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 |
Quite right, they are not equal. Thank you for your answer but you didnt need to stay up all night. Mr Rumls 'common good' as you call it is really public policy. Public policy ruled the country then, and it rules the country now. So its a bit bigger than Mr Ruml, although he was among its architects.
Public policy (as I understand it) is the ideal American life in some groups view, an American utopia. Taxation is the principal means of implementing and maintaining public policy. Mr Ruml wasnt proposing anything, we was complaining about a part of public policy then.
In practical fact, we dont have a constitutional republic, we have an American utopia in compliance to public policy. Thats really where the TPs go wrong isnt it? They fix on the unconstitutionality of federal taxation, when in fact the constitution has nothing to do with it. I see you as Beardsleys intellectual equal, and yet you keep harping back to the constitution. I think you know better. Why do you do that? I suspect you know more about public policy than most.
'common good' as you call it is really public policy. Public policy ruled the country then, and it rules the country now.
'Common good' is not my term it is Rumls term, and refer to the foundation of socialist policy.
'Public policy' is and always has been the intent of legislative acts of Congress from day one of the Republic. It is the legislative purpose of the act. Your distinction carries no weight as regards the construction of statutes. That has always been the pole star of judicial construction of statute.
U S v. FISHER, 6 U.S. 358 (1805)
- "It is undoubtedly a well established principle in the exposition of statutes, that every part is to be considered, and the intention of the legislature to be extracted from the whole."
FindLaw: U S v. GOLDENBERG, 168 U.S. 95,103 (1897)
"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of words and the rules of grammar. The courts have no function of legislation, and simply seek to ascertain the will of the legislator.
FindLaw: RODGERS v. U S, 185 U.S. 83 (1902)
"The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature."FOSTER v. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 118 (1938)
"Courts should construe laws in harmony with the legislative intent and seek to carry out legislative purpose."
FindLaw: S.E.C v. C. M. JOINER LEASING CORP., 320 U.S. 344,351 (1943)
"... courts will construe the details of an act in conformity with its dominating general purpose, will read text in the light of context and will interpret the text so far as the meaning of the words fairly permits so as to carry out in particular cases the generally expressed legislative policy.
Taxation is the principal means of implementing and maintaining public policy.
Taxation, predominately corportate and indivdual income taxes, may be used for such, it is not the prime function of taxation as regards the intent of the Constitution.
Beardsly Ruml is not the expounder of the Constitution, he is merely another minion expressing an opinion of socialist intrusion into this nation's politics.
In practical fact, we dont have a constitutional republic,
We have a constitutional Republic regardless of the distortions of the socialist environment in which it now operates.
we have an American utopia in compliance to public policy.
Meaningless jargon. We have a two party system(dominent Factions) competing for political power by coercing votes through demogoguery and legislative chicanery.
Thats really where the TPs go wrong isnt it? They fix on the unconstitutionality of federal taxation
Nope, for they are looking to join the majority in being able to ignore the real costs of government, and get on the same gravytrain, of apparent or no taxation of themselves. The net and ultimate result of which will be accelerated growth of government through the perception of freebees buying votes. It's called:
Representation without Taxation
And the TPr's success in achieving there personal tax free goal, will be the total death knell of the Republic, for without the goad of taxation there can be no demand for fiscal accountability of the government to the electorate.
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?
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.
I see you as Beardsleys intellectual equal,
You live in a delusional world my friend.
and yet you keep harping back to the constitution. I think you know better. Why do you do that?
I keep harping back to the Constitution because the Constitution is what defines and limits the authority of government in this Republic.
As far as what you may imagine, that is of no concern to me.
I suspect you know more about public policy than most.
I know nothing, I can read and research with objectivity however. Which is something I am beginning to suspect is a rare commodity among the tax resistor community(aka TP mob).
So you think that our "republic" which is built upon a Constituion inclusive of a re-address of grievances by the people is sustainable while ignoring methods of petitioning grievances? Man, you have a lot to learn. Our nation is built upon bloodshed based upon the same deaf ear we are seeing today by contemporary government stealth.
What do you think America is about? A cattle yard with self-voted cattle prods striking us by our elected representatives?
So you think that our "republic" which is built upon a Constituion inclusive of a re-address of grievances by the people is sustainable while ignoring methods of petitioning grievances?
Redress of grievances is through the Courts, and through Congress when the Court does not suffice.
The Courts and Congress have addressed your grievances with current law and enforcement of that law. Whether you like their answers or the result in that context is irrelevant.
If you do not like their answers or the result, it is up to you to enlist me the individual voter of the validity of your grievence and to offer up an plan for resolving them with an acceptable alternative to the current source of your grievance. To qualify for my aid in changing the law or changing Congress to make sure the law is ultimately changed, you must validate your position with reasoned and authoritative debate.
So far none of you have done the first thing towards validating your position but offer your personal desires through hyperbole and emotional outbursts, out of context and mis-quotation of historical records totally lack in objective scholarship.
In my observation Tax Resistance movement's plea amounts to Taxation without Representation.
On the basis of my research and understanding of the Constitution that plea does not meet my concept of a valid grievance.
Lay out your case, and demonstrate its value in the face of vigourously opposed debate based on reason. I'm not interested in your emotional diatribes of not wanting to pay taxes that are clearly authorised under the Constitution of the United States in accord with my understanding of the Constitution and intent of the authors of that Constitution.
I have clearly and repeatedly laid out my position and in part the research basis from I draw my conclusion.
To enlist my aid in your cause, it is up to you to provide the authorative and reasoned rebuttal to the product of my research.
What do you think America is about?
A Constitutional Republic, which operates under the rule of law, not the the majority views of a plebicite.
You however have expressed what you are not about America:
I don't believe in government, any government;
That sir is anarchy, and not the government described by the Constitution for the United States. We live withing the framework of a representative form of government called a Republic which operates in the national mode upon the individual citizen.
This is not an anarachy of every man for himself with the rule of the warlord with the biggest guns takes the prize.
Your Hyperbole and wrapping yourself in pseudo-patriotism is denied by your expression of anarchy.
You live by too many "laws." You live by too many "laws" that are in opposition to the Constitution. Our nation is not built upon "laws" but by an ignored method to control "laws." You fell into the trap of believing in government as opposed to believing in our country.
I believe, you have no concept about the basis of our nation.
You want to convince me to aid in your dream of Taxation without Representation.
I see that as the fundamental cause of the trend into socialism this nation in experiencing.
It is a concept totally foreign to my sense of paying my way, expressed as "Stanstaffel, their ain't no free lunch.
You want my aid or support, you convince me or go your own way.
The Constitution lays out the means to pay for the enumerated functions of the national government in the form of taxation paid out of the product of individuals who benefit from their presense in this nation.
Constitution for the United States of America:
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #12:
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #21:
James Madison, Federalist #39:
James Madison, Federalist #45:
James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:
James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention
4 Dec. 1787 Elliot 2:466--68
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.
"Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"
James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:
Now, begin your rationalization and rebuttal in support for Representation without Taxation under the "Constitution for the United States of America."
You are a horror story towards individual freedoms and liberties that our nation founded; not for government tyranny but for you and your family, as well. You don't believe in yourself, do you? You believe folks *NEED* control, don't you?
I notice that your links are federalists as oppossed to Anti-federalists. You are the contemporary realization of debate before the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.
The anti-federalists argued against the Constitution and for retaining the Articles of Confederation.
They lost, the Constitution was ratified by the people of that time, not just there state governments and accepted in accord with the representations of it by its proponents and authors in the Federalist Newspaper and the Debates of the time.
We live under that ratified Constitution, that lays the ground rules.
If you are proposing the overthrow of the Republic guaranteed under that Constitution, you and I have no further basis for debate. That is where it comes down to guns under another provision of that Constitution which you as a member of militia are bound to uphold:
Constitution for the United States of America:
Article I Section 8: Congress shall have power ...
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
You are a horror story towards individual freedoms and liberties that our nation founded; not for government tyranny but for you and your family, as well.
I believe that that Constitution and the government instituted thereby is the guarantor of those freedoms and liberties, to not uphold the provisions of that Constitution is to deny the freedoms and liberties that our nation was founded under.
As an member of the military I once took an oath to uphold and defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I may no longer be an active member of that military but that oath remains. For without that Constitution there is no United States of America, there is no Union of which it speaks, and there is no country underwhich responsible free men may live and prosper.
Are you placing yourself in opposition to the authority of that Constitution and its amendments?
Do you have a light on within your conscience?
You belief system, to use a phase, "sucks."
My belief system rests on the Constitution and hold all parties including that government to its provisions.
That is the only way it can work, and yes my conscience is very clear and fully illuminated.
You have yet to begin anykind of support for you position, other than, every man for himself. Since you apparently hold the Constitution no longer exists for you, obviously you cannot look to the institutions of that Constitution to render a solution to your petition of grievance.
So what are you complaining about? Seems to me you are no longer protected under the Constitution that you deny exists or has authority. You are fair game for whoever has a bigger gun.
Good luck,
A. Geezer
Your denial of the basic foundations of our nation. That you deny individual freedoms and liberties while sucking up to "laws" that are not provisioned under the Constitution. I am complaining about your position that has no basis in fact other than a few cheap tricks by a few politicians that have graduated over time.
What can you expect from someone so dependent on the fruits of others labor that in his denial thinks it comes from the President:
Subject: Re: 27 Benefits From the Fair TaxI suppose now he'd like you to think/believe Bush is "pay'n" him.Just how much you gett'n paid to confuse the issue? Clinton's pay'n me 1700 a month.
Sent 11/28/99 16:49:38 PST by ancient_geezer [ Reply | Delete ]
I don't believe in government, any government;
"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"
Article I Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,
Article II Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Article III Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
That is a government under the Constitution;
You have declared that you do not believe in "any government".
I can only presume you meant that, thereby you do not believe in the Constitution nor the amendment thats were ratified under its law.
You deny "the basic foundations of our nation." You deny the guarantee of those "individual freedoms and liberties" that Constitution was instituted to protect.
You offer only an emotional diatribe as your position, and your own statements belie any right to demand redress because you do not believe the institutions designed to assure the enforcement of law guaranteeing the respect of your fundamental rights exist.
I am complaining about your position that has no basis in fact other than a few cheap tricks by a few politicians that have graduated over time.
You have made no effort to demonstrate that. It is merely an assertion of your belief, which includes by the way a lack of belief "in government, any government;"
To whom do you expect to turn, for redress of grievance? You believe an anarchy, see to your own redress. Neither I nor the government under the Constitution owe you the time of day, much less redress for your claimed grievance. You don't believe ""in government, any government;" remember?
Sorry just doesn't seem to be anyone to listen, as the Republican form of government guaranteed to the states under that Constitution doesn't exist by your own belief and admission.
You're on your own buddy.
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.