DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ADEQUATELY "SUPPORT" OUR CONSTITUTION?

ODOI = Our Declaration of Independence
OCALA = Our Constituion As Lawfully Amended

QUOTATIONS, WITH OUR INTERPRETATIONS, FROM ODOI AND OCALA ...

ORIGINAL QUOTATION FROM OCALA REGARDING THE INCOME TAX

16. (OCALA, Amendment XVI, 1913) 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 of enumeration.

----OUR INTERPRETATION

16. 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 of enumeration.

However, the Congress has not hereby been delegated the power to abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. Therefore the tax on any dollar of income throughout the United States of America shall be uniform and not discriminate against persons or their dollars of income on the basis of the attributes of persons or the attributes of their dollars of income.

WE HAVE ACCUSED THOSE ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS OF OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHO ARE NOT COMPLYING WITH THEIR OATHS OR AFFIRMATIONS REQUIRED BY LAW TO SUPPORT 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.

Immediate termination of these proven high crimes shall cause suffering to those who themselves have previously been victims of these high crimes and forced thereby to transfer their property to others, and are now receiving property from others who have been forced to transfer their property to them. In order to ameliorate such suffering, we recommend that Congress submit the following amendment to OCALA to the States for their speedy adoption.

Recommended Amendment XXVIII.

Section 1. Congress shall have the power to adopt reasonable procedures for terminating by December 31, 2013, all currently existing laws and programs that violate Our Constitution As Lawfully Amended, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to establish voluntary programs for financing and ameliorating human suffering.

=============================

“A generous parent should have said, ‘If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace’; and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.”
---Thomas Paine in “The American Crisis (1776-83)”, December, 1776.

That is the entire lawsuit as of now!

Do the words...

...delusions of grandeur...

...mean anything to anyone involved here?


Can anyone suggest reasons why those words should pop into my head at this point?

well the word delusions seems to fit, but i am not so sure about the grandeur.

We need a lunatic rants forum here, to which such nonsense can be transferred after the screed has been posted, in all it's tedious lunacy . . .

Accusations devoid of suporting argument are less useful than "the tits on a boar hog", but a whole lot funnier.

Come on now and try to grow a little. There's lots I've written for which rational argument can be mustered by the competent and would be competent.

A quote from another "bone-brain":

VII. Thomas Paine writing about the proper origin of a constitution, in “Letter Addressed to the Addressers of the Late Proclamation”, 1792:

“A Constitution is a thing antecedent to a government; it is the act of a people creating a government and giving it powers, and defining the limits and exercise of the powers so given.”

Many have observed that it is our moral/ethical duty to help the less fortunate by transferring some wealth from those who have more to those who have less. They cite the Robin Hood story or their religion for justification.

Is it moral/ethical to be charitable with someone else's wealth? Isn't that a contradiction: exercising one's heart felt empathy for those in need by making the other guy help those in need. I think it not moral/ethical to do so. A few reasons follow.

First, please recognize the truth of the Robin Hood story. Robin Hood stole from what was then the government (e.g., the Sheriff of Nothingham) and redistributed what was stolen to those from whom the Sheriff stole (including himself and his merry men). Borrowing from Ayn Rand: Today Robin Hood would be stealing from our government and redistributing what was stolen back to the victims of that theft , victims like Gates and Dell as well as us other tax payers.

Religious folks claim a commandment from God to not steal. In no religion I'm aware of is that commandment worded: Don't steal from those who have less than you; only from those who have more, as long as you give what you stole to those who have less. In the case of Judeo-Christian religions it is claimed that God gave as God's 10th Command: do not covet. In other words, do not want others to have less, or want others to transfer what they have to you.

Doctrines aside, there exists a preponderance of historical anecdotal evidence that the transfer of wealth by the government of a republic, be it from those who have more to those who have less, or from those who have less to those who have more, is a sure path to replacement of that republic by a tyrrany.

Will those in need benefit from that outcome? I think not! It will only increase the number in need. The proven way to help those in need is to personally help them prosper as independent achievers. That benefits all. Their achievements will create more opportunities for everyone to prosper.

How shall we help them prosper? Provide them a way to enable them and especially their kids to escape the mediocre or worse education currently victimizing them. How do we do that? Certainly not by rewarding the mediocre or worse education systems with more money. No, the ideal method is to allow each tax paying individual to donate half his federal tax payment to a private voucher system of his choice. Why half? Well currently more than half the federal budget consists of wealth transfers. Less than half is the cost of securing our freedoms and discouraging collisions of various kinds. Why donate to a voucher system? Because that will give those in need choice of educational systems and an escape from their victimization by virtual education monopolies.

Your rant is so far from rationality, and has so little to do with what the constitution is, and from whence it derives, that any contention on your part about others "growing" by adopting your hare-brained notions is laughably absurd.

You don't get it, Ican't, and i am sad to say that i don't believe you ever will.

Ican, are you saying that you're opposed to all forms of taxation, or only the graduated income tax?

I'm opposed (and so is our Constitution as amended opposed) to our government taxing dollars of income/revenue differently based on circumstances.

The graduated income tax, aka progressive income tax, aka disproportionate tax, aka the ability to pay tax, aka the minimum earned income tax credit tax, are all forms of taxing dollars of income/revenue differently based on circumstances. In the last case, it's better described as the pay people for not earning enough to pay any tax tax.

I do not buy the libertarian idea of replacing all taxes with users fees to pay for government securing our rights.

Think about a user fee for defense, justice, fire or police protection. For example, no fires or crimes will leave the firemen and policemen with excessive motivation to increase their user fee business by their own actions. I prefer to pay taxes for protection services that I never ever have to actually use.

Well folks, how about that for an elegant, profound, carefully reasoned, thoughtful, cogent, responsible counter argument?

While it does make ican the subject of this forum, when ican is not its subject only its creator, and our constitution is its subject, it does provide a degree of insight into those who resent views contrary to their own.

You appear eminently qualified to start such forum. Go for it!

Do the words <vacuous argument> seem to apply here?

This is a fantastic contribution to counter argument!

As I said very early in Ican's arrival here at A2K -- my guess was that he would go on and on about how he can show that there probably is INTELLIGENCE (God) influencing the evolution of humans and the planet.

He would, I predicted, go from there to a thread purporting to show that we are endowed by that INTELLIGENCE (God) with certain unalienable rights.

He then would go into a fringe-right conservative screed attacking the concept of lending a helping hand to the less fortunate -- and talk about the pernicious envy of certain, unidentified people.

Folks, here in Ican's last few posts, you have the third element.

I can only hope that not too many of you buy into this nonsense -- and that Ican goes on to something new.

Your brilliant and erudite exposition of your prediction (much modified after many posts -- but you almost finally got it right) based on an early post of ican's describing in detail exactly what ican actually intended to do, while irrelevant to the question of the validity of ican's arguments in this forum, merits standing with that most incredible prediction that the sun will rise tomorrow morning and set tomorrow night.

Such fundamentalist competence and talent in this day and age is incredible.

:wink: