Neither Republicans or Democrats trusted

[ylexot]

...let's get into the nuts and bolts of this 'third' way, this new party.

What do you all want to see on the following issues:

Taxes - Flat tax or fed sales tax

Iraq - I think we're generally on the right path and it will be a non-issue for the next election

War with Terrrorists - take the gloves off

Social Security - "privatize" it and make it optional...you opt out, don't look for hand-outs when you retire.

Energy policy - somebody that doesn't look at the quick fix...look at the entire energy cycle: collection, refining (if needed), distribution, storage, waste, etc. Make the entire cycle efficient, not just one part.

Civil Rights - no more affirmative action

Judges - someone who believes in the Constitution as it was written, not how they think it should be applied in today's society

The Environment - see energy policy

Healthcare - Pay for it your own damn self! In fact, I don't even want companies providing health insurance for employees.

Immigration - lock down the borders, get rid of the born-in-the-US-automatic-citizenship, streamline/fix the process for legal immigration

 

[ericw]

Taxes - Flat tax or fed sales tax

Iraq - I think we're generally on the right path and it will be a non-issue for the next election

War with Terrrorists - take the gloves off

Social Security - "privatize" it and make it optional...you opt out, don't look for hand-outs when you retire.

Energy policy - somebody that doesn't look at the quick fix...look at the entire energy cycle: collection, refining (if needed), distribution, storage, waste, etc. Make the entire cycle efficient, not just one part.

Civil Rights - no more affirmative action

Judges - someone who believes in the Constitution as it was written, not how they think it should be applied in today's society

The Environment - see energy policy

Healthcare - Pay for it your own damn self! In fact, I don't even want companies providing health insurance for employees.

Immigration - lock down the borders, get rid of the born-in-the-US-automatic-citizenship, streamline/fix the process for legal immigration

Run for office, please!

 

[Pete]

What do you all want to see on the following issues:

Taxes - Small federal flat tax, disestablish 50-60% of the federal government and allow states to run things and tax accordingly. Taxation, expenditures are better controled by state and local officials than the fed so they should collect and manage it. State and local officials are easier to boot out if they drop the ball.

Iraq- Finish it quickly an get out. The middle east is a no win situation no matter how hard we try or how long we work at it with the fanatasizm, ask the Sha of Iran, ooops he is dead but you get the point.

War with Terrrorists - Infiltrate and kill.

Social Security - Keep it, no privatization. Too risky because people will screw it up or just not save at all and this country does not have the stomach to walk past people starving on the street.

Energy policy - Drill drill drill and make the "Energy Department" the new "Alternative energy Department"

Civil Rights - Merit based, affirmative action ends now. No edge for anyone, race, sex, ethnicity. Remove all indicators of race, gender, ethnicity from forms.

Judges - Strict constructionists with a review process. End lifetime appointments and make them 7 year. A judge with a radical nature who is overturned by appelant court more than 20% of the time is reviewed by a panel and can be removed from the bench.

The Environment -

Healthcare - Bona fide low income / disabled and those over 65 who have a net worth of < $200 get assistance. Freeloaders and illegals get the boot.

Immigration - Lock it up and begin mass deportaions. Strictly controled immigration.


Campaign Finance - PAC's, lobbist, soft money, all illegal. Max contribution is $2,000 per individual, non transferrable. If not spent by the campaign that collected it, it goes to the national treasury. Corporate donations, illegal. Union donations, illegal. Presidential campaigns are given 10M each per party and allocated 12 hours of TV time free. Any money not spent goes back to the fed.

 

[Ken King]

...let's get into the nuts and bolts of this 'third' way, this new party.

What do you all want to see on the following issues:

Taxes - National Sales Tax

Iraq - Stay the course

War with Terrrorists - Take the battle to them

Social Security - phase out of current plan moving to private accounts

Energy policy - alcohol and nuclear, move away from fossil fuel, until such time drill where ever there is a chance of finding oil and gas

Civil Rights - No hate crimes, no special treatment, equal means equal

Judges - Judges that judge in accordance with the laws and not legislate new laws

Immigration - Round up illegals and make them do it the right way if they want to be here



Pick one or pick all and describe what would get your vote.

Picks in red above.

 

[ylexot]

Remove all indicators of race, gender, ethnicity from forms.

I wouldn't say remove them since that information can be useful for statistical purposes, but there should be a way to remove it for the purpose of decision making (i.e. college applications). Even people's names is too much information since names can indicate sex and/or ethnicity. Maybe tie all that info to your SSN.

Immigration - Lock it up and begin mass deportaions. Strictly controled immigration.

...forgot to mention starting deportations and going after people that knowingly hire illegals.

Campaign Finance - PAC's, lobbist, soft money, all illegal. Max contribution is $2,000 per individual, non transferrable. If not spent by the campaign that collected it, it goes to the national treasury. Corporate donations, illegal. Union donations, illegal. Presidential campaigns are given 10M each per party and allocated 12 hours of TV time free. Any money not spent goes back to the fed.

Good addition.

 

[Pete]

I wouldn't say remove them since that information can be useful for statistical purposes, but there should be a way to remove it for the purpose of decision making (i.e. college applications). Even people's names is too much information since names can indicate sex and/or ethnicity. Maybe tie all that info to your SSN.

Remove names too then. If everything is totally merit based you don't care about statistics.

:

yeahthat: ...forgot to mention starting deportations and going after people that knowingly hire illegals.

Yes, HUGE penalties to those who hire, contract to, or allow illegal laborors.

 

[2ndAmendment]

How do you figure it wasn't passed legally?

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/16th.html

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the ratification process, and requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were 48 States in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of 36 states was required for ratification. In February, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states, and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified the Amendment. Continuing his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC, Bill Benson discovered his Golden Key. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process! [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from. [/font]

• [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.[/font]
• [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.[/font]
• [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress. [/font]
• [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.[/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited every state capitol and knew that not a single state had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. 33 states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess. Since 36 states were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified. [/font]

 

[Bruzilla]

I disagree with the topic of the thread as what "The People" are feeling is based on highly biased media reporting, followed up by misinformed statements made by secondary sources such as radio personalities, disk jockeys, and folks like Jon Stewart. This then gets converted into word-of-mouth commentary that most folks do hear, and suddenly lies have become the absolute gospel truth.

The fact is that about 80% or so of the American polulation has little idea about what's happening in their country, and about 50% have zero. We still have people thinking Republicans want to be in their bedrooms, that Democrats are the ones who want to pick your pocket, and that Clinton was set up by the VRWC.

 

[Bustem' Down]

The 'Moderate Party'

Neutral Vice President: Your Neutralness, it's a beige alert.
Neutral President: If I don't survive, tell my wife "Hello."

 

[Midnightrider]

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/16th.html

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]

maybe you should call the IRS and let them know.

He, i'd love to stop paying income taxes, but if all of these states had truely not intended to ratify, i am sure it would have come up then, it definitly wouldn't have taken 70+ years for someone to figure it out.

 

[2ndAmendment]

maybe you should call the IRS and let them know.

He, i'd love to stop paying income taxes, but if all of these states had truely not intended to ratify, i am sure it would have come up then, it definitly wouldn't have taken 70+ years for someone to figure it out.

Suit is currently filed as I understand.

 

[Ken King]

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/16th.html

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]

2A,

Benson is being brought to court in Illinois by the Federal Government to halt his selling of packages that are being used in an attempt to avoid legal tax requirements. Those using his “research”, of which there are quite a few, have all resulted in losses before the courts as every time this matter has come before a court they have found that the 16th Amendment is valid.

In U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986), the court stated;

“Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.

"Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

"Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review."

 

[2ndAmendment]

2A,

Benson is being brought to court in Illinois by the Federal Government to halt his selling of packages that are being used in an attempt to avoid legal tax requirements. ...

I know. Of course the feds would rule the 16th valid. I would not expect other wise. Again, it does not mean it is right.

 

[Ken King]

I know. Of course the feds would rule the 16th valid. I would not expect other wise. Again, it does not mean it is right.

Every time it has been taken before a court they have ruled this way. Matter of fact those seeking to use this defense are having their cases tossed as frivolous. Not to mention that not a single state, that is claimed to not have ratified it, has spoken out on the matter. Makes one think that it in fact was properly ratified or you would think that at least one of these states would have said something by now.

 

[Bustem' Down]

It's kind of like the people who support The Republic of Texas. They claim that the annexation document was a legal document between the US government and the citizens of the Republic of Texas. Since it was never continuously ratified and all of the original signers have died, they claim that the document is invalid and the state is once again it's own nation. All of this may be technically true, I don't know law well enought to discredit it, but no court will go with it.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Every time it has been taken before a court they have ruled this way. Matter of fact those seeking to use this defense are having their cases tossed as frivolous. Not to mention that not a single state, that is claimed to not have ratified it, has spoken out on the matter. Makes one think that it in fact was properly ratified or you would think that at least one of these states would have said something by now.

I guess, but the the states are just more federal welfare recipients.

 

[Ken King]

I guess, but the the states are just more federal welfare recipients.

So you're now saying that they did ratify the amendment so that they could get more money from the Fed.

 

[2ndAmendment]

So you're now saying that they did ratify the amendment so that they could get more money from the Fed.

I'm saying that the amendment was not properly ratified (as many have probably not been under strict interpretation of the process), but the states don't complain because they have their collective hands out looking for a dole.

 

[Ken King]

I'm saying that the amendment was not properly ratified (as many have probably not been under strict interpretation of the process), but the states don't complain because they have their collective hands out looking for a dole.

Strict interpretation of the process? Passes 2/3 of both houses of Congress and then agreed to by 3/4 of the states. Seems pretty straight forward as to if the criteria has been met or not. If a state has been said to ratify one and actually hasn't I suspect that the state in question would make it known to anyone within ear range.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Strict interpretation of the process? Passes 2/3 of both houses of Congress and then agreed to by 3/4 of the states. Seems pretty straight forward as to if the criteria has been met or not. If a state has been said to ratify one and actually hasn't I suspect that the state in question would make it known to anyone within ear range.

The problem comes to the time limit imposed, if any, and editing. If the ratification took place after time ran out, it was not valid. If the text of the amendment is edited by the state before ratification, then they have ratified a document that none of the other states or the Congress have even seen. It does not matter how trivial the edit is. You know how lawyers can argue over the placement of a comma or the meaning of the word "is".