Reply
Mon 25 Aug, 2003 04:38 pm
DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ADEQUATELY "SUPPORT" OUR CONSTITUTION AS AMENDED AND, THEREBY, ADEQUATELY SECURE OUR INTRINSIC AND INHERENT RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS?
I shall focus on two alleged violations of "the supreme Law of the Land" and the consequent inadequate securing of our related rights:
[1] The transfer of property between people;
[2] Taxing our individual dollars of revenue and income differently.
Participants are encouraged to focus on those security issues that most interest them.
WE FREE CITIZENS OF THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ACTING IN ACCORD WITH OUR OWN JUDGMENTS AND OUR OWN FREE WILL, FILE THIS LAWSUIT IN ORDER TO BETTER SERVE THE INTERESTS OF OUR POSTERITY
WE ACCUSE THOSE ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS OF OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHO ARE NOT COMPLYING WITH THEIR OATHS OR AFFIRMATIONS REQUIRED BY LAW TO SUPPORT OUR CONSTITUTION AS LAWFULLY AMENDED (HEREINAFTER, OCALA), OF PERPETRATING HIGH CRIMES.
WE ORDER THEM TO CEASE AND DESIST PERPETRATING THESE HIGH CRIMES OR WE SHALL LAWFULLY CAUSE THEM TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.
THE FOUNDATION OF OUR LAWSUIT
We fully support without any reservation Our Declaration of Independence (hereinafter, ODOI), and believe that ALL innocent people are equally endowed with certain unalienable rights. These rights include the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We the people of the United States of America instituted our government in order to secure these rights for each of us and for our posterity.
OCALA stipulates those powers the government of our republic shall have to secure our rights, and it expressly denies the government of our republic any other powers.
We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God; indivisible; with liberty and justice for all.
By virtue of this our pledge, we obligate ourselves as free citizens of these United States of America to take such lawful action as we judge is likely to preserve our republic for us and our posterity.
FIRST HIGH CRIME
The Government of the United States of America is currently EXERCISING THE POWER to transfer property between Americans when that power has NOT BEEN DELEGATED to the Government of the United States of America by OCALA. Consequently, the Government of the United States of America usurped these powers, is thereby violating the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, and is thereby perpetrating a crime.
Specifically, the Government of the United States of America is:
a. Taxing younger people in order to pay retirement income to older people;
b. Taxing younger people in order to pay for medical treatment of older people;
c. Taxing some of us in order to enable others of us to fail to educate still others of us of TE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND;
d. Taxing some of us in order to grant and/or loan money to others of us;
e. Taxing some of us in order to provide income to others of us.
SECOND HIGH CRIME
The government of the United States of America is EXERCISING THE POWER to tax our individual dollars of revenue and income differently according to criteria of their choosing when that power has NOT BEEN DELEGATED to the Government of the United States of America by OCALA. Consequently the Government of the United States of America usurped these powers, is thereby violating the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, and is thereby perpetrating a crime.
Specifically, the Government of the United States of America is taxing the individual dollars of income and/or revenue received by persons according to:
a. How much revenue and/or income a person has received;
b. When a person received that revenue and/or income;
c. Who received that revenue and/or income;
d. What is the vocation of that person;
e. In what manner the person received that revenue and/or income;
f. Why the person received that revenue and/or income;
g. How much revenue and/or income that person receives within a given time;
h. How much revenue and/or income that person received up to that given time.
WE SEEK THIS REMEDY
According to the 10th Amendment to OCALA, our federal government has only those powers delegated to it by OCALA. Also according to the 9th Amendment to OCALA, we individually have all those rights not prohibited us by OCALA. According to the 13th Amendment, we shall not be compelled into involuntary servitude of any human being or group of human beings. According to the 14th Amendment, each and everyone of us has the same privileges and immunities, the same rights to life, liberty, property, the same right to due process of law, and the same right to equal protection of the law. Any such action by our federal government constitutes a high crime and shall be terminated immediately.
Our federal government was not delegated by OCALA the power to perpetrate the actions specified above. On the contrary, our federal government is expressly denied by OCALA the power to perpetrate the actions specified above. Nor does OCALA deny us the right to rectify our federal government’s perpetration of high crimes by ending their perpetration. Therefore, we who are among the people shall rectify our federal government.
Therefore, our federal government shall cease and desist perpetrating both of the high crimes specified above, now and in the future.
ah to live in 1776 all over again.
The conservative screed begins.
Ican -- caps are used to denote yelling. The conservative screed is difficult enough to stomach in small letters, you don't have to yell.
Have it your way, Ican.
You may be right.
We'll see what others think about it soon enough.
The Constitution, of course, is the supreme law of the land in the US. Ican, I see you referring to the Declaration of Independence as if it also had the force of law. I call it a beautifully conceived document, but would hesitate to go to court with it as a basis.
Would you, or anyone else like to comment on its status in American government?
For the record, by the way, if just about everyone in a forum considers CAPS to be yelling -- and considers italics to be emphasis (which is the case here in A2K)-- you really got to be waaay out there to decide that you are going to use CAPS for emphasis and that other stuff for yelling.
Try to get with the program, Ican. No need to reinvent the wheel.
Frank Apisa wrote:For the record, by the way, if just about everyone in a forum considers CAPS to be yelling -- and considers italics to be emphasis (which is the case here in A2K)-- you really got to be waaay out there to decide that you are going to use CAPS for emphasis and that other stuff for yelling.
Try to get with the program, Ican. No need to reinvent the wheel.
You know I'm a retired engineer. I like to reinvent the wheel.
So, guess what, I reinvent the wheel.
roger wrote: I see you referring to the Declaration of Independence as if it also had the force of law.
Thank you for your comment.
I do not think the Declaration has the force of law. I think the Declaration stipulates our intrinsic and inherent rights, which Our Constitution As Amended has evolved and been crafted to help secure. So mentioning it is my way of establishing the principal context of our lawsuit.
A grand set of principles has always been my take as well.
In hundreds of forums, chats, websites and logs that I've read over the years, caps indicate the person is yelling. It's pretty much universal.
All-caps hurts the eyes the same way yelling hurts the ears.
For our sake, please don't shout. Thank you.
The instant someone does, I scroll down and ignore their aggravating tactics. I suspect others do too.
ican711nm wrote:We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God; indivisible; with liberty and justice for all.
By virtue of this our pledge, we obligate ourselves as free citizens of these United States of America to take such lawful action as we judge is likely to preserve our republic for us and our posterity.
Well, this is absurd. The pledge of allegiance obligates no one to do anything.
ican711nm wrote:SECOND HIGH CRIME
The government of the United States of America is EXERCISING THE POWER to tax our individual dollars of revenue and income differently according to criteria of their choosing when that power has NOT BEEN DELEGATED to the Government of the United States of America by OCALA.
I know that inveterate tax protesters already have an answer to this question, but how does this charge square with the 16th amendment? I know you undoubtedly have a way to justify this particular claim, I just want to know which one you're relying on.
16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The Founding Fathers made provision for future generations to amend the Constitution as they saw fit. Whether or not or agree with the intent and results of the 16th Amendment, it became a lawful part of the Constitution in 1913.
Terry wrote:16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The Founding Fathers made provision for future generations to amend the Constitution as they saw fit. Whether or not or agree with the intent and results of the 16th Amendment, it became a lawful part of the Constitution in 1913.
All you say is true, but irrelevant. The 16th Amendment does not authorize Congress to ignore the 13th and 14th Amendments when taxing incomes (e.g., Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude ...; and ... equal protection of the law ...)
THE NECESSITY FOR TERMINATING OUR GOVERNMENT’S PERPETRATION OF THE SPECIFIED HIGH CRIMES
I. Liberty lovers must recognize that they act as their own enemies when they use their liberty and representative majority to transfer property from those who have less to those who have more, or to transfer property from those who have more to those who have less. When they do this they are stealing; they are guilty of theft; they are violating the law; they are perpetrating a felony; they are corroding respect for the rule of law; they are encouraging the stifling of their own liberty; they are destroying the viability of their republic. Their posterity will surely suffer from such behavior if it be allowed to continue.
II. It is especially true that our posterity will suffer from stealing if the objective of such stealing is to achieve an egalitarian state.
The contemporary (i.e., 1905) definition of <egalitarianism> is:
1 : a belief in human equality especially with respect to
social, political, and economic rights and privileges
2 : a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities
among people."
I claim that equal social, equal political, and equal economic rights and privileges are mutually contradictory.
I infer that:
1. Equal social rights include the right of the innocent to equal status.
2. Equal political rights include the right of the innocent to equal liberty.
3. Equal economic rights include the right of the innocent to equal property.
Enforcement of equal status among all innocent people precludes enforcement of equal liberty, and equal property. Those with superior talent (e.g., knowledge, skills, judgment, and/or accomplishments) will have to have their liberty and property limited inversely according to their unequal talents, in order to achieve equal status. The most talented will have to suffer the most limitations and the least talented will have to suffer the fewest limitations.
Similarly, enforcement of equal property among all innocent people precludes enforcement of equal liberty, and equal status. Those with superior talent will have to have their liberty and status limited inversely according to their unequal talents, in order to achieve equal property.
Similarly, enforcement of equal liberty among all innocent people precludes enforcement of equal property, and equal status. Those with superior talent have to have their property and status NOT LIMITED AT ALL, inversely or otherwise, according to their unequal talents, in order for them to enjoy equal liberty.
Thus, the unequal talents among innocent people must themselves, and not coercion, determine their status and property in order for them to enjoy equal liberty as stipulated by our Declaration of Independence. Otherwise, achieving equality of status or equality of property, precludes achieving equal liberty.
Equal liberty requires a rule of law that is not different for individuals according to differences in the property they receive in mutually voluntary transactions. Equal liberty requires a rule of law that uniformly protects the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and does not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Failure of our republican government to abide by these principles will inevitably lead to the dissolution of our republic and its replacement by anarchy and/or tyranny.
III. Failure to obey the rule of law will encourage the birth of one or more factions that will seek their ends by use of deceit and/or force. Failure to obey the rule of law by us in order to maintain the comforts of some at the expense of others of us is never worth the damage it shall certainly do to our posterity.
The use of deceit and/or force breeds the use of deceit and/or force. Eventually a faction shall rise for the purpose of removing from government all those in government who disobey the rule of law with respect to rights of property and/or to the rights of innocent vocations. Another faction shall arise to practice pernicious envy (i.e., the striving to reduce what others have). Still another faction shall arise to practice pernicious jealousy (i.e., the striving to transfer what others have to themselves).
Each of these factions shall be corrupted by any increase in their power over the other factions. That corruption shall lead them to escalate their use of deceit and/or force until they finally shall deny those who oppose them their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Of course such events shall lead to the cessation of our republic in the same manner as the cessation of republics that have preceded ours.
ican711nm wrote:All you say is true, but irrelevant. The 16th Amendment does not authorize Congress to ignore the 13th and 14th Amendments when taxing incomes (e.g., Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude ...; and ... equal protection of the law ...)
The 13th and 14th amendments do not apply to income taxes. You are reading a lot into the Constitution that just isn't there.
Quote:Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Paying income tax is neither slavery nor involuntary servitude. You are free to work at any job you like, or you may choose to live without earning any taxable income. You can give enough of your money to charity to avoid paying taxes. A tax lawyer can find ways to shelter your income from taxes. Or you can renounce your citizenship and emigrate.
Quote:Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Constitution does not guarantee equal social, political, or economic rights. It prohibits the states from denying equal protection of the laws to persons, specifically former slaves.
Quote:We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Our elected officials have decided (with the concurrence of the majority of voters) that taxes may be used to promote the general welfare by giving aid to those who need it. If you have a problem with sharing your resources with those less fortunate, run for Congress yourself.
Quote:Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (overridden by the 16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.)
It couldn't be much clearer than that: Congress has the power to lay and collect income taxes. Nothing in the Constitution requires that those taxes be uniform.
Quote:Article VI: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Congress has the legal authority to make laws regarding taxes and property. Unless they are determined to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, they ARE the supreme law of the land, whether you agree with them or not.
Following the thinking here i would like, no make that demand, that the US auto industry return to the cars made prior to 1961. I knew how they worked and how to fix them, parts were cheaper and you didn't need a computer to tell you whats wrong with it. I hate it when things change. We need a constitutional convention for sure.
CodeBorg wrote:In hundreds of forums, chats, websites and logs that I've read over the years, caps indicate the person is yelling. It's pretty much universal.
All-caps hurts the eyes the same way yelling hurts the ears.
For our sake, please don't shout. Thank you.
The instant someone does, I scroll down and ignore their aggravating tactics. I suspect others do too.
Yup, that's exactly how i see it. I've read the constituion thoroughly, and although i can't quote it all, i know it well enough to quickly find and answer to any question about the text. I thought this might be an interesting thread. But, just as Code points out, i saw all the caps, all the "yelling" and scrolled right past. This is not worth the effort if someone is going to yell all the time.
joefromchicago wrote:ican711nm wrote:We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God; indivisible; with liberty and justice for all.
By virtue of this our pledge, we obligate ourselves as free citizens of these United States of America to take such lawful action as we judge is likely to preserve our republic for us and our posterity.
Well, this is absurd. The pledge of allegiance obligates no one to do anything.
Main Entry: al·le·giance
...
1 a : the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord b (1) : the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government (2) : the obligation of an alien to the government under which the alien resides
2 : devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause
synonym see FIDELITY
...
I interpret that to mean that when I pledge allegiance to some entity, I am making a commitment to suport and protect that entity. Thus, our Pledge of Allegiance obligates us to do two "somethings".
It is your comment that is absurd!
(#)) .... the stuff yelled .... ((#) 
whata paranoid 
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace