. These products are legal, and if one country chooses to offer a lower tax rate and people have acce
32 L410Turbolet : The fact is that there actually IS DOUBT about what you claim. Since smoking is form of addiction price has very limited, if any, impact on whether o
33 Halls120 : N1120A didn't say the UK didn't have a single document codified as a constitution. He said the UK doesn't have a "true" constitution. According to wh
34 Banco : A constitution is merely the rules by which any organisation is governed, hence the rider written constitution. A country cannot fail to have a const
35 Halls120 : That is how I've always understood the UK system to operate. So tell us, is N1120A's description - "Parliament can do what they want, when they want,
36 Banco : Sort of. It's one of those things that's "in theory" that the UK system specialises in. The principle is that Parliament is sovereign, and therefore
37 Halls120 : Which is why I don't think Parliament is as free to do what they want as N1120A thinks it could be. Hard to get around the Magna Carta and the fact t
38 Banco : Well, it's one of these things that is true for a given value of true. Yes, in principle they can, but in practice they can't. You can go through end
39 53Sqdn : Hi all. I am not here to incite a riot but, when I was 16-20 (63/67) smoking was almost glorified in this country. It was part of the social scene. TV
40 777236ER : Tax competitiveness has to go hand in hand with government spending reforms. With tax comepetition across the EU, countries with relatively high taxa
41 Banco : No, that doesn't follow at all. It depends entirely on the product, for example fuel taxation can be levied at any level the nation in question choos
42 777236ER : People can buy for personal consumption abroad, and I'm sure it's cheaper for those in the south to do so. This is a bit of a copout. The ultimate en
43 BigOrange : BUT................the CPS is the government! Why don't the EU decide the amount of tax to be charged on Alcohol and Tobacco and make every country c
44 Banco : People who live in Folkestone and Dover who work on the ferries or the Channel Tunnel do (or at least "did"). Others, no, it isn't cost effective. Th
45 N1120A : Which can be, at any time, changed to restrict freedom of speech as much as Parliament wants I thought that was just the porn industry? Which I use i
46 RichardPrice : The Law Lords have struck down many laws and motions passed by Parliament as 'unlawful', just like any law in the US can be declared 'unconstitutiona
47 RichardPrice : Common law is not just case law, in the UK its also tradition and custom as well as precident.
48 N1120A : Yes they have, but they have also admitted that Parliament can overrule them at any time and the only warning they have given is that there may be pu
49 RichardPrice : No, thats the House of Lords, not the Law Lords. Parliament cannot overrule judicial judgements passed by the Law Lords. Yes I am aware that the Law
50 Banco : Not by a single one, no. Often, but not always. There is a difference. The crime of murder is a common law offence, but not a case law one, for examp
51 N1120A : Sure, but if public support is behind it, Parliament can do it. That isn't Constitutional. Of course the UK hasn't been a disaster. I wouldn't have l
52 Banco : Yes it is, by definition! True enough. But the proof is in the pudding. It's worked for a thousand years far outliving all those constitutions that h
53 N1120A : Incorrect. That is Democracy. Constitutionalism exists to counter the tyranny of the majority.
54 Banco : No, that's not the case. Constitutionalism isn't an absolute, it is defined by the constitution of the country in question. Thus, the Queen ruling by
55 N1120A : I don't have that idea. Canada has a Constitution. Germany has a Constitution. Japan has a Constitution. I am looking at the UK specifically. It abso
56 Banco : Well I have breaking news for you: The UK has a constitution too. Just because it isn't like the others, it's still a constitution. If you insist on
57 N1120A : See, this is our inherent disagreement. What I call Constitutional laws, you call a Constitution. The difference between those, at least as far as I
58 Banco : No, it isn't. You're quite simply wrong. There is no hard and fast rule as to what a constitution is. A written constitution is so termed because the
59 N1120A : Why are you so sensitive about this? The system of fundamental principles according to which a nation/state is governed. My beef here is, because of
60 RichardPrice : Name one constitution upheld in the world that has never been amended. Even the US constitution has several amendments that further restrict rights o
61 Banco : I'm not sensitive to anything except someone peddling nonsense as fact. Which is what you're doing. Separate matter. You're quite free to criticise t
62 N1120A : The Amendments to the US Constitution expand the liberties of citizens. Further, the PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional, but no one has challenged it ye
63 RichardPrice : Prohibition? Tax law? Restriction of the right for citizens to sue the Government? How, pray tell, do those expand the liberties of citizens? No, the
64 Halls120 : Ah, Mr. Omnologist strikes again. For the benefit of those that want a correct appreciation of the above statement, read on. The Patriot Act IS NOT u
65 Banco : Yes, there are, there are loads of checks and balances, often expressed as soft power rather than written down in statute. It seems to me that what y
66 N1120A : I am not speaking nonsense. I am saying what I think from my observation, study and the same from accomplished academics. Hence I say it is not a TRU
67 Post contains images Banco : Firstly, you aren't the only person ever to go to university you know. Secondly, it is nonsense. Read a dictionary, read any and every definition of
68 RichardPrice : The eleventh Amendment would disagree with you. The fact that its repealed does nothing to save the point you were making when you said: Or did the E
69 N1120A : I am going to look for the case for you No it won't. The concept of sovereign immunity exists prior to the 11th Amendment. Washington Apple shows tha
70 RichardPrice : Actually, after all that, you are correct - the British Government can overturn court rulings in two ways: 1. Acts of Parliament requiring greater th
71 Halls120 : I'm going to make the same offer here I've made in virtually every other "the PA is unconstitutional" discussion I've participated in. Point to any o
72 Post contains images KevinL1011 : And so is BAB's. Hmmm. There must be a connection.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Man On Way To Brothel Finds Wife Working posted Tue Jun 26 2001 10:48:38 by Cfalk
Cougar Ace Update-On It's Way To Portland posted Fri Sep 8 2006 06:50:10 by L-188
Way To Go The Linz's! On Amazing Race! posted Wed Dec 14 2005 18:04:38 by AV8AJET
Info On Traveling Thru UK And Europe posted Sun Jun 26 2005 03:30:16 by B727
Jeanne Might Be On Its Way To Florida. posted Tue Sep 14 2004 20:53:23 by Flymia
60 Years Ago Today, A New Weapon And Way To Space posted Wed Sep 8 2004 02:54:10 by GDB
This Is Also A Way To Get Many Views On Your A.net posted Tue Sep 7 2004 15:16:07 by Zweed
10000th Post For Alpha 1 And Way To Go! posted Sat Feb 7 2004 01:02:52 by ScottysAir
On My Way To Getting Nowhere... posted Sat Jan 3 2004 04:19:17 by BR715-A1-30
Newsweek: US On It's Way To 2nd Vietnam - Colombia posted Tue Sep 10 2002 05:35:59 by Bigo747