Asking for help from my Gulcher friends
Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 1 month ago to Government
Our congressional district is going to be "up for grabs" this year, as the incumbent has decided not to run again. I fear that the debate will center on irrelevancies instead of substance. To counter this, I propose 5 questions to determine what sort of perspective the slew of candidates has regarding government.
What do you think? Did I get a good set? What did I miss, or what would you recommend as being more important?
Here's my proposal.
The five important questions for our next Republican congressional candidate.
With the VA mess, the Benghazi debacle, failure of Obamacare, etc., it will be easy for the Republicans of the 6th Congressional District to lose perspective when selecting our next candidate for congress. I'd like to propose five important questions that we should be asking our slate of candidates to gain an understanding of their philosophy of governing.
Number 1: Will you support an audit of the Fed, to include an inventory of the gold reserves in Ft. Knox and all other precious metals reserves?
Number 2: Will you support and actively push for a constitutional amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment?
Number 3: What should be done regarding the alphabet soup of federal agencies (EPA, USDA, FDA, Dept of Ed, VA, etc.)?
Number 4: Should there be a constitutional amendment to invalidate Marbury v. Madison? Should the Congress have an ability to override Supreme Court decisions?
Number 5: Should the Commerce Clause of the Constitution be refined by amendment to more clearly identify that it only applies to actual commerce - that of sales of goods and services between suppliers and customers in different states, and nothing more?
Discussion:
1) The Federal Reserve has manipulated our currency and affected the economy profoundly. The American people need to know if the assets "owned" by the Fed in trust for the American people are real, or whether the money supply has been inflated to a point of unsustainability. The people deserve to know just how badly the money supply has been inflated.
2) The 17th Amendment changed the way that US Senators are selected, changing it from a selection by the state governments to a direct election by the citizens of the states. This process reduced the influence of the individual states on the working of the federal government, effectively making the states totally subservient to the federal government. Repealing this amendment would return the balance of power between individual states and the federal government.
3) The alphabet soup of agencies have usurped law making authority from the congress. They are unaccountable to the people as unelected, irrepealable bureaucrats whose actions have the force of law without the accountability of lawmakers. This power must be returned to lawmakers accountable to the electorate.
4) In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court of the US gave itself the authority to be the last authority of the land. This is a power that the framers never envisioned in the court. In fact, the SCOTUS was envisioned as the least powerful branch, not the final authority. The framers always envisioned that the court members would not be affected by political concerns in their decisions of fact, but did not expect them to be the final word - that was always meant to reside in the two branches that are accountable to the people, the House of Representatives and the President.
5) The Commerce Clause has been bent in so many directions to mean and provide justification for the intrusion of government into nearly all aspects of our lives. This was never meant to be the case. The Commerce Clause was merely supposed to ensure that trade between members of different states was honestly conducted and if there were disputes, that they would not be handled by state courts, which could be biased, but rather be handled by the Supreme Court, which was envisioned as being "impartial" to matters between the states.
What do you think? Did I get a good set? What did I miss, or what would you recommend as being more important?
Here's my proposal.
The five important questions for our next Republican congressional candidate.
With the VA mess, the Benghazi debacle, failure of Obamacare, etc., it will be easy for the Republicans of the 6th Congressional District to lose perspective when selecting our next candidate for congress. I'd like to propose five important questions that we should be asking our slate of candidates to gain an understanding of their philosophy of governing.
Number 1: Will you support an audit of the Fed, to include an inventory of the gold reserves in Ft. Knox and all other precious metals reserves?
Number 2: Will you support and actively push for a constitutional amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment?
Number 3: What should be done regarding the alphabet soup of federal agencies (EPA, USDA, FDA, Dept of Ed, VA, etc.)?
Number 4: Should there be a constitutional amendment to invalidate Marbury v. Madison? Should the Congress have an ability to override Supreme Court decisions?
Number 5: Should the Commerce Clause of the Constitution be refined by amendment to more clearly identify that it only applies to actual commerce - that of sales of goods and services between suppliers and customers in different states, and nothing more?
Discussion:
1) The Federal Reserve has manipulated our currency and affected the economy profoundly. The American people need to know if the assets "owned" by the Fed in trust for the American people are real, or whether the money supply has been inflated to a point of unsustainability. The people deserve to know just how badly the money supply has been inflated.
2) The 17th Amendment changed the way that US Senators are selected, changing it from a selection by the state governments to a direct election by the citizens of the states. This process reduced the influence of the individual states on the working of the federal government, effectively making the states totally subservient to the federal government. Repealing this amendment would return the balance of power between individual states and the federal government.
3) The alphabet soup of agencies have usurped law making authority from the congress. They are unaccountable to the people as unelected, irrepealable bureaucrats whose actions have the force of law without the accountability of lawmakers. This power must be returned to lawmakers accountable to the electorate.
4) In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court of the US gave itself the authority to be the last authority of the land. This is a power that the framers never envisioned in the court. In fact, the SCOTUS was envisioned as the least powerful branch, not the final authority. The framers always envisioned that the court members would not be affected by political concerns in their decisions of fact, but did not expect them to be the final word - that was always meant to reside in the two branches that are accountable to the people, the House of Representatives and the President.
5) The Commerce Clause has been bent in so many directions to mean and provide justification for the intrusion of government into nearly all aspects of our lives. This was never meant to be the case. The Commerce Clause was merely supposed to ensure that trade between members of different states was honestly conducted and if there were disputes, that they would not be handled by state courts, which could be biased, but rather be handled by the Supreme Court, which was envisioned as being "impartial" to matters between the states.
What logic demands is that each and every person confronted with the income tax make a reasonable determination of liability. If a person has been made liable for the income tax, then it should be clear enough in the tax code. It should go without saying, of course, that only two people have the lawful authority to assess your tax liability. That would be the Secretary Treasurer and You. Have you determined, by looking at the statute itself, how it was you were made liable for the so called "Personal Income Tax"? When a person files a tax return, signing that return as a sworn oath under penalty of perjury, that to the best of their knowledge, all of the above is true and correct, what besides the reporting of income is included in that "all of the above"?
As I stated before, the vast majority of people filing tax returns have never even bothered to question the matter of liability, and so have never even read the tax code. That's absurd, and that means that a good portion of those people have assumed liability because others told them they were liable.
A red herring is used to mislead or distract. It is misleading to point to failures in order to dismiss the question of tax liability. Here is an example of a red herring: "The IRS and income taxes in general has been challenged innumerable times and defeated in each."
The truth of the matter is that successful challenges of jurisdiction mean there is no case law to point to as the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, many times before it even comes before a judge. If it does go before the court, and the challenge is successful then the only evidence of that success lies in those records or court dockets, but evidence of successful challenges of jurisdiction within case law are few.
It should be noted that no tax avoidance scheme is being advocated by me. The question of liability is a matter of law and always has been. If you want to be liable for the income tax, you have the inherent political power necessary to assess your own liability, if that's what you want.
Everyone liable for a tax owes a tax. But what of those not liable for that tax? It is unwise to dismiss the question of liability, and anyone who has even made the slightest of efforts to look to the source to determine how they were made liable knows full well how foolish it is to be so dismissive of a matter of law.
It is always folly to speak sloppily about matters of liability. In terms of the SCOTUS ruling, which amusingly held that the statute itself held constitutionality because it was a tax, was an ex-ante ruling. The Supreme Court made their ruling on the individual mandate before it went into effect. This leaves the door wide open for ex-post challenges where individuals can now demonstrate injury.
Also, it doesn't require the Supreme Court to accept the challenge if that challenge was successful to begin with. There is a clear reading of section 1501, the individual mandate, that undeniably claims its authority from the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court has held otherwise and declared its authority under taxation. If you want to be liable, keep thinking the way you are. That'll work out for you just fine.
I developed a twelve-point questionnaire that you might find useful. Here is the link:
http://www.examiner.com/article/question...
At this link you will find other links to every other article I wrote about C3. This includes how I would answer those questions, if I were running for office.
http://www.examiner.com/article/c3-serie...
Here are the questions:
Why are you running for Congress/your County Freeholder's Board?
What specific things is the federal/State government empowered to provide?
Does "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" mean an individual right? If not, why not? And if so, does this permit any restrictions of any kind on the lawful ownership of any sort of weapon?
Do you accept or reject the proposition that an armed citizen militia, i.e. all citizens, who are not law-enforcement officers or members of any armed service, who happen to own weapons, is the last line of civil defense, with which the government ought not interfere?
As a corollary to the above, will you introduce, sponsor, or otherwise support measures to allow any common transport carrier or station to allow its officers to become part of that citizen's militia by carrying arms on the job?
If a law cannot be enforced short of compromising the protections of the writ of habeas corpus, the right to security of the person against unreasonable search and seizure, and the like, will you recommend its repeal?
For what purpose shall any government exercise "eminent domain"?
Shall any government have the power to dispossess a lawful resident of his property, for the purpose of turning said property over to another person for any purpose?
Shall any government have the power to restrict anyone's use of his property, without compensating the owner for the diminution in value that said restriction might incur?
Where does the Constitution authorize any of the below, and if no such provision be found, will you introduce, sponsor, or otherwise support measures to repeal any unauthorized laws, privatize or phase out any unauthorized functions, etc.?
Compulsion to purchase any particular good or service, including without limitation the service commonly known as "health insurance."
Denial or restriction of the right of any individual to purchase, consume or transport any particular comestible or pharmaceutical, including without limitation raw milk, herbal preparations, or recreational drugs.
The transfer of wealth from one person to another, from one generation to another, or the like.
Funding or running any scientific or other expeditions, crewed or uncrewed, into outer space.
Exclusive federal authority over common carriers and stations of transport, including without limitation airports, railroad stations, bus terminals, airliners, trains, buses, and the like, for purposes of guaranteeing security against crime commandeering, and the like.
Will you introduce, sponsor, or otherwise support the proposal of any of these suggested Amendments to the Constitution?
To repeal the XVIth Amendment (the one authorizing a tax on incomes that is not apportioned among the several States).
To guarantee to any State the right to recall its Congressional delegation, or any member thereof, and to send a substitute member to serve out any unexpired term, as formerly and explicitly provided in the Articles of Confederation.
To limit the aggregate terms of service of Members of Congress.
To declare that any willful distortion of the Constitution shall constitute "bad behavior" on the part of a judge or Justice and thus constitute grounds for removal from the bench on impeachment therefor and conviction thereof.
Shall the Congress define acts of war committed by individuals or non-government organizations, and formally declare war against any individuals or groups demonstrated to be so acting?
My family has been involved in politics in the past, and this is what I've seen. The system is entrenched and corrupt, and I don't think there's any way of fixing it in either the long or short term, other than doing away with government altogether.
But then you have the entrenched Wesley Mouch types like Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Nancy Pelosi.
What's worse, I'm utterly skeptical of humanity these days, after they elected "The One" for the second time. Tending toward anarcho-syndicalism in my frustration, I don't know if the great unwashed can even be woken from their lethargy-lotus-eating (TV, Justin Timberlake and the like, "Dancing With The Stars," sports, and the plethora of other "light displays" with which they are bombarded... Anyway, let me not wax too Nietzschian, and offer some hopefully useful ideas.
A flat tax. This eliminates the IRS; one of the most noxious of bureau-octopi.
Like all your ideas, by the way!
Abolish ATF, FBI, CIA, and a host of other federalist octopi whose jobs should be done locally.
Affirm Posse Comitatus (spelling?).
Repeal all federal drug laws. I don't use drugs, but they're used this BS "war on drugs" flim-flam to feed the federal hyper-bureau-octopus, bloat cop rolls, and imprison tens of thousands for merely exercising their right to use their own bodies as they choose.
Anti-Trust laws? A thought... the govt. is the biggest abuser of all; they've got a lot of nerve worrying about errant capitalists!
A constitutional amendment to require those bastards in Congress to abide by any laws they pass (such as the Affordable Care Act).
Term limits. Eliminate the Edward M. Kennedys and others of his ilk, (D) or (R).
The Supreme Court? Complex issue. They are supposed to interpret laws that are passed; not issue diktats. Bakke vs. Univ. of California (?)(1977?) only shows just what hypocrites and double-speakers they are. In that decision they basically said "Racism is OK, but racism is not OK." Now THAT'S "leadership!" How to fix? Hmmm... guess I'd better not say! Not sure how to resolve this conundrum. A new amendment to the Constitution, something to the effect that if 75% of the people vote for something, they can't override it? Just an idea...
Require property ownership for voters. I'm sure that will be popular!
Require a president to be impeached if he knowingly circumvents established law (viz; immigration policies now.)
Require the Imperium Americanum to withdraw from all foreign countries, unless in time of war and by invitation, as approved by congress.
I know I'm dreaming... the bureaucratic monster or its heroes first started circumventing established law in 1861 - or maybe even under Washington during the Whiskey rebellion!
Repudiate all alliances, NATO, the UN... everything the "Military Industrial Complex" uses to "justify" its milking of the taxpayer's dollars with "the latest military necessity."
Defund "art" stuff, such as NPR, National Endowment for the Arts, etc.
Ah, I know I'm dreaming, and wandering all over the canvas!
Maybe some of this might be of use! Turn the "White House" into a museum and require the chief executive to live like an ordinary citizen; not a king! All this neo-Prussian "royalty stuff" is unbefitting a republic!
All right; I'll shut up now!
Hope some of this is of use. You have great ideas, but - again, I don't think there are enough awake people to even notice!
Good luck just the same!
Cheers
We can see from our own history (see Carter v Reagan and Bush v Obama) how ineffective raising taxes is in raising revenue, but I agree that politically it's a tough sell because it relies on an audience that A) cares and B) understands basic economics.
That's almost why I hope for a total crash of the US economy. I think it is coming and that it will be terrible, but I think there are too many people who just won't care until the situation forces them to. What concerns me about that is that it will be a huge tipping point: people will either return to Constitutional roots, or everything will fall apart altogether.
Second, I believe that you are wrong regarding the ACA. While it is only through the income tax apparatus can they collect the funds, you are subject to the provisions of the act as a citizen. Expect the collection aspect to be addressed in the future - either by congress, via the courts, or most likely merely by bureaucratic edict.
Please keep us posted?
Load more comments...