Posted on 03/04/2002 2:19:12 PM PST by Dementon
|
|
|
OPENING REMARKS by Bob Schulz CITIZENS’ TRUTH-IN-TAXATION HEARING Good morning ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Citizens’ Truth-in-Taxation Hearing. On behalf of myself and the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, I extend a very heartfelt welcome to all of you in our audience today, to the thousands of people who are watching theses proceedings via our live web cast and to the countless thousands who will later be watching via digital and taped recordings of the hearing. We are happy to sponsor this most extraordinary educational event. DO WE STILL RECOGNIZE IT AS THE BASIS OF OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IN AMERICA, OR NOT? DO WE STILL HAVE A CONSTITUTION THAT GUARANTEES OUR UNALIENABLE RIGHTS AS THE SOVEREIGN CITIZENS OF A GREAT AND FREE NATION, OR NOT? DO WE HAVE A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND STATE GOVERNMENTS THAT HONOR AND DEFEND THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF EQUAL JUSTICE, DUE PROCESS OF LAW, THE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY --- THE PRINCIPLES THAT REPRESENT THE VERY FOUNDATION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT, OR NOT? WE THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW IF WE STILL HAVE A CONSTITUTION. This is a copy of a message we published in the NY Times on Sunday, February 10th.
In effect, Mr. Dershowitz is saying that the system of governance in America has been transformed from a constitutional-republic to a democracy—that the government can do whatever it wants to do for, or TO, the people – that we are now governed by the rule of men and their whim, rather than by a Constitution. It is Mr. Dershowitz’s opinion--an opinion shared by the leaders of our major political parties, our courts, and most of our nation’s print and broadcast media--that those PERSONAL RIGHTS ENUMERATED IN THE FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS TO OUR CONSTITUTION (OUR BILL OF RIGHTS), NO LONGER EXIST EXCEPT AT THE WHIM AND DISCRETION OF GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS AND CAREER POLITICIANS--THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY EXCEPT BY GOVERNMENT PERMISSION. MR. DERSHOWITZ CONTENDS THAT ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS DERIVE FROM GOVERNMENT--THAT AS AMERICANS WE HAVE NO RIGHTFUL CLAIM TO OUR OWN LIVES AND TO OUR OWN PROPERTY. EVERYTHING THAT WE EARN FROM OUR LABOR—EVERYTHING THAT WE OWN THROUGH OUR HARD WORK AND PERSONAL SACRIFICE, WE OWE TO GOVERNMENT. CAN THIS BE TRUE? ARE WE NO LONGER ONE NATION UNDER GOD, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. DO WE SERVE OUR GOVERNMENT--OR DOES OUR GOVERNMENT SERVE US. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH. Mr. Dershowitz made this assertion that our Constitution is merely a piece of paper---that we Americans have no God-given, unalienable rights---during a televised debate with Alan Keyes at Franklin and Marshall College, in September 2000. Before the New York Times agreed to run our ad on February 10th, their lawyers wanted proof that Mr. Dershowitz actually said those things about our rights and the constitution. I had to agree to play the video tape, while holding a telephone near the television, so the Times’ lawyer could hear Mr. Dersowitz speaking those words. The times evidently expected a significant public reaction to our ad—and specifically to Mr. Dershowitz’s statements. I too, expected a significant reaction to Mr. Dershowitz’s comments, and to our message in the February 10th NY Times ad. I expected a resounding denunciation of Mr. Dershowitz’s statements by the so-called champions of liberty in our government--people like Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and congressional members of the Liberty Caucus. I expected to hear loud protests from the few patriotic members of our print and broadcast media like the Washington Times. I was certain that religious leaders across the country would passionately object to Mr. Dershowitz’s claim that Americans have no unalienable or constitutionally guaranteed right to religious expression without government approval. I expected patriotic attorneys and business people from every corner of our great nation to stand in protest of Mr. Dershowitz’s contention that our constitution is merely a piece of paper. I hoped, and believed that after reading the NY Times ad, American men and women from every walk of life would loudly reject Mr. Dershowitz’a claim that government should be given absolute control and supreme authority over our lives. But I was wrong. We heard from no one. No voice was raised in public in defense of our unalienable rights or the original meaning of our Constitution. We heard nothing from our elected officials, from mainstream journalists, from prominent constitutional lawyers, from religious or academic leaders, or from Washington think tanks. So what are we, the People, to make of this? Has the Constitution really become a dead letter? Has our sacred Bill of Rights been destroyed by an arrogant, out-of-control and unaccountable government that has no respect for the precious liberties of every American citizen. Do we the People no longer have the right, or the power, to establish boundaries around the authority of our federal government? We The People had better take notice. When government takes one step outside the boundaries drawn around its power, it takes possession of a boundless field of authority, no longer capable of definition. There is a word for rulers unrestrained by law or constitutions --for usurpers of the people’s sovereignty. That word is “Tyrant.” There is a word for a system of government in which the rulers have unlimited power. That word is “Despotism.” Government is the enemy of freedom. Unrestrained government is not the benefactor of the people. As Amercians, we democratically elect our political representatives. But America is not a Democracy. Democracy is mob-rule. In a Democracy, 51% of the voting population can deny 49% of their fellow citizens their unalienable rights to life, liberty and property. I ask you to think about it. Is that what our founders intended for us when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights over 200 years ago? In a Constitutional Republic, such as we have in America, EVERY one of our citizens---regardless of his or her race, religion, political influence, social status, or economic station in life---has unalienable, constitutionally protected rights that cannot be lawfully abridged by a power hungry government. And it is those Americans who are most vulnerable to the abuses of democratic mob-rule and government tyranny who are most protected by our Constitutional Republican form of government. We would do well to remember those occasions in modern history when democratically elected governments have violated their citizen’s most basic rights to life, liberty and property because a MAJORITY of the population found it acceptable. In America, there are only two things that stand between the people and government tyranny---those are our Constitution and our will as a free people to protect and defend it. IN AMERICA, THE RIGHT TO PETITION OUR GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES IS THE BASIS OF OUR LIBERTY. OUR FOUNDERS EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZED THIS RIGHT IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO OUR CONSTITUTION—FOR THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT WITHOUT IT, WE COULD NOT HAVE A SERVANT GOVERNMENT WHOSE POWER IS DEFINED AND LIMITED BY THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. In America, the right to petition our government for a redress of grievances is an unalienable right—it derives from our faith in a supreme being—an ultimate moral authority from whom we gain our understanding of equality, justice and the rule of law. Implicit in our first amendment constitutional right to petition our government for a redress of grievances, is the government’s absolute moral and legal obligation to respond honestly and completely to the people’s petition. This is the essential cornerstone of Popular Sovereignty – A government of the People, by the People, FOR the People. One of the earliest recorded guarantees of the people’s right to petition the King for redress of grievances is found in chapter 61 of the Magna Carta, written of 1215. Over time, Parliament came to claim the right to dictate the form of the King’s reply. By 1669, Parliament resolved that every commoner in England possessed “the inherent right to prepare and present petitions” to it “in case of grievance,” and that Parliament had “to receive the same” and to judge whether they were “fit” to be received. In 1689, Chapter 5 of the English Bill of Rights asserted the right of the subjects to petition the King and “all prosecutions for such petitioning to be illegal.” In other words, human liberty had evolved to the point where the government’s customary practice of using a person’s Petition for Redress as grounds for more persecution and abuse was firmly challenged on moral and legal grounds—it was no longer generally accepted that a persons rights and freedoms came from the king---but ultimately derived from a much higher authority It came to pass that a free people understood that, in practical effect, they had no rights—they were not really free--unless their right to Petition the government and government’s obligation to respond was guaranteed in writing. In 1776, as the concept of guaranteeing liberty through written constitutions evolved, the right to petition became the primary right of the People populating the states. That guarantee was expressed up front in the Constitutions of the Republics of New York State, Virginia, and the other State Republics as they came along. In 1791, the right to petition became the primary right of the People of the United States of America, expressed in the First Amendment to the federal Constitution. Some would now have us believe that our First Amendment right of petition is nothing more than a guarantee of free speech. That this vital constitutional protection—the very basis of our liberty---is simply a right to voice our grievances to the government. Some would try to convince us that We The People do not have the absolute right to an honest and complete response to our petition---or the authority to demand that our government correct the abuses and violations of our liberties that resulted in our petition. What nonsense! This is dangerous talk to a free people. We must not listen to those who would denigrate our constitution, and undermine the principles of liberty and justice that gave birth to our nation. At best they are imbeciles, and at worst they are tyrants -- or “sharing bedrooms” with tyrants. We must steel ourselves to this nonsense. We must harden our hearts to these false notions that government is God. Government has but one legitimate purpose---to serve and protect all of the people equally. Government is not God. It is our servant. It is accountable to We The People. The RIGHT to Petition for Redress of Grievances is the final protection – the final, check and balance in our system of Constitutional government in which the government derives its limited powers from the consent of the sovereign people. This is the right which publicly reveals and reiterates for all, who is Master and who is Servant If our RIGHT to Petition has truly become void of substance, we can ask no more than to see the truth. THIS HEARING IS ABOUT TRUTH. THIS HEARING IS ABOUT FACTS. WE ARE HERE TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE TRUTHS THAT WE HOLD TO BE SELF-EVIDENT. THIS HEARING IS ABOUT THE FUTURE OF OUR NATION----ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. This hearing is about the “LAW” and it is about what we have allowed our “GOVERNMENT” to become. But even more importantly, this hearing is about US---“WE THE PEOPLE”. Who we are and Who we want to be. What kind of country do we want to leave to our children and future generations of Americans. Over the next two days, you will hear the facts. You will see the law. You will be able to judge the truth. You will see how our government has crafted and perpetuated the largest illusion and fraud ever witnessed on planet Earth. You will learn the truth about a powerful central government that hates and fears personal freedom and individual responsibility, and sees popular sovereignty as a threat to its complete authority and control over our lives. We will prove conclusively that the United States federal government---like a thief in the night---has subtly, over many years, stripped the American people of our liberty, our property, and in many cases, our very lives in order to protect and perpetuate a fraudulent, debt-based money system---and the life-blood of that system---the horribly unjust and unconstitutional personal income tax. As you observe these truths being unveiled, consider how WE as a PEOPLE have let this happen. Consider the role that each of us as citizens has played as unwitting participants and silent conspirators as our leaders have slowly, and unlawfully seized the rights of the People. Soon the truth will be known to all. The day quickly approaches when we will be forced to act on these truths. If we fail to act, we will lose forever this chapter in human history when We The People reigned sovereign, and our government was bound by the chains of a written constitution. INCOME TAX: THE MOST PERNICIOUS FORM OF TYRANNY The most pernicious form of tyranny is that which disguises itself as a benefactor to its victims. Most people believe that the income tax system is legal and that the revenue from the tax is used in the public interest. It is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated by government against the working men and women of America. It is unconstitutional in its origin, and abusive in every aspect of its operation. It uses intimidation, threat and coercion to deprive us of our lawfully acquired property. It resorts to morally reprehensible conduct in a persistent effort to divide the American people and promote envy, greed and irresponsible behavior in our society. The unlawful and unjust income tax system produces nothing but sorrow, distress and calamity and division in our society. It has been imposed on an unsuspecting people through deceptive and fraudulent means –outside of constitutional restraints; Our income tax holds people in servitude as the chattel of others. It forces the people to labor to pay off a never ending and always growing national debt to a cartel of private banks. The income tax is enforced as though payment was compulsory when, in fact, it is voluntary. For decades, a growing number of attorneys, CPAs, retired judges, former and present IRS officers, educators, experienced researchers, former and present congressmen, legislators, successful businesspeople and scores of ordinary, nonaligned citizens have been providing a substantial amount of extremely credible evidence that since 1913 the Judiciary has been cooperating with the Executive and Legislative branches in a collective attempt to deny the People their constitutionally protected rights and to deprive the People of a significant percentage of the fruits of their labor by unlawfully enforcing the IRS Code -- a code that has no basis in law -- no legal authority. The evidence supports the now WIDELY HELD belief that: It was no coincidence that the Federal Reserve System----a PRIVATELY OWNED banking cartel that is not controlled, or even audited by our government----and the income tax were both imposed on the American people in 1913. The Federal Reserve System and the Internal Revenue Service were both created by the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution. We will prove at this hearing that the 16th Amendment is a fraud. That it was not lawfully ratified by ¾ of the States in 1913. And that as creations of the 16th Amendment, the Federal Reserve System and the IRS are not legitimate, constitutional operations of our government. The Federal Reserve System and the income tax are inextricably linked. The income tax was instituted to provide lender security and guaranteed profits to this highly secretive, privately owned and unaccountable central banking system that has obtained absolute control over our country and the federal government. You will learn at this hearing that most of the revenue generated from the income tax is not used to run the government but is collected by the private Federal Reserve System as interest on the national debt---money that this corrupt money system creates out of thin air, and then loans to the federal government—in a fraudulent scheme that has kept the American people is a state of perpetual debt to these private bankers for three quarters of a century. Since 1933, the privately owned Federal Reserve system has been granted the unconstitutional power to fabricate money out of thin air, charge interest to the government for the use of the Fed’s fabricated money and to receive taxes to pay that interest, paid with the American people’s labor. Today, the average American family pays more in taxes than it does for housing, food and clothing combined. By the end of this hearing you will KNOW that American citizens are compelled by the government to perform labor in order to pay off the government’s debt to the PRIVATE banking cartel---and that most Americans are in a condition of continual, economic slavery to the federal government and the privately owned Federal Reserve System (in violation of our rights guaranteed by the 13th Amendment). The evidence will also show that our system of income tax collection has led to widespread and unjustifiable abuse of the People’s unalienable due process rights. Among the significant wrongs committed by our government to perpetuate this fraud include: The unlawful indictment, prosecution and imprisonment of law-abiding Citizens who dare question the government’s legal authority to collect this tax. The unlawful seizures of property, wages, bank accounts --- all without court orders or proper warrants to satisfy supposed tax debts that, in fact, have no basis in law The pervasive and systemic denial of due process rights and other constitutional protections in the daily administrative operations of the IRS The collusion of the Courts in perpetuating the unlawful tax system by their failure to directly rule on proper legal challenges to our laws and the tacit approval of legal abuse by DOJ and the IRS against the People A system of tax regulations and legal definitions so complex and ambiguous that it conveniently defies comprehension and successful legal challenges. PETITION FOR REDRESS REGARDING THE INCOME TAX Researchers Benson, Schiff and others have been incarcerated because they asked the government to show them the law that gives the government the constitutional and statutory authority to impose an income tax on the people. The Executive, Legislative and the Judicial branches of our government continue to enforce the income tax law which they KNOW, without doubt, is unconstitutional and totally repugnant to our founding principles. We sponsored a symposium at the National Press Club here in Washington on July 1st and 2nd, 1999. We selected the National Press Club for three reasons: Washington is the media capital of the world and this issue needed media attention. The implications of the conclusions of the research by Messrs. Banister, Benson and Conklin, et al., are profound and of enormous national and international interest. 1. The 16th Amendment has, in fact, not been approved by ¾ of the State Legislatures, We are now in a Constitutional Crisis. The hearing today is but another step in the People’s determination to get to the truth regarding the fraudulent jurisdiction of the Federal Reserve System and the Internal Revenue Service and the illegal operations of the nation’s income tax system. IN CLOSING, The American People deserve – have a RIGHT – to a government that operates within the bounds of the law as defined by our Constitution. The government has been invited repeatedly to confront this research. Today, the evidence is brought before the People for their judgment. Thank you. Bob Schulz, Chairman |
Ruml wasnt wishing, he was reporting on things as they were --and are as far as I can tell. As Ruml infers, public policy trumps the Constitution. Take a look at U.S. v. BANKERS' TRUST CO., 294 U.S. 240 or Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 357. Quoting the later case:
"All rights tend to declare themselves absolute to their logical extreme. Yet all in fact are limited by the neighborhood of principles of policy which are other than those on which the particular right is founded, and which become strong enough to hold their own when a certain point is reached. The limits set to property by other public interests present themselves as a branch of what is called the police power of the state."Other examples of public policy trumping the constitution include gun laws, nonconvertable money, standing armies, siezing grandmas gold coins in 1933, the list goes on.
As I said, I am seeking wisdom only here, and I will learn from you if I can.
Agreed. However I'm not convinced we are governed by entities greatly inconvenienced by the Constitution, your assertions notwithstanding. Ruml is telling it like it is, not how he wants it to be. If we were in a constitutional republic, I can see the wisdom of a sales tax over an income tax.
On this planet however, if the Fairtax doesnt implement public policy, its congenitally flawed (not my coinage). Either the Texas grass roots draftees are woefully uninformed, or this whole Fairtax thing is a smokescreen to keep the debate going, and maintain useful illusions.
I would hazard that some of the big TP gurus are planted disinfo agents whose purpose is to indirectly maintain useful illusions. Just a thought. You do get annoyed at those gol danged TPrs dont you?
As Ruml infers, public policy trumps the Constitution.
"All rights tend to declare themselves absolute to their logical extreme."
I don't recall Ruml ever being crowned king.
The Constitutution, limits and set the bounds of public law/policy.
The legislative power of Congress provides the Public Law, that is policy.
Obviously you must be reading one of them new "living" Constitutions, not the Constitution for the United States of America."
Other examples of public policy trumping the constitution include gun laws, nonconvertable money, standing armies, siezing grandmas gold coins in 1933, the list goes on.
Standing armies?
siezing grandmas gold coins in 1933:
gun laws?
nonconvertable money?
the list goes on.
What list, be specific and provide actual examples that can be evaluated and measured against the enumerated powers of the "Constitution for the United States of America."
Your mere assertion in these matters demands an actual review to determine what you think you are talking about. All I read, thus far is your personal uncritical opinion that such things are true.
As I said, I am seeking wisdom only here, and I will learn from you if I can.
Why do I doubt that very much? And who am I to be setup as someone to learn from?
Seek your own wisdom, if wisdom is what you want, it is not to be found here.
I'll discuss things endlessly, but wisdom, truth? Hey no way am I a font of that, all I can do is research and point to the historical record concerning the constitution and the laws of this nation so others can make their own determinations.
Come to think of it, perhaps Schultz and Company are indulged because they keep the tax debate going, perpetuating the idea that the IRS is getting away with something unconstitutional. Useful idiots perhaps.
If you want to believe that, Schulz appears to be more misinformed than anything, many of the others could be classed more as scam artists using the platform to pull in more marks for their scams:
I'm sure their message sounded good to Mr. Sloan too:
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income.KANNE, Circuit Judge.
- Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.
- The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.
- We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.
The New American, house publication of the John Birch Society sees things pretty much as I do.
Patriot Beware!
by Thomas R. Eddlem
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm
I would hazard that some of the big TP gurus are planted disinfo agents whose purpose is to indirectly maintain useful illusions. Just a thought.
Could be, it is not an unknown practice of the DOJ to run such stings to catch the unwary.
You do get annoyed at those gol danged TPrs dont you?
Nope, I am concerned much more about those who respond to their siren song sacrificing there property and often liberty on the scam artist's alter.
TP'rs (defined as those who seek profit by missleading others into ill-considered actions, or use them as guinea pigs or cannon fodder in their schemes.) deserve what ever comes there way as far as the legal beomouth is concerned.
Not sure what you are driving at with Ruml personally. He said (and as a Fed Chairman he ought to have known) that taxes arent necessary for revenue, they are only to implement public policy. This goes to the heart of any tax discussion.
"All rights tend to declare themselves absolute to their logical extreme."
Ruml didnt say that, Mr. Justice Holmes said it delivering the opinion of the court in Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter, 209 U.S. 349, 357. You did check that one didnt you? Here's the another one. Joint Resolution of Congress, June 5, 1933, ordered that:
“any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby' is 'against public policy.'”Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court in U.S. v. BANKERS' TRUST CO., 294 U.S. 240 affirming the June 5, 1933 Joint Resolution saying
.., there attaches to the ownership of gold and silver those limitations which public policy may require by reason of their quality as legal tender and as a medium of exchange.So again, the SCOTUS is telling us public policy overcomes property rignts guaranteed by the constitution. Am I reading the cases wrong?
Indeed it was atrocious, and folks werent exactly 'encouraged' to turn over their gold property.
On April 5, 1933, FDR issued Executive Order No. 6l02 entitled "Executive Order Forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates." Under this order banks were required to turn over all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates "owned or received by them," to a Federal Reserve Bank on or before May 1, 1933. They had less than a month. This included gold owned by the banks and their depositors. With a few minor exceptions for collectables, and material for the arts, all privately owned gold in the United States was taken by the Government. As compensation, the owners received paper money worth about 60 percent of the value of the gold they once owned. Willful failure to turn over all gold was punishable by up to ten years in jail and/or up to a $10,000 fine.
FDR did this under his emergency powers for what he vaguely termed "the public interest". Constitutional? Not by a long shot. In accord with public policy--yes--thats what they claimed.
“any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby' is 'against public policy.'”
Again, public policy is set by public law enacted by Congress under the authority of the Constitution.
Since Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, it has the authority to regulate the content of contracts and the obligations of contracts involved in that interstate commerce.
Wherein is your point. Public Policy, is the ultimate expression of Public Law enacted and limited by the provision of the Constitution.
Your examples only provide clear recognition of the authorities of Congress to regulate the instuments used in Interstate Commerce.
Your Point is???
Under this order banks were required to turn over all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates "owned or received by them," to a Federal Reserve Bank on or before May 1, 1933. They had less than a month.
And private citizens could still hold collectible gold. As I stated earlier the manner in which FDR brought the transition from gold to paper money about was indeed abusive, and intrusive, and outright unconscionable. He should have been impeached and removed from office by the Senate by rights for malfeasance of office.
He wasn't anymore than Clinton was. That however does not touch the authority of Congress to coin metal money in something other than gold or to allow bank debt notes as the preferred medium of exchange.
Again what is your point? That the people and/or their suragates the political parties of the times let government officials to get away with malfeasence? That is nothing more than a truism.
That happens, and it is up to the people to hold officials accountable. But that takes a virtuous people totally dedicated to the "eternal vigilance". The fact that officials can skate around the law, is nothing new. That however does not invalidate the Constitution, nor the authorities government officials should be held accountable to.
You countinually seem to be grabbing at anectdotes regarding particular instances of malfeasance and abuse of particular officials at particular times and appear to want to make that a case for no viable Constitution.
I don't buy the premise. For the Constitution exists, and it is up to the people to assure officials representing them in office are of sufficient virtue and integrity to abide by the precepts of that Constitution.
When the electorate falls down on the job, there representatives reflect their constituents virtue, they can be no more nor no less than the stock they come from.
The key point is the Constitution does indeed exist, it is in clear language, its historical foundations are readily available allowing for understanding of it.
In my opinion and sense of things, This Constitutional govenment is self restoring over time. When the electorate is ready to take hold of the responsibility that is theirs, the Constitution can be enforced by replacing scoundrels in office with a more virtuous representation. Until then we are reaping that which we have sown and we have created for ourselves. That is what I see as a built in attribute of our form of govenment. When the people screw up, they pay a price for it, and that price is abusive government. When the people are virtuous so will their representation be and good government is the consequence.
So if you want a virtuous government that respects and supports fundamental individual rights, guess what you had better work on yourself and your neighbors, to get it.
Not sure what you are driving at with Ruml personally.
Whatever. I'm not interested in promoting Ruml's plans for using the nation's tax system as a tool for political control. That is what the income/payroll VAT system that is in place does and is, and that is one of many reasons it must go. That is as much as needs to be said concerning why its there. Since my goal is to get rid of it, I don't need to delve into why socialist want it, that is a given.
He said (and as a Fed Chairman he ought to have known) that taxes arent necessary for revenue, they are only to implement public policy. This goes to the heart of any tax discussion.
Ruml's views are an expression of an economic and political philosophy and nothing more. They are not the foundations laid down by the Constitution.
Fed Chairman, so what? He was a political appointee, a hack for a particular administration appointed precisely for the views he held. He is the reflection of the FDR social reform philosophies.
You want to quote Ruml as some personage I should be agreeing with or must bow to as one espousing some inevitable picture of necessity. I don't, I am interested in creating a system of taxation that meets the minimalist view of what a tax should be, and what a tax should do under the Constitution. I am not in the least interested in what a tax system can be warped into as a tool of political and social reform to achieve the ends of a socialist view of the nation. For I do not support the current tax system that is in place, I merely show that it is supportable as a Constitutionally allowed system, not one that is desirable or apporpriate for this nation.
I am not a socialist, so I can quite readily disagree with what they may see as their impairatives and work to take the tools they use out of their hands. That is why I work to replace the income/payroll tax structure in this nation. It, in my opinon, is not what should be in place nor is it appropriate to assure the protection of individual rights of life liberty and property at he greatest extension possible under a capitalist economy of this Republic.
Now you can continue to waste your time looking for chimerae in political and economic jargon, I am more interested in how to reduce and restrain the monster our national government has become.
I see the first step in the correct direction to be a tax system that provides visibility of the burden of government on the citizen to bring of the cost of that next grand program home before his eyes and attention instead of being hidden behind a veil of inflation and skewed tax calculations deliberately designed to give a false impression.
From a representative measurement of the cost of government, in his life, the citizen then has the capacity to make reasoned determinations of the direction he wishes to support as regards the nature of his representation and the government that is the result.
Perceived cost in regard to benefit is a powerful tool in the marketplace, and there is no reason whatsoever why that tool should not be in the hands of the citizen in politics. In fact it is, in my opinion, an absolute necessity in order to say that the citizen can in any way hold government accountable or move government in a reasoned direction rather than merely chasing the ephemeral freebee that seems to be the game plan now.
Until the people have their blinders removed their will be no change in the nature of government as it exists currently. I work to remove the blinders from those in the lower 50% of the individual income tax brackets, and in the same step remove the legal jeopardy imposed on the individual by the income/payroll tax system in use today.
Your theories of who's controlling what and why/how are of no interest to me. I have a pretty good idea of where you are going with it and have seen it before. Not interested, as it fails the occum's razor test, as well as the laugh test.
I'm tired and ready to head out. So good night.
When you are ready to talk about solutions, rather than spin theories I'll be around.
Neat word 'chimaera'. It can mean monster, or a fancy of the mind. You say you are looking for the monster..., well so am I.
I agree with the idea of a sales tax in lieu of an income tax. I dont agree that the framers contemplated a 36+ percent tax rate. The whole intent of their system was limited government. I very much agree with your assessment that we have the government we deserve. We dumb ourselves down and seek only to entertain ourselves. We cant handle the truth. I doubt we could live under the Constitution as it was intended. That takes a sense of responsibility as you point out.
Before we invent constitutional tax schemes we ought to look out over the landscape to discover the devices they are using to circumvent it. Lately, the notion of 'public policy' strikes interest, especially when the SCOTUS says it trumps constitutional guarantees. Whoa--- that trail becomes warmer. Type in 'public policy' into Google and 20,000 hits appear. The first hundred or so are public policy 'think tanks' in Washington DC. DC must be 'think tank' central. Who hires these guys? What kind of heirarchy surrounds this industry? If you know, do tell.
I agree with the idea of a sales tax in lieu of an income tax. I dont agree that the framers contemplated a 36+ percent tax rate.
Nor does any rational person who knows he is paying it.
However that does not enlighten as to the real essense of the problem with taxes:
Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:
- "the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people."
Now taken to the "logical extreme" of yours, that would suggest a hidden tax system would be all nice and dandy. Only problem is when no-one feel the cost, guess what major maxim rules:
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Which does nothing for our problem of creeping socialism; as our current tax system is specifically designed to warp the perceptions of the electorate such that a large proportion think there really is a toothfairy and their favorite Congress Critters have and inside track to the toothfairy's treasure chest.
Before we invent constitutional tax schemes we ought to look out over the landscape to discover the devices they are using to circumvent it.
Occum's razor remember?
The Honorable James DeMint (R-SC)
United States House of RepresentativesTHURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2001
12:00 noon"In 1996, Congress passed a historic welfare reform law that has dramatically reduced the number of Americans who depend on welfare. In spite of this positive development, Representative DeMint is concerned about the steady growth of a welfare/entitlement state that extends well beyond the poor and is forcing millions of middle income Americans into dependency.
There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government. And at that point, DeMint warns, we have reached a major crisis in our democracy."
Milton Friedman as quoted by Northwest Florida Daily News, 10-16-2000:
- "If we're to have an income tax, it's a good thing for everyone to pay at least a nominal amount," he said. "If non-taxpayers become a majority in society, what would restrain them from voting for ever higher taxes on others?"
Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000
According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?
If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?
This is a representative form of government, a republic, the officials who hold the reins of control and policy are elected by:
However, as regards the passage of specific law, a relatively small but vocal plurality can overcome the clamor of that 70%;
The key is to provide a package that has some concession to each of the constituencies that are being pandered to.
H.R.2525
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/17/2001)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org
It provides the necessary visibility of the cost of government in the lives of all citizens, yet provides an effective exclusion of taxation for the lowest increment of consumption that a person engages in to sustain life at poverty level. It is done through a monthly payment to all household based only on household size, and the requirement than the members of the household be legal residents. (it doesn't subsidize illegal aliens).
I'm not going into the details but that is the overview, and it is a plan that I find is acceptable among nomial liberals as well as conservatives. Such an act can be pressed through Congress and once inplace the features of visiblity will act on the electorate in the same manner of making kid pay their lunch ticket does, he starts looking for bargains to keep as much of his lunch allowence as he can. Course you get it back from him in the taxes he pays, but the lesson is impressed that the lunch wasn't free.
Lately, the notion of 'public policy' strikes interest
Not mine, human nature is much more powerful and the root of how the political system must behave, when the officials making law that establishes policy are subject to an electorate. We got here through the perfidy of human nature as reflected in the representative elected by a public looking for freebees. We will only reverse the trend by working within the rules of that framework.
'public policy' ... SCOTUS says it trumps constitutional guarantees.
Bovine excretement, that is what you want to read into a very narrow statement of a court case.
The Constitution, limits the expression of enactments of public law to the enumerated powers. The Public law is the expounder of legislative intent,(i.e. public policy). Intent of particular officials cannot override the Constitution when the people rise to the occasion and excercise responsibility in challenging official who attempt to avoid or work around the limit of the Constitution.
"all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
Declaration of Independence
That is the mechanism of your shadow "public policy", especially in this Republic.
Their are those who undoubtedly wish to control, and each of the obviously would like to exercise their own private policy in favor of their favorite agendas. That however is not the expression of "public policy" no matter what some institute or "think tank" would like to arrogate unto themselves.
Such policies actually agendas are filtered through public law, subject to the constitutional limits of the enumerated powers of Congress. Congress and ultimately the expression of any agenda is subject to that suffering mankind of the Declaration that sleeping or not hold the electoral reins.
You want to play the, monster pulling puppet strings/master conspiracy of world domination, game. I don't buy it, I do buy agendas subject to the electorate's laziness and lack of attention.
If you want to go down your man behind the curtain conspiracy theories of government, I'm not interested, and you can talk to yourself or find someone else to play straight man to your pseudo-debate techinique. I ain't buying it.
BS or no, the SCOTUS makes it clear that public policy, legislative intent, favored agendi, or whatever we wish to call it--takes precedence over the Constitution. Public policy amounts to what We the People would rather have. Can the high court force the Constitution on us?
...,man behind the curtain conspiracy theories of government
Public policy isnt exactly a secret black operation, unless Fairtax.org is a black op. There are 27 links to public policy think tanks on your webpage. I read "Examining a Change to a National Retail Sales Tax Regime: Impact on Households" from the Decisions and Ethics Center Stanford University (a think tank). The rebate proposed therein is not unlike the EITC. Both are unconstitutional tax collections for specific rather than the general welfare, are they not? They are both concessions to current public policy however--correct?
That being the case, you and I have nothing to discuss. As it is obvious that you are not a person who is interested in working for change from the status quo.
Good night.
To paraphrase a statement out of the past, if we don't hang together, we shall surely hang individually.
I refuse to accept, incapacity of action. As long as I have a capacity to communicate with other individuals, to bring them, at least temporarily if not permanently, to common cause to initiate events that have potential to induce change toward a more fundamentally sound interaction between government and the people that is more in line with the founding principles of the nation.
I do not throw out the advance for lack of absolute prefect to some absolute ideal. Nothing of man works to such a standard nor ever will. We do the best we can as individuals and working with our fellow man. Then pass on with God to judge the worthiness of our souls and efforts.
Beyond that there is nothing more of consequence. That is the sole essense of our existence.
Worrying ourselves into impotency over ephemeral grand designs, is a deadend leading to stagnation and no advance for diffusion of resource. One tackles what is whithin there own sight and capacity and leaves the rest to others and to God.
Not a bad philosophy. Thank you for that. And believe me, it would be easier to just believe all the stuff they tell us. I dont expect the great nation full of unswervingly brave and virtuous people that some of us (you?) are striving for. Heaven knows I'm short of great and virtuous myself.
I was fine till Clinton. Didnt care too much about JFK, Watergate, Iran Contra, but Clinton seemed so smarmy. I was oddly depressed on his election night. Then we had Waco, Flight 800, Vince Foster, OKC, John John, (am I leaving any out)? From all this I learn about 80's stuff I missed like Mena, the boys on the tracks, the CIA/Barry Seal, BCCI, Promis, the October surprise, yadda yadda yadda.
So that brings us to WTCs and the box cutter explanation. Sheesh--whats next? There are some serious hoods amongst the good people running the country. From all appearance the lawless element has more power than the majority of good civil servants. Is that paranoid? Those who go nuts over WWF Smackdown, and dont otherwise know diddly squat are never called paranoid.
Taxes? Too damn high, so high that they couldnt be constitutional. But do they have to be constitutional? I'm starting to wonder if they can be anything we allow them to be. I applaud your efforts. I applaud your ability to move ahead on one thing.
I'm starting to wonder if they can be anything we allow them to be.
The ultimate resposibility lays with us to assure the Constititution means something. It is our expression of will and tactical means to a strategic goal:
Constitution for the United States of America:
Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty, the Constitution can only be the goad and reminder of where to direct our Vigilance, and ultimately our actions.
We the people ignore it to our own peril.
I remind you of Patrick Henry's concern:
Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:
The amount, reflects only our avarice as a people, the mode is due to our lack of vigilance and attention to principal. The authority of Congress to enact a tax is general and plenary. It is the fundamental responsibility of the People to set the course and lay the limits of that authority for any the condition of the age they live in.
Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171
Champion v. Ames(1903), 186 U.S. 321
ETERNAL VIGILANCE my friend, there is no substitute. Government is directed by the people and is nothing more the the reflection of their own virtue and integrity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.