Do not believe me - go read the law for yourself.

There is no American law compelling participation in FICA, nor is there any law punishing non-participation in FICA.

Write polite questionnaires to your public servants and ask for a copy of any law that compels participation in FICA.

Which really begs the question of how it fits in with other foundation documents. The documentary indicated that the whole voting thing was such a hot topic, every body created from the getgo could not reach consensus on it's structure and use, so it was booted to the states. If so, it is clearly something that needs to be addressed. Mangled isn't sufficient to describe the situation...

it is clearly a privilege, granted by the States and
mangled by most everyone discussing it. -- j
.

Also, someone should tell TurboTax that little tidbit:

https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools...

They call it a tax, and taxes are levied by government, therefore it is not optional. The wording sounds like more government BS babble to confuse people, since you must pay FICA, it IS a tax, and to do that you MUST have an SSN.

One would have to call that "Bullsh@t", in that since I was 14 and started work, I have had it taken out, not allowed to not have it taken, and it has always been done without consent. You must have an SSN to get a job, it was reuired to join the military and is also mandatory for you to register with selective service, which even with no draft, is also mandatory. All my boys received notices from the Great Leader when they were 17 saying "You must register with selective service when you turn 18" and you had to have an SSN to do it.

So, good train of logic. It seems to derail when various states play with the voting requirements and allow people to vote with a slip of paper from a neighbor saying they are a citizen (well, slight exaggeration, but along those lines). If citizenship is a codified mandate from the Federal government, one would think then voting rules would be, and not left up to each crazy state...

Both. It is a right of ownership (of one's self and one's self-actualization) exercised through freedom of expression, but it also carries with it the privilege of self-determination which if not exercised and vigorously defended may be subject to infringement by tyrants and usurpers.

In the several amendments to the US Constitution that discuss voting... those protections only apply to US Citizens. In NC the State Constitution requires US Citizenship to vote in a State election. The US Constitution sets up a Federal government for the States (and the people of the States), The US Senate structure and Electoral College structure are to balance the interests of all States not just the most populous ones as in the US House.

Well, this documentary (made in 2008 or so I guess, as the Obamanation won his first election) seemed to want to say it is a privilege granted by each state, subject to their rules. I don't know, so I was asking the group on their opinion, if there is anywhere where it is defined, by something that is not controlled by whoever is in office (i.e. government through law or regulation). I always thought it was a right (how often do they quote the statement "Right to vote" used to justify anyone they want to add to their gang?) I am not even sure if there are "natural rights defined as such...

FICA is 100% voluntary.

“The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one...”
- - - The Social Security Administration

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/Scott...

A resident of the United States not born here does not have a right to citizenship, and even the natural born citizen can have that citizenship revoked for serious felonies against the nation, so it is a privilege. Since one must be a citizen to vote, the act of voting must also be a privilege.

Well, if they allow each state to set their own rules, they can do that, as well as allow undocumented people to vote, so without a national code assigning the rights, privleges and responsibilities, you get the fruit salad we have today. So an enterprising party like the Dumbocraps just has to establish a foothold in the big states and everyone is screwed. Sort of like what we have today... And in Oregon

Ok, then, how does FICA square with that statement? It was implemented by a President, who then forced a Supreme Court that ruled it unconstitutional to recognize it, with the threat of "packing the court until they did what he wanted"? People seem to miss the point FDR hijacked the country in the 30's as they were too focused on "Happy Days are here again". Indeed, if you take up civic duties, you have a ethical burden to execute them for the good of all, and for the special benefit of none. We seem to have missed that step, and instead have a bunch of manipulative looters who have never stopped since FDR showed them the way to get around all the checks and balances.

Here in California the gubnor just signed a law that allows felons in prison to vote.

I thought it was an Onion piece when I first saw it...

RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, POWERS, IMMUNITIES

. . . Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, Americans have Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure.
. . . Under the republican form of government, Americans are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves.
. . . By your consent to be governed, you may aspire to public service and govern / rule others who also consented to be governed. But in exchange for the privilege, you waive your endowments and accept mandatory civic duties.
= = = = <<>> = = = =
• In America, if you have endowed rights, you’re under the republican form of government.
• If instead of endowed rights, you have "constitutional rights" (privileges), and mandatory civic duties, you’re under the constitutionally limited indirect democracy that serves the people in the republican form of government - by your consent.
• If you have socialist obligations, you’ve volunteered into the socialist democratic form, via FICA - again, by your consent.

Neither. Voting isn’t a right in the sense of natural rights. And it isn’t a privilege that proper governments can hand out arbitrarily, such as an aristocratic title. In a government formed to protect individual rights, voting is a voluntary means of participating in the process of determining what specific functions a government performs, how it performs them, and who performs them.

That is interesting. It seems there is a lot of assumed things that have been thrown into the mix here, and the Electoral College was just the one documented way for a President to be selected. However, all the rest has been a lash up, so would it mean it can be overhauled? It appears all the Constitutional ammendments have dealt with specific things (sex, color) but not overall voting rights. Maybe the assumption would be since there are defined "you can'ts" that everything else is "you can".

Well, in the opinion of the Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

That certainly implies that governments grant no rights whatsoever and have only the powers the voters give them. I've always felt that the Electoral College the the solution to the impossibility of running a meaningful campaign in the era of transportation via horseback. Now that we have instantaneous electronic communications that isn't an issue, although one could certainly argue with the phrase "meaningful campaign".