Forum Post: There is one solution.
Posted 11 years ago on Nov. 14, 2012, 11:05 p.m. EST by FriendlyObserverB
(1871)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The Constitution is a contract between Government and the People (Written by the Government).
In the Constitution, it states the Government is responsible for the welfare of the people, also stating the Government has a right to collect tax.
Well.. with millions homeless due to unemployment and home foreclosure, it would appear the Government broke their end of the contract by not maintaining welfare for the people. Therefore, the Governments right to collect taxes should be revoked. -The contract is Broken.
I believe this would certainly gain the desired attention the People need by the Administration to address the Peoples concerns and welfare.
Or is it to " off the wall", to suggest we all stop paying taxes , until a new Contract / Constitution is agreed upon, ..or the old one repaired ?
I think you also have to ask yourself if these are just words, or do they really have meaning to us and our government. If they truly have meaning; then "duty" calls!
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." ~ Abraham Lincoln ~
The Lincoln quote says it all!
They have meaning, Big Meaning. There are a reported long list of abuses, and we the people are well within our natural rights.
Thank you Mr. Jefferson.
Interesting argument - I like it. Tweeted.
Thank You :-)
Not a problem - thanks for the food for thought.
[Removed]
I am saying all this protesting and complaining isn't solving anything, and that the government continues to bicker amongst themselves without noticing the peoples concerns.. so if we stop giving them our taxes, than maybe we would finally recieve the attention we deserve. And get the long -over due results needed to straighten out this unbalanced distribution of wealth / 21st century society that we live in .. that's all I am saying .. for now ;-)
"No taxation without representation". Cindy Sheehan hasn't paid federal income taxes for about 4 or 5 years in protest against the wars.
The problem is 98.5% of the voters just conceded power once again to the duopoly. If we can't convince them to take the easy road of not casting their vote for the system, how can we convince them to take the much harder road of not paying taxes?
1st, we need to set up a membership.
Not sure what you mean.
If we created an organization that would hold accountable all political representatives for their actions, would you become a member of such organization. If all members were updated daily on all political progress via the public internet, would you become a member. If all members were required to vote on current subject matter, and decisions were made to take forth to political representation the voice of the people, would you become a member of such an organization, .. If the organization had a million members , would you become a member. If the organization had 50 million members, would you become a member.. what if the organization had 2 billion members .. All wanting to hold their government accountable and justified ? Would you become a member ? would Cindy Sheehan become a member ?
There are strength in numbers.
Yes many went out to vote .. what is their alternative? to stand on the side of a road with a group of thirty or forty people holding a sign in the air that says "don't vote" ! C'mon, we all know the futility of such an effort.. but those same people may be interested (and many more ) in joining an organization devoted to accurate political representation. (Which, currently, there is no such organization).
I would become a member.
The organization you describe is what Occupy already is for the most part and I'm already a member. Our greatest challenge is to honestly educate and inform the people just how unequal our political and economic systems are. Once educated, they will join us and spread the truth further.
"What is their alternative?" The other 4 candidates on the ballot.
We are fully aware of our corrupt political and economic systems. ..We do not need to be educated on this.
We need an organization that will do something about the inequalities bestowed upon us.
98.5% of the people just voted to continue a corrupt political system, including many occupy members. Most people don't have a clue about what's really going on. If they did, every member of Congress would be thrown out.
Everyone knows whats going on , but no one has a clue what to do about it.. so we just keep on keepin on ..until someone gives us an alternative.. we had hoped OWS would make a difference .. but we keep on keepin on .. waiting .. waiting.. days go by years go by centuries go by .. keepin on keepin on ..
FreeDA http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/
Hold politicians accountable with affidavits. If an elected politician violates the affirmations of the affidavit and the state declines to enforce the law, there will already be majority support for action from the disenfranchised voters (or else the politician would never have had the support to have been elected in the first place). Added to this voter majority will be the voters whose candidate had lost but who nevertheless had supported the same affidavit.
If the state declines to enforce the law on behalf of all of these voters, therefore declining to uphold its legal duty, the state automatically becomes illegitimate and a foreign entity to the People. At such a point, all members of the state responsible for declining to uphold the law should be arrested and replaced.
Aside from the violence option, how are the People to force this to happen?
You can refuse to pay taxes but that can only go so far. You can't purchase anything if you refuse to pay sales tax. You can't keep 'your' home if you refuse to pay property tax. You can stop paying any income tax owed at the end of the year and end withholding but a government that's willing to decline justice to the voting majority is certainly willing to coerce employers to maintain withholding regardless of what an employee demands. So where does that leave everyone not willing to cease working in order to not have a tax taken out of their pay?
If the People are going to peacefully force the state to uphold justice, there will have to be a plan that involves a strike of some sort. Something that will require the solidarity of workers in the justice system without which the system cannot function.
The key point to understand is this:
The Constituiton is a contract, and once a contract is broken all obligations within become null. Therefore the decision rests on when exactly is the constitution / contract broken. As I point out in my post, the Constituion requires the Government to maintain Welfare for the people. Thus not doing so deems the contract broken. Tax collecting being part of the Constitutional contract than becomes null .
Tax collecting only stops with violent force. That's what started this country. Either the People are willing to engage in that very same force or another way has to be found. Nothing is null so long as the People continue to allow it.
Also, the Constitution is not a contract with the People. The preamble to it is a statement of fact concerning the purpose of 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 defence, 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.
"We the People" either refers to only the ratifiers of the Constitution or it refers to all of the People of the United States. If it refers to the latter, no contract can be broken as it is the People speaking to themselves. If it is the former, it is still a statement of intended purpose and not a contract with anyone. Through ratification, the People accepted the Constitution on the basis of the terms expressed within, not on the basis of the entire document being a contract that can be broken upon failure to uphold statements in the preamble. Any violations to the Constitution must be specifically pointed out in the articles and amendments to be held valid.
Let's have another look at this. The soul purpose of the Constitution is spelled out in the Preamble. The Preamble Supersedes all Articles and Amendments by Authority.The Articles and Amendments are adjustable, the Preamble is not.
when the Constitution was signed, it was the Preamble in which all had Agreed upon. How the Preamble was to be fullfilled is explained in the following Articles and Amendments. All in All the Constitution does become one binding contract, tied together by the guiding principles stated within the Preamble. The Contract is an agreement amongst all US citizens, President and Congress included.
Now , without pointing any blame, the well being of the US Citizen has fallen below the binding agreement,"Between" the Articles / Amendments, and the Preamble itself.We the people have failed in our commitment of upholding our agreement to fullfill the agreement, signed by representatives of ourselves, Therfore the contract becomes Null. You know the rest.
The preamble doesn't supercede all articles and amendments. On the contrary, it was written after the articles of the Constitution as a statement of introduction for something that had already been written. It simply describes the purpose of the Constitution which, as the replacement of the Articles of Confederation, is not a contract. When the Constitution was signed by 39 of the 55 delegates of the Constitutional Convention, it still had no legal affect as it still had to be ratified by the state legislatures. Ratification of the Constitution pertained to the articles that composed it, not the preamble. Objections to the Constitution pertained to the articles, not the preamble. Neither the Preamble nor the Constitution itself is a legal contract that can be broken on whole. The Constitution is a set of laws for a national government describing its legal powers and limitations. A legal document but not a legal contract. In short, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not a contract with the People. A contract is an agreement of legal obligation. The Preamble is not a statement of legal obligation. It is a legal declaration of intent. http://constitutionland.com/Ordain_and_Establish.html
An excerpt from the link you provided-
"Customarily, a preamble lists the law's objectives"
It is the "objectives" of the preamble that binds all the laws ( Articles, and Amendments ) of the Constitution. And again , provides the soul purpose of the Constitution.
Yes , the Constitution is a contract.. The Constitution is a " PROMISE " to the people, a promise that opened the way to the future. A promise that included a collection of tax by the people for disposal by elected congress. This Promise was written in the Preamble and ratified by elected officials. A promise that was not upheld. The Government of the United States, has allowed investors and merchants to take as much as they can from the people , leaving the People of the United States in despotism of home foreclosure and unemployment. This was the very reason for the which the revolution was fought , as King George3 also took as much as he could, leaving the people in a state poverty.
The Government of the United States have not fulfilled their obligation of the Constitution , to protect The United States Citizens. The Government of the United States have not performed their duty as stated in the Preamble of the Constituion, to promote General Welfare. In fact the conditions to that of post revolution cn be considered equal to present times with of course different players masquerading as Elite. The Constitution has fallen to the ground. It has no value and deserves no further respect as neither do the signatures which represent "We the People.
With the breaking of the Promise stated in the Preamble of the United States Constitution, The United States Government thereby have forfeited their right to any form of tax collection , until such time as a new Constitution be ratified and reparations be made.
A list of objectives is just that, a list of objectives. Intentions. Purpose. The objectives can be fulfilled or the objectives can fail to be fulfilled. Whether they are or not in no way constitutes a promise to anyone. Mere intentions do not constitute obligations.
The United States Constitution is not merely a list of intentions. The President himself takes an Oath to uphold the values of the Constituition.
It is a Binding agreement. To the letter of the law.
Again, the Preamble states" to promote General Welfare " amongst other objectives, which can easily be proven "an act of neglect by Elected Congress." The Constitutional agreement thereby becomes void. Taxpayers are no longer obligated to honour the Articles and amendments written therein. "We the Government" can not pick and choose which parts of the Constituion considered an obligation,and which parts not. By Neglecting their Obligation to the words written in the Preamble portion of the Constitution, The United States Government has commited an ..act of .............?
The preamble is merely a list of intentions. It is not the Constitution. It is the Preamble to the Constitution. It is a summary of what the Constitution is intended to be.
I have a hard time decerning ones true nature , so please do not be offended when I ask, "Are you a TROLL?"
Whether or not anyone is a troll is for each individual to decide for themselves. For instance, I have to wonder about anyone who seems sincere when making statements like this http://occupywallst.org/forum/there-is-one-solution/#comment-877019 but declines to pursue solutions http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-democracy-amendment/ that address those very issues. But as usual, I always give the benefit of the doubt first.
LeoYo, a couple of interesting quotes from your post.
[-]1 points by LeoYo (1140) 10 months ago
“In all revolutions, those who ardently pursue the fight to the death are in the minority and there are usually at least as many who are ardently anti-revolutionary, plus an actual majority that is apathetic and will go where they are led (in either direction), if necessary, but who best prefer to be left alone.” -Isaac Asimov
↥twinkle↧stinklereplypermalink
[-]1 points by LeoYo (1140) 10 months ago
"Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power." -George Washington
↥twinkle↧stinklereplypermalink
I would have to conclude by your writings , you are a well developed , highly intellectual individual, and I welcome your comments.
I think you misunderstood the "government being responsible for the welfare of the people".
What the intent of this clause was regarding "massive plagues" in the country - not to provide and comfort those who feel that it's the governments responsibility to take care of them.
"To promote General Welfare", is regarded as Health, Happiness, and Prosperity.