In joining a group recently, I was asked to explain what I would personally recommend (or do, had I the proper authority to do so) to restore the American system back to its original intent as a Representative Constitutional Republic.
The Bold Print is highlighting the answers I gave to the original question and the print thereafter, is something of an explanation as to why I would take these steps and what I hope would be accomplished by their implementation.
Demand a comprehensive understanding of not only the Constitution, but of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers for all people electing to seek public office and for any and all judges, at every level.
There was one Republican congress critter (for lack of a more polite term) who was arrested on his way to congress, allegedly (likely?) for attempting to attract attention in a public restroom by playing footsies with some unknown male in the next stall over.
While this is just a single example, it serves to illustrate my point. What makes this event notable aside from the obviously disturbing nature of the “crime”, is that this person is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, but apparently knows virtually nothing about what is actually contained within the Constitution.
Had he been familiar with the Constitution, he would have known that is it not lawful for him to be arrested or hindered in any fashion on his way to the “hallowed” halls of the house.
How can anyone “uphold and defend” something which they know absolutely nothing about?
The Constitution, on the best of days, has been relegated to something of a novelty at best, highlighted from time to time to give the illusion that it still matters. The decision by the SCOTUS to selectively hear only those cases they deem themselves willing to hear back in 1976 I think it was, has only reinforced their ability to selectively enforce if not circumvent the Constitution.
Un-legislated regulation with the full force and effect of the law is routinely passed, bypassing any accountability to we the people altogether … yet despite the lack of accountability, these “regulations” are selectively (even arbitrarily) enforced with the full force and effect of the law, actively depriving people of their liberty, their rights and even their freedom.
The Lautenberg Act, Federal Forfeiture Laws, Hate Crimes Legislation, the Patriot Act and other such egregious abuses of governmental power, authority and control, have both been deemed to be fully “constitutional” despite being in direct contradistinction to the constitution itself … despite the very fact that anything which goes against the Constitution is by definition, unconstitutional.
Hate Crimes Legislation may be among the most flagrant violations of governmental control as it presumes to be capable of prosecution based on the proof of intent. Anyone old enough to remember Perry Mason and certainly any first year law student from the days of old is well aware that it is impossible to prove intent as doing so is by definition, subjective in nature and presumes to know the thoughts and the motivations of the individual committing the crime.
If additional prison time is necessary because of the troubling threats and even the espousing of racist and hateful views, using the logic of today, perhaps this person is merely misunderstood or “self-identifies” as a god or has other delusions or is otherwise mentally hindered or incapacitated to the extent that they really are good people, but merely “confused” or otherwise “triggered” by things that are different or which they do not understand? Who is to say that the blatant displays of hate are in fact hate at all, and not merely a justified reaction to outside stimuli?
Does that sound totally outrageous? Currently, groups like ANTIFA, the New Black Panther Party, some White Supremacists and others openly declare that the mere presence of those they disagree with provides them not only with a lawful right, but a moral obligation to respond with violence? Even in UC Berkeley where protesters once stood in the face of men with guns to defend free speech, the protesters of today are calling to have free speech made illegal, especially on campus.
The point is that no court of law can reasonably be expected to prove intent beyond any reasonable doubt and can only appear to do so through assumption and presumption … none of which should be allowed to restrict the freedoms and liberties of other citizens.
All of this could be easily prevented if each and every employee of the government (read: employee of the people, or of the citizenry) were required to have a complete knowledge, if not understanding of the Constitution and other relevant founding documents.
Repeal the seventeenth amendment and return the Senate to its rightful place defending the States against the unlawful usurpation of power by the centralized federal bureaucracy through the congress, rather than serving as nothing more than an extension of congress as a part of the federal arm reaching in to the states to grab all the power and money it can!
The Senate was never meant to become an extension of the crooked and corrupt claws of congress. In fact, the Senate was specifically designed to effectively “hogtie” the congress and prevent the ability of the federal government to try to micromanage the affairs of the independent but united States of America and the American people who, at the time, were citizens of their respective states, and not, in fact, American Citizens or citizens of the federal body.
The Senate should serve the States directly, subject to recall and accountability to the governments and the people of the independent and Sovereign States. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment post haste.
Require that English be the official language.
While other cultures and languages should be celebrated, they should not be demanding that Americans speak their languages in order to accommodate them even further in our collective homeland. If you go to Mexico, you do not wave your American flag and demand everyone speak English.
Doing so in Mexico, the Philippines, China, Korea, Nigeria, Guinea or any other nation I have ever been to would leave one quickly labeled as an Undesirable Alien, subject to detention, and if you are lucky, deportation rather than jail time or extended time in an immigration detention facility without even the benefit of judicial process … and no, you cannot expect your embassy and consul and ambassador or even the station manager to come to your aid. In all but the most high profile and public cases, they will gladly and willfully leave you to rot as has been proven time and again throughout the world.
America is in fact the great melting pot … but the keyword there is “melting” where everyone adds their unique and more colorful cultural traditions to the melting pot while at the same time, integrating into American Society and not trying to turn it in to a local version of their own homelands.
Some very popular tourist attractions in certain cities are highlighted in their local “Chinatown”, “Little Havana” or other cultural enclaves and while this celebration of cultural heritage should be lauded, it should not serve as an excuse for these people not assimilating into the larger American society. With the exception of Europe in the years of late, it has always been understood that emigrating to a new nation means blending into the new society.
Even gaining citizenship in many countries will not automatically confer upon the new resident certain rights, including political power of any sort … and certainly not the right to disrespect their culture by demanding the implementation of your former culture. If you believe this will work, please research “The Forgotten, Immigration Detainees”.
Even if you have retained your American Citizenship, you will be among the more fortunate if you can get your embassy to support you, or perhaps even some kind of lawful representation in the local judicial system. More often than not, you will be immediately detained and very likely to have the need for your family to pay all sorts of “fees” for your release and then, at such a time as you do regain your freedom, you will be herded straight to the local airport where you better be able to pay for your own ticket out of the country immediately.
A celebration of all of the different cultures, including their languages, is vital to the melting pot, but demanding that we, as a nation, learn every ancient tribal dialect and every modern language to “meet the needs” of those who are coming to live, effectively in our home, is not only outrageous but intrusive, oppressive and just plain wrong on so many levels.
Secure the border and ensure comprehensive immigration reform including temporary work visas for low-skilled workers and options for citizenship only for those who are willing to adapt into the melting pot and American societal system. Commit a crime and you are out of the running for citizenship. Period. Collect welfare and/or other forms of social assistance and you are out of the running for citizenship. Period.
I honestly do not understand how anybody can call themselves humanitarian in any sense of the word, while protesting border security, and most notably, while protesting the construction of a Border Wall.
In the case of drug cartels and human traffickers, the border wall would greatly assist in the ability to secure our nation. Despite some of the more radical cries for gun emplacements and minefields, most of which are said in jest, though there are certainly some fringes who speak about such matters with all seriousness, simple and sensitive seismic monitors would allow for the detection of everything from subterranean tunnel construction to heavy foot traffic in any given area. Well-concealed fiber-optic cameras are readily available in all sorts of designs that can be integrated into the natural environment or hidden within a border wall itself.
Why is securing the border so necessary?
In order to understand why it is imperative to secure the border, and why a “wall” would be the best and most efficient way to do that, one needs to be objective in their observations.
Anyone who has ever stumbled across the very common human remains along the border should be willing to provide the first clue. These poor people who are merely trying to come across the border to improve their lives often die of hunger, thirst or exposure in the more isolated areas of the border. If the border were truly secure, this could largely be prevented.
As it is, the drug cartels and “coyotes” or human traffickers routinely use these people as (unwilling) drug mules, these poor people who are trying to make a better life are commonly used, abused, raped, beaten, robbed and even murdered along the border as a daily routine of the drug cartels and some of the more unethical coyotes. How can anyone justify the continuation of these unnecessary deaths and horrible human rights abuses and call themselves compassionate or humanitarian?
This does not even begin to cover the additional problems regarding the drug cartels and the coyotes. Border Patrol officials have been caught on numerous occasions facilitating the movement of drugs and/or people across the border. While it is safe to presume that this is the exception and not the rule, it could also be prevented through the introduction of a secured border wall replete with cameras, seismic monitors, lighting and an adequate means of access to prevent the cartels and coyotes from having access to border crossings, even if some of the (few, but regrettably known to be present) corrupt border patrol agents were willing to try to help them.
Add to that the fact that all of these people are coming across without any medical exams. Diseases that were formerly eradicated within the contiguous states are now being reintroduced with alarming results as the resistance of people not formerly exposes to these diseases is questionable at best. Additionally, some of these diseases have mutated and changed since they were eradicated, effectively introducing new diseases into the general population … all of which could be prevented if the border were secured and stronger border enforcement was in place.
Why do you hate the American children so much that you would expose them to formerly eradicated diseases all because you refuse to accept that it may in fact be beneficial to secure the border?
So what is a humane compromise that would be beneficial to all involved?
Well, blanket amnesty was tried in the eighties with one side agreeing to the proposed amnesty of the other, in exchange for the other side guaranteeing to secure our borders so we did not face any of these issues … and voila, we never got a secured border.
Thus, the border needs to be secured before any immigration reform can be discussed in earnest, much less the capacity to grant unconditional amnesty to known gang members and criminals … even if they are directly related to hard-working, would-be immigrants who are merely seeking to improve their median quality of life. Once the border is secure, let us begin to talk about and enact meaningful immigration reform. (Yes, I have a lot of ideas regarding this, but that could fill a book in itself, though I am happy to discuss them with people who are interested)
Restore the processes of State Nullification and Jury Nullification. Tort Reform would be part and parcel of this … we already have far too many laws on the books.
There are over twenty thousand gun control laws currently in place at the federal level. Someone please explain to me how we need more gun control laws? Aside from the simple fact that by nature, the criminal element does not follow the law or concern itself with consequences of law, what is the point of having so many laws, how many of which remain unknown and unenforced? We the people need to establish a means by which old, outdated and arcane laws can be scrapped and removed from the books.
The last time I checked, and if I remember correctly, there were over twenty-three thousand pages of tax laws.
If the IRS, their agents or agency, gives you bad information and/or advice, you are guilty of a federal crime if you follow that information or advice. You are personally responsible for any and all fees, fines and/or other penalties as they feel free to tack on, knowing full well that they are forcing you to conduct business with a private organization … the Federal Reserve Trust … but that is a different story.
Try getting the IRS to pay your penalties and interest when they are in the wrong … ach.
There were recently “Conservatives” cheering as the federal government was talking about moving in to the states on matters of immigration and “Sanctuary States” and “Sanctuary Cities” … which I am not wholly adverse to, though the manner in which they undertook this frightened me greatly!
The irony should not be lost. James Madison (a staunch Federalist) and Thomas Jefferson, a “classical liberal” or Anti-Federalist were fierce opponents during the transformation of our federal nation from a Confederacy or Confederation to a Representative Constitutional Republic.
It was not an accident that Jefferson was in France as Madison was tasked with writing the Constitution, and only after the fiercest of debates that the decision was made to include the Bill or Rights as an addendum to the Constitution by Madison at the behest of Jefferson.
Ironically, it was within a short time after the implementation of the Constitutional Republic that Jefferson and Madison became staunch allies as Madison saw what “Career Politicians”, at the time known as the “American Aristocracy” had done to “his” constitution. The very first acts of State Nullification were written by Madison and Jefferson, Madison for the Nullification Act of Virginia and Jefferson for the Nullification Act of Kentucky.
In these Acts, not only was an unlawful usurpation of Federal Law at the State level deemed to be illegal, but such was the seriousness of the charges under the Nullification Acts that any federal agents sent to the State to enforce said federal laws would be guilty of a crime punishable by death. It is very difficult to imagine that the entire purpose of the Constitution was to grant unchecked power of the federal bureaucracy over the States when the very author of the Constitution was the first one to write an Act effectively emasculating the federal governmental body.
Tort Reform also needs to be part and parcel of this package when, as was previously noted, there are so many thousands of pages of laws. Fundamental judicial reform is absolutely necessary, including the returns to the complete provisions of Constitutional Law, the Common Law and restrictions on the Commerce Clause and the current usurpation of power through Admiralty Law as established by numerous acts and the Uniform Commercial Code.
Get the government out of marriage altogether.
At the civil level, marriage is a private contract between two individuals that does not require the inclusion of a third-party to said contract. On a religious level, marriage is a commitment between two consenting individuals and God.
Where is there any indication that government has any lawful right to inject itself as an interested third party between these individual agreements and/or religious expressions?
Government interference into the institution of marriage is unjust on a great many levels, legally, morally and socially. It should first be noted that the only reason government got involved with marriage in the first place, much like the very same precept used to enact unjust gun control laws, was to prevent inter-racial marriages … a law which was in every sense of the word, racist in nature and thus, unconstitutional by definition.
On one hand, marriage is a private pact (or contract or agreement) by and between two private individuals and God. Where are all of the people crying about the purported wall of separation between church and state in this issue? If marriage is in fact a religious pact before God, then the government clearly has no right to interfere. Period.
From a legal standing, the government has no lawful authority to demand recognition as a lawful third party in a two-party contract. If you and I are conducting a private transaction, as long as the matter being transacted is lawful in nature, the government has no right to get involved in said contracti.
See Blacks Law for issues on “Natural Life”, as when you are born, you receive a “Civil” birth certificate bonding you to the federal government as Res … or property. When you marry, you receive a “Civil” Marriage Certificate again allowing the government to be Party to the Marriage. And when you die, or when you enter a convent or otherwise become absolved of the rights of lawful personhood, you may receive a “Civil” death certificate … thus the supposition that all corporations are “Lawful Persons”, as they are those bodies that have certain rights and duties ascribed to them in accordance with the law … and not necessarily all human beings will be “Lawful Persons”ii.
In short, the government is, without constitutionally defined powers, inserting itself into the private transaction between two people under the guise of Civil Law. In other cases, the government deems itself capable of regulating the religious freedoms of the people.
Plainly and simply, government has no lawful authority to regulate marriage.
Now there are those among my detractors who will proclaim that this will open the door to all manner of sodomy and perversion and lead to bestiality and pedophilia and other such acts. Please allow me to offer a glimpse into this consideration.
One; children cannot lawfully enter into any legally binding contract without the express permission of the parents. Thus, there would have to be parental consent for child marriage, and even so, it would likely have to remain in compliance with local and domestic laws regarding the protection of children.
In short, even if some crazed or deranged parents were to commit their infant child to marriage, that child, by existing laws, not relating to religious activity or in any other way restricted, is protected from being physically and/or emotionally abused and/or endangered. (I will not even broach the subject of CPS here … though that is definitely another area that needs substantial reform and a system of accountability put into place)
As for bestiality, if the courts can presume to prosecute based on intent … on the perceived “reality” of the emotional and/or cognitive reasoning (or lack thereof) of the individual at the time of committing a crime, it may very well come to pass that courts, judges, lawyers and even an easily swayed jury may be convinced that some (literal) jackass gave its permission to be boinked and wed by the local freak.
In reality, there is no way that any animal and/or inanimate object can give a legally defensible consent to being fornicated or wed. Thus my belief that government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether.
Reinstate the institution of Common Law. There is only a single Common Law court in existence, that being in Hawaii, and it is unstaffed and not operational.
While Courts of Jurisdiction and Procedural Courts are held and operated in accordance with Admiralty Law where there is no presumption of innocence, and do not officially recognize Common Law, they frequently site Common Law in their decisions … think Common Law Marriage.
Traditionally, we have the Courts of Law (also known as Common Law or more accurately as Natural Law), Courts of Equity Law and Admiralty Law which has been introduced at the Federal Level and is run through Courts of “jurisdiction” throughout the United States.
The supposed Judicial System has been so perverted and twisted that it has long ago abandoned any pretense of seeking justice and only seeks to increase conviction rates despite the guilt or innocence of the parties involved.
Again, the issues of Law and the perversions thereof by our centralized federal system should not be underestimated or casually dismissed. The perversion of the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most notable root of all of this but the entire system needs to be greatly revisited and revised. If I get started here however, this section could quickly expand to the point where it doubled the size of LinkedIn and seriously logged down their servers.
Revise or at least further quantify the Commerce Clause to include the original restrictions on the federal system and to ensure that the current centralized federal system is not able to intrude on virtually every aspect of our lives merely based on the fact that our mere existence directly impacts interstate commerce.
By the very nature of our existence, we have a direct impact on commerce that impacts not only all of the independent but united States of America, but effectively the entire globe. Again, going back into the founding documents of our Representative Constitutional Republic,
I can find nothing that indicates that this grants the centralized federal system with an omniscient power and right … much less the lawful authority to micromanage each and every aspect of our lives … from trapping rainwater on private property to what kind of light-bulbs or any one of a million (or more) other instances wherein the federal government seeks total and omniscient power and control, often through regulatory agencies that, through the introduction of legislation by fiat, with no judicial or legislative process or any accountability to we the people, are enforced with the full force and effect of the law.
Create a Federal Ombudsman Program, not in its current form, but as mandatory service of the citizens of the Republic (in much the same way as jury duty is now, though without the voter restrictions) comprised not only of citizens, but of private sector professionals tasked with holding the governments (all governmental bodies) to account for their actions and to review laws and especially regulations from the un-elected officials in the regulatory agencies, existing and new, and to ensure that the people not only have a voice, but an enforceable, actionable voice as the fourth and final system of checks and balances of the government.
This program would be implemented at ALL levels of government from the federal system all the way down to the precinct level.
Did you ever want to get out of jury duty? All you have to do is bring up the topic of jury nullification, preferably in earshot of the other potential jurors and the people selecting the jury members … and each and every potential juror within even a hint of hearing distance will be instantly dismissed. Yes, I have done this, though I must admit, at first I was merely seeking to grant my fellow citizens more knowledge regarding their rights and responsibilities and civic duties as citizens.
Unfortunately, the proverbial powers that be did not want these people to know about these little inconvenient protections against intrusive, often oppressive laws and dismissed each and every one of us without exception … much to the chagrin of two people who apparently wished to serve on the jury … apparently for the food? I am not sure … but I know they were very upset with me for mentioning what our civic duties are supposed to include.
An Ombudsman Program with the addition and inclusion of a Citizen Review Board should be implemented. While the overall principles behind this are rather complex in nature, I can post them should anyone wish to see the basics. However, this particular Ombudsman Program would be established at the federal level most certainly, though ideally, like the electoral college, at the local and state level as well. It would allow for a continual review of all cases of police abuse, judicial abuse and even those cases in which there may have been extenuating circumstances or other mitigating factors that may have not been fully considerediii.
The Ombudsman Program and Citizen Review Board would be further tasked with enforceable decision making powers regarding the removal of old, archaic laws, blatantly stupid laws, oppressive laws and other laws which have no place in a free society.
Furthermore, in cases wherein the police, no matter how good they may be at heart, shoot a man sixteen times, during a warrantless search, with a correction officer illegally on the scene altogether ... while the victim was sleeping … because the cop and the correction officer “felt threatened”, there would be someone to review the police reports that determined that the entire operation was well within departmental parameters while the police and corrections officer received an extended paid vacation before going back to work with no negative repercussions … there will be someone to independently review the investigation and make future determinations in such cases wherein it was deemed that justice was never even attempted, much less served.
From there, we could perhaps begin the actual restoration process, though I have left out a great many more details which would probably be equally or even more beneficial to the process as well.
Though I have further added a few interesting topics of note, again, primarily because I believe that they would be beneficial to the restoration of the republic and also for the sake of getting people, hopefully, to examine things objectively and outside of their personal comfort zones.
Some of these will generate some hate, I am quite sure.
End the IRS (Treasury Department as a whole perhaps?) and Implement a Fair Use or Consumption Tax
I noted previously that there were currently over twenty-three thousand pages of Tax Codes, Regulations, Law, Statutes and other provisions, all enforceable with the full force and effect of the law. So messed up is this entire affair, that even the legal profession cannot rightfully determine what an Income Tax even isiv … which totally discounts whether or not the proposed Bill was ever legitimately passed and/or whether or not there is any lawful right to continue what was … ostensibly at least, a temporary program.
It is important to note that I am NOT proposing the implementation of a Value Added Tax or VAT on top of the additional tax system as some politicians have actively pursued. Rather, I am calling for a complete end to the Internal Revenue Service and the income tax syste as we know it. In its place, a flat, value added tax can be installed with only comparatively minor adjustments in bookkeeping and payment methods.
A BALANCED BUDGET IS NOT ENOUGH
It is not enough to have a law in place requiring a balanced budget. Heck, current law demands that the Senate create a budget every year but how many years has that never been completed? And who was held to account for their failure to conduct those affairs as are mandated by law to them? But demanding a “Balanced Budget” without some specific limitations is both foolhardy and dangerous.
Record tax revenues have been coming in but we are still seeing record deficits come through as well. (Please note the differences between Debt and Deficits in addition to the difference between Funded Liabilities and UnFunded Liabilities … when the unfunded liabilities are added to the national debt, the numbers jump up to well over one hundred trillion dollars)
If the government, in their infinite and benevolent wisdom, determined that they were more capable of spending our money than we were, they could easily claim one hundred percent of all earnings and guarantee not to spend one penny more … and the resulting budget would indeed be balanced … though certainly not beneficial. There is no reason that government spending should spend more than two to three percent of GDP. Period. This provision may perhaps need some leeway to be adjusted during times of war and other large-scale crises, but by and large, that should be more than enough to dish out into the “public pie”.
Get the Government out of Funding for Arts and Sciences
This one should be pretty easy to understand. No government funding of arts and sciences. If there are interests of national security that include arts or sciences, let them be funded through DoD.
No Public Sector Unions
We need more government regulation to control each and every aspect of our lives, but the same party that deems the government to be the only body worthy of deciding how we should live our lives, needs to have its employees (read: the employees and servants of we the people), protected from this very same government that should have every right to rule and lord over the rest of the great, unwashed masses of deplorable, bitter, Bible-clingin’, gun-totin’ Christian Klingons?
Aside from the obvious hypocrisy of such a vision, trade unions did at one time serve a very important purpose. However, that purpose is now long dead and gone and there are ample … if not excessive government agencies to regulate the rule of business.
If this government is as big and as powerful and benevolent and kind as the statists would have us believe, there is no reason that their employees, who by all rights, are employees of the people, should need further protection from the government which deems itself to be so benevolent and indeed, omniscient.
Furthermore, the “Cadillac Plans” in retirement and benefit packages and other special exemptions of the unions, make these an added cost and burden to the taxpayer in the form of both funded and unfunded liabilities, many of which are kicked down the road leaving our posterity tens of thousands of dollars in debt merely by their happening to be born in the US.
Voter Reform, Public Assistance and Voting
If you receive public assistance, you do not get to enjoy the privilege of voting. Period. No, service in our armed forces or otherwise working for the government is not living on the public dole … at least not insofar as traditional government employees or otherwise such personnel as provide a direct benefit (or perceived benefit at least) to we the people.
However, there is a decided conflict of interest in allowing politicians to vote in general elections … and if there is any exception at all to this, it would be members of the State Senates only if and when the seventeenth amendment is repealed.
I would also extend this to going back to a time when only property owners and/or business owners could vote … though perhaps expand it to include anyone and everyone who pays in more in taxes than they receive in return. At least these people have skin in the game and should at least, be at least marginally cognizant of the policies that directly impact them as taxpayers.
Blind Trusts for all Government Employees, especially among Congress and Senate
The Congress and the Senate made a great big show of enacting the law that would make it illegal for them to profit from insider trading … only to retract that very same law in very short order in the dead of the night when most people were not paying attention.
If someone is willing to serve the people, this is indeed an honorable and laudable endeavor. However, if they are willing to serve, then all of their liquid assets and investments should be collectively stored in a blind trust, operated either by a government agency … though I do not personally like that idea … or by a private corporate interest. In such a fashion, there would be no potential for insider trading.
If any government official does accumulate great wealth, they better be prepared to explain just how they managed that. These after all, are servants of the people and not masters held to no account … or at least they are supposed to be.
Public Housing for Public Servants
If the tents are good enough for our soldiers out fighting in the fields in the desert, they are more than enough for our prisoners. So said Joe Arpaio, the (in)famous sheriff of Arizona.
Likewise, if public housing is good enough for we the people, it should be good enough for our public servants. These same public officials tell us how safe and law-abiding all these people in public housing are, so there really should be no complaints about the passage of such a law requiring public servants to live in public housing, with all of their liquid investments placed into a blind trust.
Basic Constitutional Training for each and every Sheriff of the land
I am not sure how this one would work, as in the convoluted minefield that is the legal standing of today, all of the Counties are now fully Incorporated as Lawful Governmental Entities, often beholden to the Federal Body through the Department of State. Yeah, I know that sounds conspiratorial in nature, but there is ample evidence to suspect unlawful usurpation of power at all levels of governance.
End the Federal Department of Education
In reality, there are a great many “regulatory agencies” that need to be done away with, especially at the federal level. This would be a good start however.
Complete and Unfettered Publication of ALL LAW (including Title 2 of the CSR Subsection 60)
I passed the Bar Exam in Nevada when I was relatively young, (Case law was a BEAR and a HALF!) not because I ever studied law or because I had any desire to become a lawyer, but because someone claimed I did not know what I was talking about because I had never taken the Bar Exam.
This was when I was doing volunteer work for Hispanic Legal Services and it seemed appropriate at the time … though I was not yet quite ready for the backlash it would cause … including costing me my job. Apparently it was supposed to be impossible for me to pass, and while it was difficult, it was not by any means impossible.
A lot of my work to this day involves law, legal precedent and other issues and concerns, so I continue to study and learn … or more accurately, I have started studying and learning again. Now granted, I can understand why the Corpus Jurus Secundum is not available for free online. (Though if anyone has a copy they do not mind sharing, I sure would appreciate it!!!) However, the problem I have … and for me this is especially true with the CFR or Code of Federal Regulations … codified law as opposed to the UCC or Uniform Commercial Code which is not codified law but merely “recommendations” which serve in place of codified law when “adapted” by the States. While very few people would be convinced, the fact remains that all Courts of Jurisdiction serve under Admiralty Law as they are part of the Federal Court System and serve as Federal Courts in local jurisdictions. This brings the Code of Federal Regulations and the UCC into play. Yet try to research the CFR online. In my particular case, the portion I was looking for was in Title 2, Section 60.
Yet each and every copy I have found has “OMITTED” in its place. Now this should be noted that this does not mean it has been rescinded or otherwise invalidated. There are a great many sections that have been revised, replaced, removed etc … and they are all clearly identified as such. However, there are a great many sections that are merely “Omitted”.
The Law of the Land, in its entirety should be readily accessible to all people regardless of their legal standing, and not hidden from view for anyone lacking the means to access the original documents, wherever they may be hidden away … and yes, that includes a complete copy of the Corpus Jurus Secundum and also the Books of the Benedictine.
It should also be noted that at the time of this revision of this article, this section and many other “omitted” sections are now marked as “Reserved”
SCOTUS hears every case filed before it.
Do you remember how FDR got the SCOTUS to comply? He threatened to greatly expand the number of judges to the point that the sitting Justices could be effectively shut out. While I have not personally researched this, it would seem, given the future compliance of the Supremes, that the concept was at least possible.
In ‘76 if I remember correctly, the SCOTUS decided that they could no longer hear each and every case that came before them. Thus, they now pick and choose which cases they hear. This is the supreme court of the land and they not only have a professional responsibility to hear every case, they have a constitutional obligation to do so. If the number of judges has to be doubled or even tripled, so be it!
And that should be enough to start the hate mail flowing. Or perhaps, even to get others to contribute their concepts and ideas and to explain how they would restore the state of the union to its rightful place as a Representative Constitutional Republic and end this madness that they call “democracy”.
iAs an analogical example of this: Private Party A has a twenty dollar bill that is, for whatever reason, valued by currency collectors at ten thousand dollars. The bill, as lawful currency, has a face value of twenty dollars. If he went to the bank or to a store or bank and demanded change for ten thousand dollars, he would rightfully be jailed for attempted theft or theft. However, if another individual, Private Party B, recognizes the value and offers Private Party A anything more than the face value of the bill, it is a Private Transaction between two individuals and the government has no right to interfere in the terms or agreements of that Private Transaction.
iiFrom Blacks Law:
PERSON: Persons are the subject of rights and duties; and, as a subject of a right, the person is the object of the correlative duty, and conversely. The subject of a right has been called by Professor Holland, the person of inherence ; the subject of a duty, the person of incidence. "Entitled" and "bound" are the terms in common use in English and for most purposes they are adequate. Every full citizen Is a person; other human beings, namely, subjects who are not Citizens, may be persons. But not every human being is necessarily a person, for a person Is capable of rights and duties, and there may well be human beings having no legal rights, as was the case with slaves in English law. • • • A person is such, not because he Is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person Is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a natural person. Pollock, First Book of Jurisprudence. 110. Gray, Nature and Sources of Law, ch. IL
RES. Lat. In the civil law. A thing; an object.
As a term of the law, this word has a very wide and extensive signification, including not only things which are objects of property, but also such as are not capable of individual ownership. Inst. 2, 1, pr.
And in old English law it is said to have a general import, comprehending both corporeal and incorporeal things of whatever kind, nature, or species. 3 Inst. 182- Bract. fol. 7b.
By "res," according to the modern civilians, is meant everything that may form an object of rights, in opposition to "persona," which is regarded as a subject of rights. "Res," therefore, in its general meaning, comprises actions of all kinds; while in its restricted sense it comprehends every object of right, except actions. Mackeld.
Also persons are for some purposes and in certain respects regarded as things. Brown.
iiiAs one over-simplification and basic example, I will refer to the time my mother was pulled over for speeding … but once the cop got done puking after he saw I had bitten my tongue completely off, he led my mother at very high-speed to the local hospital and did not give her a ticket for speeding. There are times and occasions when the law, as it sits with precedent, does not adequately cover certain circumstances.
iv INCOME TAX: A tax relating to the product or income from property or from business pursuits; a tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades, or offices; a tax on a person's income, emoluments, profits, and the like, or the excess thereof over a certain amount. Interstate Bond Co. v. State Revenue Commission of Georgia, 50 Ga.App. 744, 179 S.E. 559.
An income tax is not levied upon property, funds, or profits, but upon the right of an individual or corporation to receive income or profits. Paine v. City of Oshkosh, 190 Wis. 69, 208 N.W. 790, 791.
Under various constitutional and statutory provisions, a tax on incomes is sometimes said to be an excise tax and not a tax on property, Hattiesburg Grocery Co. v. Robertson, 126 Miss. 34, 88 So. 4, 5, 25 A.L.R. 748; nor on business, but a tax on the proceeds arising therefrom, Young v. Illinois Athletic Club, 310 Ill. 75, 141 N.E. 369, 371, 30 A.L.R. 985.
But in other cases an income tax is said to be a property and not a personal or excise tax: Commonwealth v. P. Horillard Co., 129 Va. 74, 105 S.E. 683, 684; Kennedy v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation, 256 Mass. 426, 152 N.E. 747, 748.
An "excise tax" is an indirect charge for the privilege of following an occupation or trade, or carrying on a business; while an "income tax" is a direct tax imposed upon income, and is as directly imposed as is a tax on land. United States v. Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co., D.C.Pa., 262 F. 188, 190.
Let us know what you think please!