Q&A approach to opening new understanding

[Osborn F Enready]

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
The people are not repsonsible and cannot make decisions regarding the constitutionality of the acts and laws of congress. That is the job of our judges and elected officials.

I say:
I have to point out, you are not only wrong, but it is specified exactly.

What do you suppose is the reason for having a "DEMAND for Redress of Grievance"?

This is when representatives act outside accordance to the will of the citizens. This is the last step, before LEGAL, constitutional revolution. This is a Constitutional process, and is directly addressed.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(clip from: http://www.givemeliberty.org/Freedom...hulzSpeech.htm)
The founding fathers, in an act of the Continental Congress in 1774, said, "If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility."

This very American Right of Redress of Grievances Before Taxes is deeply embedded in our law.

The founding fathers could hardly have used words more clear when they declared, "the people … may retain [their money] until their grievances are [remedied]."

By these words, the founding fathers fully recognized and clearly stated: that the Right of Redress of Grievances includes the right of Redress Before payment of Taxes, that this Right of Redress Before Taxes lies in the hands of the People, that this Right is the People’s non-violent, peaceful means to procuring a remedy to their grievances without having depend on – or place their trust in -- the government’s willingness to respond to the People’s petitions and without having to resort to violence.

Before going further, I’d like to clarify two points: first, the question we are dealing with here is not whether the government has the power to tax, but whether the government is abusing its constitutionally limited power to tax; and second, there is the question of whether the government is using the tax revenue to effect other abuses of its authority.

The founding fathers were well acquainted with the fact that government is the enemy of Freedom, that those wielding governmental power despise petitions from the People; the representatives of the People, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the People themselves and exhibit strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any quarter.

The founding fathers knew that it was possible for the institutions of the Congress, the Executive and the Courts to someday begin to fail in their duty to protect the people from tyranny. They knew that unless the People had the right to withhold their money from the government their grievances might fall on deaf ears and Liberty would give way to tyranny, despotism and involuntary servitude.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states clearly and unambiguously, "Congress shall make NO law …abridging …the right of the people … to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

While some Rights are reserved with qualifications in the Bill of Rights, there are none whatsoever pertaining to the Right of Redress. There are no limits on the Right of Redress. Any constitutional offense is legitimately petitionable.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
The New Deal has no relevance to the government of today.

I say:
The New Deal has much relevance to the government of today.
(isn't it rude when people don't elaborate. hint hint.)

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
What parts of the government have been changed to go against the constitution? And make sure they are legitimate and not changes that are interpreted by our judges.

I say:
Excuse me? Why would it make a shred of difference if or if not interpreted by a judge?

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
Tell me exactly HOW the people derived their own power and not the delegates who debated and finally created the constitution.

I say:
OK.

It is called the Preamble, and it frames the purpose and power wielders in the Constitution.

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.

The only thing that can remove it, is what created it, we the people.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
"They [representatives we vote in] have failed on numerous occasions with no threat of accountability due to violations occuring over such an expanse of time, that the people couldn't effectively raise argument to the problems while those that changed the laws were in office."

The representatives fail us, not the government system.

I say:
What I am saying, and I don't think you understand, is that if a representative fails, he is to be held responsible. If many fail, and pass laws that violate THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, this is provable movement toward despotism.

(clippet from: http://www.givemeliberty.org/Freedom...hulzSpeech.htm )
We have established that the Founding Fathers clearly declared that the Right of Redress of Grievances includes the Right to withhold payment of taxes while the grievance remains. By the 1st Amendment, the founding fathers secured for posterity the Right of Redress of Grievances Before payment of Taxes and they made the Right of Redress Before Taxes operate against "the government," that is, against all branches of "the government," -- the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches. Redress reaches all.

Notice that the founding fathers, sitting as the Continental Congress in 1774, held that this Right of Redress Before Taxes was the means by which "the public tranquility" was to be maintained. Then, sitting as the Constitutional Convention, the founding fathers declared that one of the major purposes of the (federal) government was to "insure domestic tranquility." Therefore, whenever this Right of Redress is violated, the People have a double grievance: a denial of justice by the government and, an incitement by the government to general unrest.

Today, our concern is the grievance that falls under the heading of a design to subvert the Constitution and laws of the country by those wielding governmental power.

[Osborn F Enready]

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
Ok, maybe my historical example was confusing, so I will restate my state division one, which is just like the Spain one, and I want to hear why and how the division of states socially and religiously is justified:

"Say New Jersey has a large amount of Muslims as their leaders and main population. With a central government, they have little religious authority over law making. With more power to the states, they can give more power to the Muslim religion, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, I'm just speaking hypothetically. With more power to the Muslims in New Jersey, why would you want to live in New York, where say more Catholics live and are being treated better? Now you have a growing population of Muslims in NJ and more and more Catholics in NY. This causes religious strife and tensions. This causes DIVISION."

A divided nation is ineffective, violent, and will cause more harm than an ineffective and violent central government. In the latter case, the people are united and are strong in numbers and can overthrow a violent and completely ineffective government. In the former case, the people are divided and are fighting amongst each other and have no strong numbres to get any reforms accomplished. Civil is a common effect of this division. Look at the United States civil war for example, in why two sides of the nation disagreed over an economical advantage, but a social disadvantage (slavery). Prove me otherwise historically or by another means that these divisions either will not happen, or will be positive for our nation, if that term has any meaning to you.

I say:
I take offense at your accusation, but I will let it pass in the hopes of clearer understanding.

As to your question: The state, or nation, has no intrest in observing religious divide. The state, nor the Federal Government recognize any state or federal advocated religion. There is no such thing, and the basis of this argument is bunk. Slavery was imposed servitude by force, being condoned, or at least RECOGNIZED by the government. Religion is a personal choice, and it is specified in the Constitution that the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This type of strife can only be dealt with when RIGHTS are violated.

I do not want to insult you, but we are not even on the same page here. You example is not a valid example to question, in regards to state or federal authority. The last paragraph of your post that I highlighted is purely speculation on opinion about a divided nation. What constitutes a "nation" that works without divide? As of now, many states have concealed carry weapons laws, and many do not. THEY ARE DIVIDED. This provides a choice for people who refuse to accept that they are not allowed by law to carry a loaded, concealed weapon. Your entire argument here is flawed, from its core.

Please examine what I just said, and understand that I cannot address things this far out of context, as it is not reasonable nor justifiable in happening. Now go up to Sonarts post, and notice how he cites evidence, in a legal, or constitutional format. I look forward to addressing his argument, as it is solidly based, though flawed.

Also, as I said in the beginning of the thread: Please limit how many subjects you address per post, as it makes for long drawn out answers in reply.

[Osborn F Enready]

Protostars statements in italics, my answers are in standard type.

I don't really know how to respond to this thread, as I agree with Osborn on alot of issues. Here is where I stand on some issues:

-Get rid of all Social Welfare Programs. Allow Charity and Church organizations to take care of the poor and handicapped.

Answer: This is the only way to Constitutionally do this, as you state. Welfare programs CAN exist Constituionally, just not programs funded by DIRECT taxation to the people, or by INDIRECT taxation of the people. It would have to be voluntary donation to be Constitutional, and not done by a government controlled entity.

-Abortion. Roe/Wade would be overturned and the right to regulate abortion would be sent back to the states where it belongs. And no more federal funds would be allocated to pay for abortions. You want your choice, fine, you pay for it.

Answer: There is no right to regulate abortion, or any other surgery a private citizen contracts of his own means and accord to be done to themselves. People are their own masters, and have full control of their own bodies and minds if deemed to be adults, and rights holding citizens.

-the 16th Amendment would be repealed and the federal government would no longer have the power to levy an income tax. To pay for operation of the federal government, the states would be required to give the government a percentage of the sales taxes they collect. Something reasonable like 2%.

Answer: You have to understand what a DIRECT and an INDIRECT tax is. Direct taxation, such as income tax is ALREADY unconstitutional, as it is DIRECTLY forbidden in the Constitution. The 16th amendment changed that, and needs to be challenged for repeal on these terms, as well as the historical evidence that has been proven which is the move by those in power towards despotism using the tax dollars of those who do not condone it, at risk of use of force, or removal of property at the hands of government agents. The 16th Amendment is a clear violation of the rights of a citizen, and threatens the entire nations right to private property as well as all levels of liberty.

-the drug war would be ended and marijuana legalized. Eventually over time all drugs would be legalized

Answer: The War on Drugs is an illegal prohibition of various substances, due to the allowance of bad precedent. The 1937 Marijuana Tax Stamp Act, wrongly put the power of this in the hands of the Federal Government, based on a flawed set of facts used at the time. This is what has allowed the regulation and control of all drugs in this country, Unconstitutionally.

-All discriminatory laws would be wiped off the books and the various federal agencies that enforce them, abolished

Answer: Discriminatory laws are not allowed by the Constitution, as all are to be viewed equally in the eyes of the law unless proven guilty by a jury of their peers in a just trial.

-All regulations of businesses would be abolished. Corporations should be accountable to noone except their stockholders. Anyone else is irrelevant

Answer: This is not the case. Corporations were only allowed traditionally if the "incorporation" served the local publics intrest. By removing this standard to incorporation, we have opened the door to corporatism, which is the most serious threat to a free market based, capitalist system. What you are saying is that a corporation should be treated as an individual, and this can NOT be, according to the Constitution. The only people who have rights as an individual, are individuals. (married, single or otherwise)

-All these fascist laws would be wiped off the books and their authors and supporters tried for treason

Answer: I agree, as well as I beleive an amendment should be proposed to the Constitution re-outlining exactly what constitutes High Crimes, and Treason, and a method of public redress of grievance that is absolved from court costs, or fees of representation in those courts.

-All corporate welfare should be ended. NO subsidies for any industry

Answer: I agree, as subsidies are a way of abusing the tax system, which is already completely unconstitutional.

-All education should privatized. Schools would now actually have an incentive to do well now because if they don't, parents will simply send the children to other schools and they will be losing money.

Answer: While I don't see a problem with people having organizations to fund the fees for under-privlidged children to attend school of a voluntary nature, it is unconstitutional to use tax money to pay for public schooling.

-Give Iraq one more year to become a successful democracy. If they aren't by then, I say screw 'em and pull out. We would also stop supporting Israel as well. They've done nothing for us and we should do nothing for them

Answer: Regardless of the outcome of the war, the war was waged by the United States outside accordance to Constitutional provision,as well as against the will of the people of the United States. These politicians at all levels, need to be held accountable for these crimes.

-Cut all foreign aid to all countries.

Answer: Foreign Aid is a very misunderstood idea. I would implore all who question the idea of foreign aid to read George Washingtons Farewell Address from office, and to particularly note, the opinion of "entangling alliances". The government has no right to collect most of the taxes they currently do, and to use them for foreign aid is outright wealth redistribution. This is utterly, and entirely unconstitutional.

-Pull out of the UN and tell them to get the hell out of the US. There will be no world government headquartered here.

Answer: I personally am ANTI-UN. This is a cloudy issue for me though, and one I am currently looking at in regards to the Constitution.

-Build huge wall along the Southern border. Capture any illegals at the border and tag them. If they attempt to cross again, shoot them.

Answer: The United States has one of the easiest systems of citizenship to gain legal entry to. If people refuse to use border crossings, and apply for citizenship, they are illegal aliens and should be apprehended or stopped at all costs, including the use of deadly force.

-Pass Amendment that would give the people the power to raise Congressmen's salaries that way they have an incentive to do a good job or they will be getting a pay cut.

Answer: Congress already makes too much, so I entirely disagree.

-Sell all federal lands to private entities, whether they are individuals or corporations. Abolish all federal parks and reserves.

Answer: I also disagree here, as the United States is a sovereign nation, and they have the right to own land both as securities, and as public spaces that the public overall deem essential to preservation of their nations enviroment.

[PatrickHenry]

Osborn, how do you address the issue of poverty? Millions of children in the US, the world's richest-ever nation are living in squalor. And 30,000 children die every day on this earth due to hunger and easily prevented disease, like the need for clean water.

How would you help people to have a chance for a decent life? Hopelessness leads to violence doesn't it? Does our form of government and economics have any means of improving the tragedy of people living in grinding poverty?

MY Leader said: "As you do unto the least of these, you do it unto Me..."

[Osborn F Enready]

Patrick Henry said:
Osborn, how do you address the issue of poverty? Millions of children in the US, the world's richest-ever nation are living in squalor. And 30,000 children die every day on this earth due to hunger and easily prevented disease, like the need for clean water.

I say:
Poverty is an issue, but not a state or federal issue in regards to the WORLD. We are our own nation of sovereign status. We are not the worlds keepers, nor are they ours. When you say richest nation in the world, whose coffers do you speak of?

The Federal Coffers that are filled with illegally extorted tax dollars?
The people of the United States earnings and savings?

The Federal Coffers are owned by the people, lock stock and barrel. Any money not used by the government for legitimate taxation purposes should be returned in ENTIRETY to the taxpayers at the end of each tax year. The system always has emergency money, since the years taxes are always in possession of the Fed until the end of the year new tax comes in, as the return for the last year go out.

Our government does not have the power to lay direct taxation upon the citizens for the purpose of wealth redistribution.

Patrick Henry said:
How would you help people to have a chance for a decent life? Hopelessness leads to violence doesn't it? Does our form of government and economics have any means of improving the tragedy of people living in grinding poverty?

I say:
It is not the governments job to help people have a chance for a decent life, OTHER than providing a fair playing field for all citizens in the eyes of the law, and insuring that all cases of fraudulent businesses are accounted for through the justice system.

Welfare, social security, WICK, Food Stamps, and all other forms of socialised welfare can be continued, through voluntary or private, charitable entities. This is not the auspice of government jurisdiction.

Patrick Henry said:
MY Leader said: "As you do unto the least of these, you do it unto Me..."

I say:
I do not think the government has a right to oppress people, wealthy or poor, economically or any other way.

Taxation with threat of force, and lack of chance for appeal, is extortion by use of force or removal of property. This is not sactioned in any way by the Constitution of the United States of America.

If you feel wealth redistribution is a legitimate cause for taxation, show me where the government derives its authrority to do so.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: I have to point out, you are not only wrong, but it is specified exactly. What do you suppose is the reason for having a "DEMAND for Redress of Grievance"? This is when representatives act outside accordance to the will of the citizens. This is the last step, before LEGAL, constitutional revolution. This is a Constitutional process, and is directly addressed. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (clip from: http://www.givemeliberty.org/Freedom...hulzSpeech.htm) The founding fathers, in an act of the Continental Congress in 1774, said, "If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility." This very American Right of Redress of Grievances Before Taxes is deeply embedded in our law. The founding fathers could hardly have used words more clear when they declared, "the people … may retain [their money] until their grievances are [remedied]." By these words, the founding fathers fully recognized and clearly stated: that the Right of Redress of Grievances includes the right of Redress Before payment of Taxes, that this Right of Redress Before Taxes lies in the hands of the People, that this Right is the People’s non-violent, peaceful means to procuring a remedy to their grievances without having depend on – or place their trust in -- the government’s willingness to respond to the People’s petitions and without having to resort to violence. Before going further, I’d like to clarify two points: first, the question we are dealing with here is not whether the government has the power to tax, but whether the government is abusing its constitutionally limited power to tax; and second, there is the question of whether the government is using the tax revenue to effect other abuses of its authority. The founding fathers were well acquainted with the fact that government is the enemy of Freedom, that those wielding governmental power despise petitions from the People; the representatives of the People, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the People themselves and exhibit strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any quarter. The founding fathers knew that it was possible for the institutions of the Congress, the Executive and the Courts to someday begin to fail in their duty to protect the people from tyranny. They knew that unless the People had the right to withhold their money from the government their grievances might fall on deaf ears and Liberty would give way to tyranny, despotism and involuntary servitude. While some Rights are reserved with qualifications in the Bill of Rights, there are none whatsoever pertaining to the Right of Redress. There are no limits on the Right of Redress. Any constitutional offense is legitimately petitionable. SoccerfreakAB2 said: The New Deal has no relevance to the government of today. I say: The New Deal has much relevance to the government of today. (isn't it rude when people don't elaborate. hint hint.) SoccerfreakAB2 said: What parts of the government have been changed to go against the constitution? And make sure they are legitimate and not changes that are interpreted by our judges. I say: Excuse me? Why would it make a shred of difference if or if not interpreted by a judge? SoccerfreakAB2 said: Tell me exactly HOW the people derived their own power and not the delegates who debated and finally created the constitution. I say: OK. It is called the Preamble, and it frames the purpose and power wielders in the Constitution. 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. The only thing that can remove it, is what created it, we the people. SoccerfreakAB2 said: "They [representatives we vote in] have failed on numerous occasions with no threat of accountability due to violations occuring over such an expanse of time, that the people couldn't effectively raise argument to the problems while those that changed the laws were in office." The representatives fail us, not the government system. I say: What I am saying, and I don't think you understand, is that if a representative fails, he is to be held responsible. If many fail, and pass laws that violate THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, this is provable movement toward despotism. (clippet from: http://www.givemeliberty.org/Freedom...hulzSpeech.htm ) We have established that the Founding Fathers clearly declared that the Right of Redress of Grievances includes the Right to withhold payment of taxes while the grievance remains. By the 1st Amendment, the founding fathers secured for posterity the Right of Redress of Grievances Before payment of Taxes and they made the Right of Redress Before Taxes operate against "the government," that is, against all branches of "the government," -- the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches. Redress reaches all. Notice that the founding fathers, sitting as the Continental Congress in 1774, held that this Right of Redress Before Taxes was the means by which "the public tranquility" was to be maintained. Then, sitting as the Constitutional Convention, the founding fathers declared that one of the major purposes of the (federal) government was to "insure domestic tranquility." Therefore, whenever this Right of Redress is violated, the People have a double grievance: a denial of justice by the government and, an incitement by the government to general unrest. Today, our concern is the grievance that falls under the heading of a design to subvert the Constitution and laws of the country by those wielding governmental power.

Ok, so the people can get together and petition the government if it makes a mistake. Your point? I think you are trying to bend the words of the constitution around your own ideas. By decision making (I should have specified), I mean the immediate decision on the constitutionality of a law or act by the government. For example, sure, a petition is a decision against the acts of government, but the government can dismiss it if they choose to.

I didn't see taxes and money in the constitution pertaining to that section and issure. Did you place them there yourself? Or are you interpreting it for everyone else. If so, you should then realize that maybe your interpretation of what the founding fathers meant is wrong.

I think if the founding fathers thought that government was the "enemy" of freedom, they wouldn't have made a government. Please, Osborn, don't kid yourself. Not only did they dismiss the Articles of Confederation after it gave the U.S. no central backbone in government, but they also gave our nation a strong central goverment with specified restrictions.

Congress has never made a law abridging the right of the people to petition the government. So that stands as well lived up to.

"Excuse me? Why would it make a shred of difference if or if not interpreted by a judge?"

YES. That is why we vote in our judges or have our chosen representatives choose them. They make interpretations of the law. They know and you know and I know that the constitution is very vague after 200 years and only 27 amendments. If congress chooses to make a new law, there is legitimate argument if the law or action by the congress or government does in fact dismiss the rights of the people or does not follow the guidelines of the constitution.

Osborn, my question was how the people derived their own power and not the delegates who were there to represent them.

Then you retorted with the preamble, a portion of the constitution created by the delegates. The delegates, therefore derived the power of the people, not the people themselves; unless, of course, you think that every US citizen was present at the debates for a new constitution, then signed the document saying they agree with it before it went into full effect.

"What I am saying, and I don't think you understand, is that if a representative fails, he is to be held responsible. If many fail, and pass laws that violate THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, this is provable movement toward despotism."

Osborn, it's very simple. The people vote in representatives to make laws for them. If those people are corrupt, the responsibility falls not only on the leader but also the ones who voted him/her in! If laws are passed that violate the constitution blatantly and generally accept among the citizens, then they will be punished. Name for me one law that has been passed that almost the entire nation agrees was against the supreme law of the land.

"Today, our concern is the grievance that falls under the heading of a design to subvert the Constitution and laws of the country by those wielding governmental power."

By those weilding government power. Once again, Osborn, this is where reform is needed as explained above.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready SoccerfreakAB2 said: Ok, maybe my historical example was confusing, so I will restate my state division one, which is just like the Spain one, and I want to hear why and how the division of states socially and religiously is justified: "Say New Jersey has a large amount of Muslims as their leaders and main population. With a central government, they have little religious authority over law making. With more power to the states, they can give more power to the Muslim religion, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, I'm just speaking hypothetically. With more power to the Muslims in New Jersey, why would you want to live in New York, where say more Catholics live and are being treated better? Now you have a growing population of Muslims in NJ and more and more Catholics in NY. This causes religious strife and tensions. This causes DIVISION." A divided nation is ineffective, violent, and will cause more harm than an ineffective and violent central government. In the latter case, the people are united and are strong in numbers and can overthrow a violent and completely ineffective government. In the former case, the people are divided and are fighting amongst each other and have no strong numbres to get any reforms accomplished. Civil is a common effect of this division. Look at the United States civil war for example, in why two sides of the nation disagreed over an economical advantage, but a social disadvantage (slavery). Prove me otherwise historically or by another means that these divisions either will not happen, or will be positive for our nation, if that term has any meaning to you. I say: I take offense at your accusation, but I will let it pass in the hopes of clearer understanding. As to your question: The state, or nation, has no intrest in observing religious divide. The state, nor the Federal Government recognize any state or federal advocated religion. There is no such thing, and the basis of this argument is bunk. Slavery was imposed servitude by force, being condoned, or at least RECOGNIZED by the government. Religion is a personal choice, and it is specified in the Constitution that the Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This type of strife can only be dealt with when RIGHTS are violated. I do not want to insult you, but we are not even on the same page here. You example is not a valid example to question, in regards to state or federal authority. The last paragraph of your post that I highlighted is purely speculation on opinion about a divided nation. What constitutes a "nation" that works without divide? As of now, many states have concealed carry weapons laws, and many do not. THEY ARE DIVIDED. This provides a choice for people who refuse to accept that they are not allowed by law to carry a loaded, concealed weapon. Your entire argument here is flawed, from its core. Please examine what I just said, and understand that I cannot address things this far out of context, as it is not reasonable nor justifiable in happening. Now go up to Sonarts post, and notice how he cites evidence, in a legal, or constitutional format. I look forward to addressing his argument, as it is solidly based, though flawed. Also, as I said in the beginning of the thread: Please limit how many subjects you address per post, as it makes for long drawn out answers in reply.

I simply and clearly explained to you that division of the states through religion is an EFFECT of a more powerful state government. I am not insulted through what you said, only by what you didn't say. For instance, you're basically saying that state powered government is good for such and such, but despite the effect is has on divided states through religion (as the negatives are explained below it), state governments should somehow still recieve more power.

It's like saying you want to give the president a higher salary reducing everyone else's salaray in the white house. Then the justification is saying that you have no interest in lowering everyone else's salary, just an interest in heightening the president's salary.

You are completely dismissing this effect of a more powerful state. I don't know why. Maybe you can tell me.

And, what accusation did I make and where was offense taken?

[Dirty Name]

In order to have full rights in the United States, you must be a BORN or naturalized citizen.

At the risk of making this an abortion thread, I don't think you fully grasp the issue of rights, citizenship, etc. and their impact on the abortion issue and Roe v. Wade.

For starters, US citizenship is irrelevant. One does not have to be a US citizen to qualify for protection under the law. Thus, your entire argument based on the Constitution's definition of who qualifies as a citizen is irrelvant.

Case in point: Can we kill or murder foreign nationals simply because they aren't US citizens? Of course not. This should be enough to convince anyone that the pro-choice argument based on the US Constitution's definition of US citizenship is ridiculous.

The entire abortion argument rests on unalienable rights and the issue of personhood. Rights that everyone has, regardless of citizenship. Therefore the first part of your constitutional argument is nonsense.

The second part is an interesting argument, that I will have to examine more carefully before I attempt to deconstruct it.

[SteveA]

I would tend to prefer having open borders (except for some possible screening for known criminal elements) but remove subsidization of immigration. We have too many public institutions and infrastructure that allow for resources to be used without need for a prior investment by people coming here. This dilutes the value of these and discourages investment in them.

It's different though if someone comes and wants to buy a home, or if government operated via. a more fee based system depending upon use, because then anyone living here, or coming to live here is still paying their own way (at least for the most part) and there's little of any harm involved to others. Then it's not a public burden and as long as the individual is held accountable to living by our laws, they should be free to come and live and work here also.

Osborn, how do you address the issue of poverty? Millions of children in the US, the world's richest-ever nation are living in squalor. And 30,000 children die every day on this earth due to hunger and easily prevented disease, like the need for clean water. How would you help people to have a chance for a decent life? Hopelessness leads to violence doesn't it? Does our form of government and economics have any means of improving the tragedy of people living in grinding poverty? MY Leader said: "As you do unto the least of these, you do it unto Me..."

Let's ask a different question, Patrick. How would YOU take care of the many millions of impoverished people around the planet? (And try to be realistic ... what's the underlying causes of this poverty and how would you address them?)

My personal view is that people should first worry about taking care of themselves, then when they are successful in this and have resources to spare there's the option of helping others. The U.S. already provides a lot of foreign aid as it is. You've got to be careful not to have too many people become dependent on something, that at least in an extreme is unsustainable. Consider that hopelessness can also be created by becoming dependent on the charity of others for survival.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: SteveA foreign aid

Not a fan of forieign aid, since it is usually misdirected to the local elites who collaborate with the Globalizer Overlords.

The international poor are one issue. The poor of America should be spoken of separately.

In any case, I wanted to see if the extreme libertarian approach, represented by Osborn I believe, has any answers for fairness to the poor, or if it just a non-issue to them...

[SteveA]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Not a fan of forieign aid, since it is usually misdirected to the local elites who collaborate with the Globalizer Overlords. The international poor are one issue. The poor of America should be spoken of separately. In any case, I wanted to see if the extreme libertarian approach, represented by Osborn I believe, has any answers for fairness to the poor, or if it just a non-issue to them...

I think it's more of a matter of looking at the economy overall. The general ability of people to live in a home depends on the number of homes available. So to increase living standards in this respect, you want to encourage people to create homes. There are various ways of doing this but the two most certain ways to do the exact opposite are to give people free homes for not helping to create them, and punishing people who build or improve homes (property taxes and many building regulations).

Overall, the U.S. had done well in the past simply because we encouraged an environment that allowed people to be rewarded by their own efforts. As we drift toward a society where people are instead rewarded by the efforts of others but have little control over their personal circumstances, we see a drop in individual motivation to improve their circumstances (which is truly the basis of most every improvement we make).

Admittedly, some people fall on hard times through little fault of their own and that's where assistance helps but this should only be applied as temporary help to give someone the opportunity to get back on their feet. Long term assistance needs to be done voluntarily. Truly all such charitable actions should be done privately though I personally don't oppose having some government assistance but it would likely be a small fraction of what it is currently - people can privately add more as they feel is appropriate.

One problem is that, as usual, government monopolization of an 'industry' destroys competition and this can be seen by the large number of charitable organizations that no longer exist yet were much more prevalent in the past. (I remembered seeing an article listing many charitable organzations that were prominent in the past but have since disappeared. I even recognized many of the names, and I'm 38, so they couldn't have even been that long ago) Also there's the issue of a change in social values that doesn't place as much of a value on such actions because of the currently coercive manner in which it's occuring. (In other words, people don't appreciate the system though it was intended to be beneficial, simply because it's done through government agencies and those providing the assistance aren't generally appreciated or rewarded for this service, instead the assistance is seen as obligatory and often even taken for granted or viewed as a natural right etc.) Though, I think similar views affect much more than just welfare, with there being deeper causes of this that aren't entirely clear but seem to be due to multiple interrelated factors that are largely propogated social views, and some of the problems seem likely to have positive feedback that will encourage things to continue this direction until the system breaks down. (Like the welfare system - as more people use it, it's seen as more of a right or entitlement and with fewer people providing these services and more expecting to use them, it seems likely more people will prefer to be users of the system than providers, so you have a couple forces encouraging more use of these services as well as an increased burden on the suppliers, so the only way to keep it going would be to print up money and have government forcibly create the service, and this seems the direction we're currently heading. The only thing stopping it will be the buying power of the dollar but with government controlling the economy in this fashion, we're susceptible to the corrupting influences of a few with little at stake and inefficient beaurocratization with little ability or motivation for government to correct itself, because almost by definition it has no competition except for public dissatisfaction, so likely the current trend will continue to devalue the system over time until people begin jumping ship). Anyway, that's a long parenthetical statement :). My apologies. I have funky grammar

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: SteveA My personal view is that people should first worry about taking care of themselves, then when they are successful in this and have resources to spare there's the option of helping others. The U.S. already provides a lot of foreign aid as it is. You've got to be careful not to have too many people become dependent on something, that at least in an extreme is unsustainable. Consider that hopelessness can also be created by becoming dependent on the charity of others for survival.

Steve, when exactly have we "taken care of ourselves?"

I agree with your last statement, though. African nations are an example of such dependent charities. Although, I am almost completely torn on the world power=world helper idea, and I still feel that even though it seems right to help others in need with our money and power, the barrier between nation and nation will prevent any social friendliness and usually our nation going into another nation for support turns out bad or not as planned.

[SteveA]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Steve, when exactly have we "taken care of ourselves?" I agree with your last statement, though. African nations are an example of such dependent charities. Although, I am almost completely torn on the world power=world helper idea, and I still feel that even though it seems right to help others in need with our money and power, the barrier between nation and nation will prevent any social friendliness and usually our nation going into another nation for support turns out bad or not as planned.

I agree that simply because we might have a decent military force doesn't imply we need to police the world with it. Nor do I enjoy the idea of 'U.S. foreign assistance' wearing camoflauge

Regarding the taking care of ourselves, I'm mostly referring to individuals, though it applies on a national level also. We increasingly rely on foreign imports to sustain ourselves and though I have nothing against international trade, it shouldn't be done simply by abusing our future credit rating. The next generation will have to deal with restoring the lost productivity if foreign lenders decide we're not good for the goods anymore. We built up good trade relationships in the past but are living on inertia, IMO. (I haven't done a lot of historical research on trade but I remember hearing a statement that by the early 1900s we were only around 6% of the world population but a part of more than half the international trade, of course largely due to our industrial growth and manufacturing abilities). But anyway, I was actually thinking of the problems with much of our social/corporate welfare and mercantilist governmental policies. Many otherwise private issues have become public simply because people couldn't keep out of private matters. (Yes, the same could be seen with our foreign military excursions, and not solely excessive federal involvement in state, local or private issues)

[Osborn F Enready]

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
Ok, so the people can get together and petition the government if it makes a mistake. Your point? I think you are trying to bend the words of the constitution around your own ideas. By decision making (I should have specified), I mean the immediate decision on the constitutionality of a law or act by the government. For example, sure, a petition is a decision against the acts of government, but the government can dismiss it if they choose to.

I say:
The government can only "dismiss" a valid petition for Redress of Grievance at the valid threat of revolt. Why would a government that you claim is sincerely interested in appeasing the people DENY a petitition for Redress of Grievance? Did you know that part of the procedure for a valid Redress of Grievance is withholding tax money from the system until resolved by all those that sign the petititon? If they refuse to address it, they refuse the tax money from all those who are withholding that money.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
I didn't see taxes and money in the constitution pertaining to that section and issure. Did you place them there yourself? Or are you interpreting it for everyone else. If so, you should then realize that maybe your interpretation of what the founding fathers meant is wrong.

I say:
You really should do more reading, and understand that was part of a decision in Continental Congress. I provided links, it is your responsibility to read and grasp the point. What you don't seem to understand, and I have been saying since the beginning is that all of the corruption we see today is DIRECTLY linked to the fact that certain laws have changed in regards to what constitutes Direct and Indirect taxation, and that law change has provided the ways and means for the government to grow its personal money, which was not supposed to be Constitutional. The government before the Federal Reserves creation, had no means to aquire "excess" monies to dole out as IT saw fit. By doing this, corruption due to unaccounted for money was kept to a minimum. I am not arguing a single case, or a single law. I am arguing the direct CAUSES of corruption, which can be easily figured out by doing two things. Reading and understanding the Constitution and noticing which laws directly conflict, either due to laws passed by Congress or due to activist judges. There is also the issue of Unconstitutional precedents being set, in the argument of the rights of corporations, and how they have been removed from the authority of the people within the state that ALLOWED the group to incorporate. These laws of taxation, and incorporation are essential to understanding how government has been allowed to subvert the entire Constitution through laws outside the amendment process, as well as the introduction of corporatism, into capitalism.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
I think if the founding fathers thought that government was the "enemy" of freedom, they wouldn't have made a government. Please, Osborn, don't kid yourself. Not only did they dismiss the Articles of Confederation after it gave the U.S. no central backbone in government, but they also gave our nation a strong central goverment with specified restrictions.

I say:
Your wrong. They drafted a WEAK central government, with specified restrictions, and all of those restrictions and checks and balances have been REMOVED by the people in power, making it easier for those of their ilk that fill their seats after the next elections to further their bi-partisan agenda. One clear example of the removal of checks and balances is the notion of a "Executive Order", which is clearly the exact same thing as a Kings proclamation.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
Congress has never made a law abridging the right of the people to petition the government. So that stands as well lived up to.

I say:
You are blatantly wrong here. Read the Patriot Act, and understand why.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
YES. That is why we vote in our judges or have our chosen representatives choose them. They make interpretations of the law. They know and you know and I know that the constitution is very vague after 200 years and only 27 amendments. If congress chooses to make a new law, there is legitimate argument if the law or action by the congress or government does in fact dismiss the rights of the people or does not follow the guidelines of the constitution.

I say:
So you agree? I have provided just in one case, where Congress has violated many rights of citizens with only the passage of one bill into law, which is the Patriot Act. If you have ever viewed the Patriot Act, you would know how large and all encompassing it is, and understand that it would be nearly impossible for any person to read it and understand it before signing it in to law as fast as it was. By signing a bill like this into law, without reading it, most of those that signed it should be investigated and charged if found guilty for "failure to live up to the oath of office, the obligation to the people to protect and respect the rights of all citizens of the United States."

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
Osborn, my question was how the people derived their own power and not the delegates who were there to represent them.

Then you retorted with the preamble, a portion of the constitution created by the delegates. The delegates, therefore derived the power of the people, not the people themselves; unless, of course, you think that every US citizen was present at the debates for a new constitution, then signed the document saying they agree with it before it went into full effect.

I say:
If you doubt it, get on the internet, or go to a public library of reasonable size, and look up the newspapers of the time, the writings of the time, and the opinions of the people of the time. An overwhelming majority of the people of the time praised, embraced and received the Constitution just the same. Those people who signed, clearly relinquished power to the people in the Preamble of the Constitution, and they did so upon their signatures. Read and understand who is meant by "we the people".

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
Osborn, it's very simple. The people vote in representatives to make laws for them. If those people are corrupt, the responsibility falls not only on the leader but also the ones who voted him/her in! If laws are passed that violate the constitution blatantly and generally accept among the citizens, then they will be punished. Name for me one law that has been passed that almost the entire nation agrees was against the supreme law of the land.

I say:
You imply that some type of majority must agree? This is not necessary, or important. We are talking about the letter of the law, and majority or numbers is IRRELEVANT. You also fail to notice that even though certain things can be changed, they are not, which is evidence of coercion between both parties in their united goal of removing the limits on Central government.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
By those weilding government power. Once again, Osborn, this is where reform is needed as explained above.

I say:
While I agree, to create laws to limit them now, would do nothing. The damage has been done, and the thing that must be focused on is the ROOTS of the problems. Yes, changes need to be made to ENFORCE accountability, this is to me, obvious. The point is, once certain laws have been created, such as corporations being regarded as a right holding entity, isolating those that make it up from criminal punishment for wrongdoing and removing their system of accountability, the point is moot.
One must remove a weed by the roots, to stop it from returning.

[Osborn F Enready]

Dirty Name said:
At the risk of making this an abortion thread, I don't think you fully grasp the issue of rights, citizenship, etc. and their impact on the abortion issue and Roe v. Wade.

For starters, US citizenship is irrelevant. One does not have to be a US citizen to qualify for protection under the law. Thus, your entire argument based on the Constitution's definition of who qualifies as a citizen is irrelvant.

Case in point: Can we kill or murder foreign nationals simply because they aren't US citizens? Of course not. This should be enough to convince anyone that the pro-choice argument based on the US Constitution's definition of US citizenship is ridiculous.

I say:
It is not irrelevant, as it is essential to understanding why a fetus, or unborn child is not a right having entity. Once a child is born, THEY ARE a right having citizen, which means without question once born, the child is in possession of rights. The "born" status, is a valid portal which one must pass through to obtain rights.

Regardless of legal protection, rights are only in the possesion of citizens. If not the case, why can they imprison people without allowing them a court trial, or any of the other abuses being done at Abu Grahib, or Guantanimo. Having rights, and being a citizen changes how you are dealth with "under the law" to some degree.

Dirty Name said:
The second part is an interesting argument, that I will have to examine more carefully before I attempt to deconstruct it.

I say:
Very well, please feel free when you feel confident in your argument, but understand I do not want this to become another abortion thread, and would prefer to do it in another thread.