Taxation and Jurisdiction

[Keith Broaders]

According to the Constitution each state should be taxed according to their population. A state with 10% of the total population of the country would be assessed an amount equal to 10% of the Federal budget. It would be up to the states to decide how to collect the amount required from the residents (occupants), of their state.

If the central government was actually confined to Constitutional limits it could only collect money from the states to Establish Justice, provide for the Common Defense and Promote the General Welfare.

All other governmental services should be provided by the states, and the central government should only intervene in the affairs of a state when invited by the state to do so.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 authorizes the government of the United States to have jurisdiction over the District of Columbia ONLY. The government has no authority to tax over anyone living outside of the District of Columbia.

The government of the United States was created by the states and is supposed to be a servant of the people. The states are supposed to be the master of the federal government.

[Morton Thomson Jr.]

How about we make it so that each COUNTY is taxed according to their population instead. That way these big city corporate County conglomerations will have to pay for all their own largess and waste.

[Keith Broaders]

If the state wants to collect money from each of their counties in order to pay their obligation to the central government it would/might be an idea to consider. The Constitution states that representation in the House of Representatives and taxes shall be apportioned to the states based upon population. The tax revenue should flow from the counties to the state and then to the government of the United States.

[Keith Broaders]

If the legislature of a given state feels that a tax submitted to them by the government of the United States violates the Constitution they have a right to refuse to pay it. The states should decide what is and what is not Constitutional, Giving the authority to nine lawyers is not what the founding fathers had in mind,.

[Lawrence Brown]

Good idea but will never pass with idiots that are in charge today,there would not be enough money for them to steal.

[Bill May]

We are not under an Art 1 Sect 8 taxing plan.  The gov on all levels is claiming everyone is a 'citizen of the United States'  → which is a citizen of the fed gov via the 14th amendment.  Under Art 4,3,2, the gov is granted the power to make and impose 'all needful rules'.  As a fed citizen, there is no claimed right to own all of one's own labor or to even completely own property, thus under Art 4 the fed gov is granted the power to lay and impose almost any tax it wants.

No state constitution grants a state the power to impose a tax on labor, but a citizen of the fed gov gets no protections from their state's constitution - therefore the state is allowed to also tax them.  If you look up the a state's statutes regarding income tax, they all state that taxation by a state is contingent upon the individual being first subject to the fed income tax.

So, in the many cases where the states and state courts ignore their state's constitutions in regards to the rights of the people, the action is taken on the claim you are a 14th subject or a subject of the fed gov.

[Nan M Nicoll]

Time to amend the 14th Amendment because we are not of the federal government, but of our Creator. In fact that part of the 14th Amendment must be null and void since it creates an unnatural relationship.

[Bill May]

One change to the 14th that would have a major impact would be - 'Citizens of the United States, from the adoption of this change, shall be seen and treated as citizens of the state in which they reside.'  

This would suddenly bring them under the protection of their state's constitution and remove them from direct federal control.  This will never happen.  The other option would be to implement in the individual states a right to justice amendment to all persons physically in the state.  The way I have drafted this proposed amendment it would bring back common law justice and eliminating communism while allowing some beneficial socialism.

There is one right that 14th subject have which is ignored because it is no included in the bill of rights.  As set forth in Art 4,3,2, 14th subjects shall not have imposed upon them laws and rules that the gov cannot prove are 'needful' and that are claimed to be merely oppressive.  People need to start exercising the right to challenge all abusive rules as not meeting the 'needful rule' doctrine and make the gov prove its laws and rules are needful or cease imposing them.  This would eliminate a lot of bad laws and rules.

[Morton Thomson Jr.]

I would like to see this amendment of yours Bill.

I have proposed my own. I can share them with you if you wish.

As for your statement that:

" it would bring back common law justice and eliminate communism while allowing some beneficial socialism."

I must disagree. This is not possible. This is just the way "they" sell communism. By cloaking it in "socialism". This always opens the door to a runaway train called communism and eventually full tyranny.

Read my lips. 

IT NEVER WORKS!

[Bill May]

If you have a constitution that clearly allows some socialism but puts a clear limit on gov powers, limited socialism could work.

The problem with claiming everyone is a citizen via the 14th amendment is that this form of citizenship exists under the laws of DC.  The only people congress was suppose to have such power over were conquered people no longer in rebellion and which congress did not designate to become a territory destined to become a state.

Even then, the constitution clearly denies congress absolute power over them and limits congress to making 'only needful rules and laws'.  Since 14th citizenship arises under Art 4,3,2, they also have a right to challenge any law or rule they are subjected to as being oppressive in nature and not being absolutely 'needful'.  I will see about posting my proposed Right to Justice amendment.

[Morton Thomson Jr.]

No need to make it public if you don't want to. Send it to me directly with the message button. I will review it for you.

[Bill May]

I have no problem making it public. I would like for people to see it and push for whites to get their right back to common law justice and to finally have it extended to everyone else.  Please feel free to share any place you would like.  The only goal is the return of justice.

After reading up on the history of the 14th, it is clear that those framers were pretty ignorant about that the original framers created. If they had not been, I feel the 14th would have been quite different.  I feel that the 14th would have created a territorial style citizen - which would have fully incorporated the bill of rights.

[Bill May]

 

Here is the right to justice amendment that I would like to see people amend their state constitutions with. It would be great if people read and shared this proposed amendment and then started pushing to have it adopted as universal.

 

Our constitutional system recognizes two systems of law.

 

1) The first is where sovereignty resides in the individual with little regulatory power by the gov over them. Constitutionally, this is the only system that is supposed to be applicable to whites born in a state or naturalized by a state.

 

Unfortunately this system cannot provide for any of the social protections we have come to realize are necessary to protect the mentally or physically infirm, the aged or those temporarily down on their luck, such as the unemployed or under employed.

 

Things like SS, SSI, Unemployment Insurance protections, SAIF, fair housing laws, min wage and so much more cannot be made the law of the land under this system of law in the several states.

 

2) The second system of law is where Sovereignty resides in the gov with people as subjects ("citizens of the United States" aka US Citizens via the 14th) which grants the gov the power to make any needful law or rule without regard for many of the protections enumerated in the different bills of rights and protected as inalienable under the common law.

 

In order to better protect the weak and unfortunate thru the implementation of laws, since the early early 1930's and in particular since the 1950's the gov on all levels has been pretending everyone is a "citizen of the United States / fed citizen via the 14th amendment to equalize the races under the law, to be able to extend needed social protections not otherwise constitutional and grab more power for gov..

 

Unfortunately this has morphed into the communism we see engulfing us today due to ignoring common sense and the needful rules limitation doctrine imposed upon government in Art 4, Sect. 3, Claus 2.

 

In the [currently] 51 different constitutions there is no middle ground to allow for a little beneficial socialism without it becoming almost total communism.

 

The only limitation, and unfortunately one that has been unrecognized and totally unused is listed in Art 4, Sec 3 Clause 2 which limits laws to only those that are needful rules, thus eliminating those used merely for oppression.

 

I have drafted an amendment that would change most of  that and make justice an inalienable right in any state in which this amendment is passed.

 

Oregon would be a good place to get this going because of the right of the individual initiative process.

 

---

 

Right to Justice

 

I think this is a pretty good draft of a right to justice amendment that would put the common law principals of justice back in the Oregon courts my making them applicable to everyone without regard for race or sex.

 

Further, by declaring the rights inalienable, the federal gov might have to recognize them in those courts.

 

What it would do is allow some beneficial socialism but eliminate communism by giving jurors the power to reign in abusive laws or a good law being abused - which was the protection afforded whites under the common law where in white juries were specifically granted the 'power to judge both the law and the facts'. A right not incorporated under the system of law in DC and as applied to 'citizens of the United States via the 14th where ever they happen to be.

 

I feel that if it was voted in, in one state, within 10 years the people of the other states would demand it and then finally the fed constitution might be amended.

---

 

Here is the basic draft to modify Art 1 of the Oregon constitution.

Right to Justice: The right of every natural person, without regard to race or sex to justice and moral treatment in dealing with any government body must be and shall be a right, deemed inalienable, This right shall apply to all people whether a citizen of this state, a citizen of the United States resident in this state, someone merely visiting this state or even someone from anther state or federal territory or possession doing business with this state or being sued or prosecuted by this state.

 

The right to justice must, and hereby does, include at least the following three principals in order to hold real meaning:

 

1) Mens Rea defense: No one shall be held to answer for the violation of a law they did not have good reason to know existed or that they did not break with the intent of doing wrong. No one shall be prosecuted or otherwise punished where there is no evidence of evil intent.

 

2) No one shall be subjected to laws, the application of which, only seeks to oppress and that serves no other purpose. The right of an individual being subjected to a rule or law to challenge it as being unjust or not being truly needful shall not be questioned.

 

3) No one shall be incarcerated or subjected to punishment without a quick, easy and free avenue to challenge either one. Therefore, the right of an habeas corpus to challenge any incarceration or a punishment imposed by a court which shall be subject to immediate review by way of a habeas corpus proceeding shall not be denied. The right of this proceeding includes the right to be informed, the right, to forms and assistance in understanding all the situations in which an habeas corpus may be correct and assistance in preparation and filing if necessary.

 

In furtherance of protecting the right to justice this amendment continues thusly:

 

The legislature shall be forbidden from creating any law that on its face is immoral or unjust and it shall forbid any agency under its control, such as a municipal corporation, from creating any code, law, ordinance or rule that is immoral or unjust on its face. 

 

All codes, laws, ordinances and rules must have an easily accessible clear and concise statement of the intent and limitation of the directive in order to try and prevent their misuse. 

 

Further, it is forbidden for the legislature to allow any 'just' law to be imposed in an immoral or unjust manner, nor shall it allow any agency or employee thereof under its authority to impose any code, ordinance or rule in an immoral or unjust manner or where simply unnecessary.

 

Where there is a question of the moral or just application of a code, law, ordinance or rule, it shall be decided in favor of the one with the right.

 

Judges shall have the right to grant justice of their own will.  With or without the direction from the legislature. If a judge finds good reason to believe a particular code, law, ordinance or law violates the principals set forth in this amendment, in order to preserve an individuals right to justice, the judge shall have the power to dismiss the proceedings. The judge shall put his opinion in a clear written form to become part of the record.

 

Where the just application of a law, code, ordinance or rule is in dispute and cannot be otherwise settled, the individual shall have the right to put the matter before a jury which shall have the right to vote their conscience.

 

Further the jury shall have the power to determine to the degree that a, law, code, ordnance or rule or its application is unjust in any particular instance and work an agreement with the court for a reduced sentence if they desire, in order to preserve justice.

 

This right shall not be prejudiced due to race or sex. This right shall apply to any citizen of Oregon and citizen of the United States whether resident or nonresident.

 

Detaining illegal aliens in a humanitarian manner for a reasonable time before deportation shall not be deemed immoral or unjust. Making it a crime to be an illegal alien shall not be deemed unjust.

 

---

 

Such rights are already secured to white people - but this fact is being ignored on the pretense everyone is a citizen of the United States via the 14th amendment, thus refusing to recognize their true status as a citizen / sovereign of their state.

 

Hopefully in time this amendment could be adopted by each state and in time by the fed gov for all US Citizens, particularly residing in any of the several states, DC, federal territories and possessions.

 

If we really wanted to raise hell and make a mess - getting an amendment thru that simply modifies Article 1 (Oregon Bill of Rights) that simply states that:

 

"All individuals who are citizens of this state or of the United States shall be deemed equal under this constitution with the same inalienable rights without regard to race or sex and to this end, the legislature shall make no law that abridges any of the rights listed here in or that were deemed rights held by whites at the time of the adoption of this constitution."

 

This would make other races totally equal to whites on a state level and the inalienable clause might make the right binding even in in fed courts.

 

That would then in theory put the state and fed jurisdictions in direct conflict when fed law was being imposed in Oregon - ouch!

 

That would eliminate so many laws, and unfortunately many very necessary ones and could lead to the starvation of millions of elderly, disabled and those down on their luck.  The goal is to eliminate communism while trying to do no harm to other innocent people.