It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If tea party members and conservatives are really concerned about the deficit...

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 

+ 100,000,000


I suggest you run for President ASAP


Me personally, I think it's time to end SS (and give people their money back), but reform and keep Medicare for those who truly need it. You see, SS was originally intended TO SUPPLEMENT ones savings not provide people with a source of income ... sadly over time people began to take it as exactly that and now were are screwed because it would be political suicide to abolish it. People need to learn how to save and spend wisely instead of buying everything in sight.




posted on May, 10 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Sure someone has pointed this out, but in the picture you linked, it says 2009 for the title but sourced 2011 budget. Now is that the numbers from 2009, in support of the 2011 budget? Is it projected numbers for 2011 based off 2009 numbers?

Do you see the ambiguity that is there and why people are questioning the data?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
This data seems to support OP's claim:

Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security....
Source

Last quote a hoot!


Your "source" been so thoroughly debunked it is laughable. The Times report on their "poll" is so skewed that it no longer counts for anything but a joke.

Take the real numbers and the real population and you will see that the "tea party" members subject to the inquiry represent a cross section of married, two-earner families with a vested stake in the future of the country rather than nanny-state sucklings looking for a bigger government handout.

Most "tea party" members will tell you to leave their income alone, take your false social security promises, your bloated Medicare payoffs to the medical and insurance corporations, and your "health care reform" and place them somewhere they will never be seen again.

If you truly believe that the federal government is going to take care of your retirement income, your future health care needs and those of your neighbors and children, you are living in a dream world.

Or Greece.

jw



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 

I am thinking Shakespeare had an idea.

Does anyone know to what I am referring?


That is so misinformed and myopic that I am almost at a loss for words.

While it is very funny and all too convenient to resort to the "kill all the lawyers" snip, you've forgotten the context.

The remark was between conspirators seeking to put down the mass revolt among the populace against an overweening electorate.

In "Henry VI," (Part II, (Act IV), Scene 2), this statement is spoken by Dick the Butcher, a follower of anarchist Jack Cade, whom Shakespeare depicts as "the head of an army of rabble and a demagogue pandering to the ignorant," who sought to overthrow the government.

Shakespeare's acknowledgment that the first thing any potential tyrant must do to eliminate freedom is to "kill all the lawyers" is indicative of the fear of the masses and their susceptibility to the guile and rhetoric of those who would manipulate them. Many times we forget that our civil rights and human rights are protected not by our own outcries, but by the advocacy of those who would speak for the victims.

How sad that we forget that many who cannot speak for themselves depend on the voice of others who take unpopular positions to preserve basic human rights in the face of a soveriegn gone mad.

This is truly unfortunate.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by endisnighe

Now, one question needs to ask oneself, who caused all of these problems?

I am thinking Shakespeare had an idea.

Does anyone know to what I am referring?


What is: "A plague on both your houses?"

What did I win?

Nothing. You missed the obvious reference to the public perception that people schooled in the law are only concerned with their own benefit.

Perhaps you missed out on the American aversion to all things legal or formal, or maybe you recognized that many of our "inalienable rights" would not exist but for the willingness and ability of a few to stand up and speak out for the common good and common decency.

There are many more American lawyers who devoted 19 years of their lives to finding a path to advocacy than a path to enrichment.

How sad that the common perception is that they are expendable. We will wake to a far less free world when the last public advocate is gone.

jw



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Yes, that assumption would be true if said lawyers were actually advocates of their clients.

Wait a minute, who are the clients of said lawyers?

We no longer have advocates, we now have the priest class that does not look for justice, they look out for themselves and their own class of charlatans.

Why is it in this day and age, though we have more "lawyers" per unit population, that justice is worse than it has ever been?

Is it because of the lawyers? There is at least a correlary relationship. Or how about the fact that there are more lawyers representing us as people in government, than ever before?

Perpetuation of a fraud comes to mind.

Law has become so circulatory, that justice is no longer served. If you have the funds to either hire the best of the worst or you use the civil courts to circumnavigate the truth. Goldman Sach's sues for peace from the SEC e.g.

The US of A Constitution states in the Bill of Rights several basic tenets of criminal and civil law. Do we have this now? Of course not. Now we have the priest class lawyers, that proclaim from on high, the justice that is meted out for us.

A person cannot even argue the facts of the case in front of the jury. They are not allowed to encroach on topics the government DOES NOT want aired. I have seen it as a jurist. It is utterly abhorrent to me. At least the person was able to get a trial.

Tell me, who are the ones now arguing that citizenship should be stripped from a person accused of a crime? Who are arguing that rights that are unalienable are no longer relevant?

Yes, I took it out of context, but in who's eyes are the beholder?

In the beginning a defendant was given an advocate. The judge did not decide anything, they were there to set the flow of the trial, that is it.

Now after over 200 years we have judges and lawyers arguing court precedent and other circulatory rhetoric for the very purpose of making law, not law but some damn RELIGION.

There is one law and one law only, to not harm another or to not infringe on their rights of Life, Liberty and Property. Period.

Now we have "color of law" used to control and enslave the citizenry. There is no justice, but what comes from a barrel of a gun.

If the courts want to stop something, come hell or high water the person or persons will be stopped. Even if they have the law or justice on their side.

The juries are instructed to not even consider law. They are told by these worshipers of the the new religion of "color of law" to listen to the judge, he will instruct the jurors on law. BULL#! The juror is the final entity on the LAW! Period.

The priest class is allowed to bold face LIE. See court precedent that our government has no responsibility for the protection of the citizenry. That right there PROVES beyond ANY DOUBT that our government and courts are no longer for justice, they are for tyranny at the end of a gun.

Yes, I know a few lawyers that would not be on the list, ones with honor and integrity. Those that did not sell their soul to the likes that Faust did. One is in a jail cell in California right now, where he has spent over a year for contempt of court!

Contempt of court, what, do these judges think, they are GOD now?

Maybe I have stated something too extensive, maybe I should have stated we bring back the original 13th Amendment and just seize all assets of lawyers and then throw their asses out of the country. Marks of nobility for sure!

The BAR, what does that stand for?

British Accreditation Registry, now where and when did this come about?

Well, one thing going for Obama, at least he had his BAR taken from him.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


This data seems to support OP's claim:

Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security....

YEAH Sure.
When SS and Medicare was purposed it was as a PERSONAL "savings" for your old age sort of like a company pension plan. Unfortunately it was looked at by big gov't as "free money" they could use to buy votes with. I have paid over 15% of my wages for over thirty years into SS thinking of it as MY pension. Since no one stays with a company long enough to earn a pension these days after all these years why should I be expected to give up MY old age Pension???? Cut out the other crap in the government like the USDA, FDA, EPA, OSHA, and the rest of the alphabet soup that act as enforcers and extortionists for the big corporations.

I really love how it is SS and medicare that has to take the hit not the boon doogles and pork for the big wigs.




posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
Reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


What's cutting defense sppending going to do? A ton of jobs are provided through that. Anywhere from manufacturing of missles/vehicles/guns, to contracts to companies like boeing and oshkosh truck, employing military men and woman, not to mention military contracts given to colleges for research. Also defense spending is a very good way to further develop advancement and technology of a society. Typical liberal thing to say though. My major is business at a top business school and I can tell you that even many smart dems are fiscally conservative for a reason...too bad party guidelines get in the way. Sure warren buffet is a dem, but he is very conservative when it comes to money and does not just throw it around stupidly like liberals. I'm open to all issues, bu I am very fiscally conservative, but in no way am I a republican.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by jdub297
 
Yes, that assumption would be true if said lawyers were actually advocates of their clients.


A lawyer, by definition, is an advocate for his client. You may be surprised to learn that the vast majority of attorneys do not represent corporations or serve in state and federal legislatures.

Many lawyers serve at the bottom rung of the legal hierarchy, as representatives of the accused or as spokespeople for unpopular positions that often translate into positions in hindsight that reflect a common belief or understanding of the relative power of the ruling class and the populace.


Wait a minute, who are the clients of said lawyers?
We no longer have advocates, we now have the priest class that does not look for justice, they look out for themselves and their own class of charlatans.


You have not paid attention to the thousands of opinions of appellate courts that represent the underpinnings of our social and legal networks ... . Creditors are opposed at every level and laws are challenged all the way to the final arbiters not because of some egalitarian mindset, but because of the underpaid and unrecognized men and women who go to law school to make a difference.

Where would we be without the men and women who spoke up for Miranda or Gideon or Brown? Those people still inhabit the legal community, and for anyone to paint the entire profession with such a contemptuous brush is so near-sighted as to be akin to cutting off their nose to spite their face.


Why is it in this day and age, though we have more "lawyers" per unit population, that justice is worse than it has ever been?


Because we are willing to tolerate hypocrisy and the dictates of the moneyed-class at the expense of the general population.


Is it because of the lawyers? There is at least a correlary relationship.


Correlation has never equated to causation; that is false logic and a refuge for the defenders of the status quo.


Or how about the fact that there are more lawyers representing us as people in government, than ever before?


THAT is the fault of the electorate rather than the elected, don't you think? How can you fault a candidate who obtains a majority of the votes merely because of her training, experience and education? Where's the opposition or the outcry BEFORE the election?


Perpetuation of a fraud comes to mind.


Or, perpetuation of a delusion.


Law has become so circulatory, that justice is no longer served. If you have the funds to either hire the best of the worst or you use the civil courts to circumnavigate the truth. Goldman Sach's sues for peace from the SEC e.g.


I am not sure how this digressed to Goldman, but they did nothing wrong. They sold a complex product to sophisticated and willing buyers who were willing to gamble against the odds. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. I will not cry for Merrill Lynch or Lehman Bros. They knew what they were doing, and if they didn't, they deserved what they got.


The US of A Constitution states in the Bill of Rights several basic tenets of criminal and civil law. Do we have this now?


Yes, we do. It is too bad that Barack Obama decided to ignore 250 years of bankruptcy law to rape the secured creditors of Chrysler, but that is a reflection on the political system rather than the legal system.

When politics trump the rule of law, then who or where is our recourse? The streets? Or lawyers? Many attorneys general have struggled against the popular sentiment to find rule of law against political expedience. When the people wake up and decide to support them, maybe we'll see a difference. Until then, the popular sentiment will override rule of law, lawyers notwithstanding.


Of course not. Now we have the priest class lawyers, that proclaim from on high, the justice that is meted out for us.


No. You have a class of political priests who could not care less about rule of law. When THAT priesthood is disrobed, perhaps there will be some reform; not before.


The BAR, what does that stand for?

British Accreditation Registry, now where and when did this come about?
Well, one thing going for Obama, at least he had his BAR taken from him.


How sad. The "bar" is a reference to the old English "Inns of Court," in which a bar or rail separated the court spectators from those authorized to practice law before the "bench" of judges. The bench and bar have for hundreds of years denoted a separation of the advocates from the decision makers in jurisprudence. It has nothing to do with some make-believe English "gatekeeper."

jw



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by A Novel
 

Social Security and Medicare represent direct payments to the electorate, as opposed to DoD payments to contractors and businesses, regardless of their size or "connectivity."

As such, they are nothing more than bribes to buy votes for the entrenched legislators who will ignore fiscal reality while pandering to an increasingly-dependent voters who look only to their own pockets rather than the future of the country.

Do away 100% with Defense spending, and what do you get? A crippled economy and more pandering to the supplicants.

jw



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Very well reasoned and very well debated. Do not happen to be a lawyer?

I am still waiting for a state AG to start filing charges against the feds for their outrageous conduct.

Political control over courts, enforcement etc or complicit behavior?

I do try to use theatrics a little....okay, maybe more than a little to make my points.


I just find the behemoth created by our political to be destroying our society. The perpetuation of the expansion of government, seems to be the source of the disease. What is their avenue or vehicle of choice? Legislation and "color of law"?

I have come to realize my dealings with the gov in different venues has seemed to become easier the more I research law. I find it more that they realize I know enough to make their jobs harder if they try and steamroll me like they had in the past.

It almost seems like they realize that once someone exerts their rights, the relationship has changed. Instead of being the governed, the citizen becomes the boss.

As for bringing up Goldman Sachs, I feel the civil trials and suits are the SOP to enforce the will of the one pursuing the case. Cause us problems will you, well we will cause you millions of dollars in priesthood charges.


The SEC and the government should NEVER use civil court. EVER. First off, what is their standing? Are they stating that the government took a loss? Or are they arguing that because "supposedly" they represent the citizenry, they have standing? I find that one to be superfluous to the very argument that they have standing.

Now, as for criminal case, they could find victims. Which is what the government is SUPPOSED to do. Not squeeze companies for money.

If I was a State AG, I would be filing requisitions for all evidence against GS and any of the other fed gov components like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and see if anyone purposefully created these things to defraud any investors. I would find a few folks in my home state that were victims, convene a grand jury and place arrest warrants for anyone, including Senators or Representatives that had foreknowledge of said fraud.

All it takes is one person to begin this. One person. Where are they? Why are they not doing there jobs?

That is where I take the collusion and complicit nature of the courts and lawyers to task.

One has to ask themselves, what is the purpose of government in general, if they do not protect victims and the citizenry from criminal behavior, especially in and amongst themselves?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by jdub297
 

I am still waiting for a state AG to start filing charges against the feds for their outrageous conduct.


The state treasurer of Indiana has intervened in the Chrysler bankruptcy to protect the retirement investments of Indiana teachers, police and firefighters.
heraldbulletin.com...


Political control over courts, enforcement etc or complicit behavior?


YES! Political control over the courts is a hallmark of fascist regimes.


All it takes is one person to begin this. One person. Where are they? Why are they not doing there jobs?
Maybe you didn't notice, but this thread is based upon the Tea Party Movement.

Aside from these biased courts and corrupt lawyers, who better than pissed-off Americans would you prefer to speak up for you?


One has to ask themselves, what is the purpose of government in general, if they do not protect victims and the citizenry from criminal behavior, especially in and amongst themselves?


I think the Tea Party Movement is asking that very same question.

Have you joined? Do you believe? Do you care?

jw

[edit on 11-5-2010 by jdub297]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Federal government only has one real role and that is to defend it's citizens. Defense should rightly be the largest pie of the budget, because the government has 300 million citizens to protect. Does it need to be so high? Probably not, but that comes from in times of "war." Plus with military production being some 50% of our total economy since 1950, it's hard to keep the defense pie low.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Oh, I have always been a one man army.

Like an old sig and quote of mine-

Be an information soldier, in an Army of One. Where no one can join, only LEAD.

As for the TPM, I have spoke at two gatherings. Got the crowds quite riled up. Used one of my threads here as the basis for the talk.

As for other work, have been working for several different people on their campaigns for this fall. Put together vids and other computer work, including suggestions on how to prevent problems that are discussed here. I am still wondering if any of the people I am working for, have taken my suggestion and read some of the threads here. Hell, I am wondering if any of them have joined.


Like I said before, I am not a really big joiner. Kind of like to either lead things, like in my career, or to contribute behind the scenes.

I do not like to be lumped together with a movement, because as we see is happening now, the Dems are vilifying and the Repubs are attempting to subvert by inclusion of the movement.

If a movement has a head, it can be taken down, if it has only a body it cannot be destroyed.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


"Tea Party" and even "Conservative" is a very broad picture.. I don't consider most Republicans to be Conservatives, I consider most of them Socialist and or Fascist.. I don't consider all Democrats as Liberals, and a small minority (though by far most vocal and wealthy) Progressives. And some Tea-Party folks are Libertarians and Constitutionalists, and many are Independents..

I think their feeling is that Government is snowballing down a hill, and it can't be stopped... It's not so much "trim the budget" .. like us Libertarians, I'd cut about 90% of that pie chart off and throw it in the trash. MOST people are simply saying "stop INCREASING spending.. be it on Wars or health care... if we are bankrupt, why spend more, then tax us?!"



PS: I'm not a Tea Partier.. their rallies served a good purpose, but honestly the name is lame and lacks historical meaning, and it's been hijacked by the Fascist aspects of Republicans and the card-reading spokesmonster Palin.
(She really is the worst speaker I've ever listened to, worse than Bush who sounded like an MR 3rd grader)

[edit on 5/11/2010 by Rockpuck]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I don't appreciate how you are trying to define a conservative as a money grubbing money hawk at the expense of lives.


Look when you pay into a system your entire life and its forced, then you say lets not give it to them. Lets keep it becuse whatever reason you made up say you forgot,you lied, you were duped.Your answer to this wrong. Is to make another wrong by stealing it and give it directly to bankers .

Make it solvent, people are dependent on this and it is against your humanity to knowingly injure a man or woman.

Creating the problem (medicare/medicade) is a violation against another man or woman.
It takes free will from men by force.Then steals there currency.Gives it to another.

No matter how good your intentions are, to create this good will,you committed an act against free humanity by using violence to gain it. Therefore by law you are in the wrong.

Now that we established the act was illegal,You do not overreact and create another wrong by saying, well we now realize we are wrong we are not going to give you what you paid for your entire life.That would be robbery.

Now if you wanted to make things right. You would make this program solvent,You would give everything that was paid back to them, you wont cut there services or anything they are promised in return.
You will slowly drop the taxes that is forced to be paid.
Then you make the program voluntary.

Plz don't associate Conservative with robbing criminals. That class of man has its own unique label and they can be both Conservative and liberal dem and repub.

We are for Financial liberty, and Individual freedoms.

Can we move on to the real problem of criminals in office funneling risk to taxpayers and profits to themselves?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Agreed. Here's my plan.

1) Fire all Border Patrol agents and shut down their entire infrastructure.

2) Close all overseas military bases and end all overseas military operations, relocating personnel to bases in America and along the border.

3) Charge the Naval Sea Bees and/or Army Corps of Engineers with creating a border bulwark where needed (north and south)

4) Modify the War on Drugs as follows
a) Decriminalize or Legalize Pot
b) Remove all Latin and South American covert/drug operations
c) Concentrate on inspection and detection of inbound materials/vehicles/containers
d) Work to change culture of our over-medicated nation (prescription drugs) and better methods to curtail abuse at the local and state level

5) End Social Security as follows
a) As of date of enactment, anyone over the age of 45 continues to pay in and will receive Social Security as it stands today
b) As of the date of enactment, anyone between 18 and 45 will have the option of "opting out", meaning they will not longer pay in or receive benefits when eligible provided all funds paid in are forfeited.
c) As of the date of enactment, anyone under 18 or born in the future will never pay in and never collect

6) End Federal collection and distribution of Social Programs. The states already handle the lion's share of the work and infrastructure anyway so allow them to modify, eliminate, or create new social programs as the voters of that state wish.

7) Eliminate Income tax and replace it with NOTHING.

8) Restrain the Fed and charge them to constrict the money supply over time.

9) Simplify Federal Business taxes to a simple flat tax (say 10-15%)

Peace
KJ



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
Oh, I have always been a one man army.


And a legend in your own mind.
 

There seems to be continued confusion regarding the Pie Chart in OP.

For sake of clarity, I have located Source. The pie chart was gleaned
from historical data summarized in the 2011 budget.

There are several pages, all verifiable, to substantiate the figures shown in the OP's pie chart. You can argue about anything you'd like EXCEPT validity of data.

Here is trail of links:

Link to Wiki Budget Overview

Link to Wikipedia chart showing link to OMB

Link to Summary data at OMB

Of course you can continue to choose not to believe ANYTHING from the Obama administration if it disrupts your fantasy world. Your choice.

Seems like the Tea Partiers want to have their cake and eat it too, or in this case their piece of the pie.


[edit on 11-5-2010 by kinda kurious]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by jdub297
 


Yes, that assumption would be true if said lawyers were actually advocates of their clients.

Wait a minute, who are the clients of said lawyers?

We no longer have advocates, we now have the priest class that does not look for justice, they look out for themselves and their own class of charlatans.

Why is it in this day and age, though we have more "lawyers" per unit population, that justice is worse than it has ever been?

Is it because of the lawyers? There is at least a correlary relationship. Or how about the fact that there are more lawyers representing us as people in government, than ever before?

Perpetuation of a fraud comes to mind.

Law has become so circulatory, that justice is no longer served. If you have the funds to either hire the best of the worst or you use the civil courts to circumnavigate the truth. Goldman Sach's sues for peace from the SEC e.g.

The US of A Constitution states in the Bill of Rights several basic tenets of criminal and civil law. Do we have this now? Of course not. Now we have the priest class lawyers, that proclaim from on high, the justice that is meted out for us.

A person cannot even argue the facts of the case in front of the jury. They are not allowed to encroach on topics the government DOES NOT want aired. I have seen it as a jurist. It is utterly abhorrent to me. At least the person was able to get a trial.

Tell me, who are the ones now arguing that citizenship should be stripped from a person accused of a crime? Who are arguing that rights that are unalienable are no longer relevant?

Yes, I took it out of context, but in who's eyes are the beholder?

In the beginning a defendant was given an advocate. The judge did not decide anything, they were there to set the flow of the trial, that is it.

Now after over 200 years we have judges and lawyers arguing court precedent and other circulatory rhetoric for the very purpose of making law, not law but some damn RELIGION.

There is one law and one law only, to not harm another or to not infringe on their rights of Life, Liberty and Property. Period.

Now we have "color of law" used to control and enslave the citizenry. There is no justice, but what comes from a barrel of a gun.

If the courts want to stop something, come hell or high water the person or persons will be stopped. Even if they have the law or justice on their side.

The juries are instructed to not even consider law. They are told by these worshipers of the the new religion of "color of law" to listen to the judge, he will instruct the jurors on law. BULL#! The juror is the final entity on the LAW! Period.

The priest class is allowed to bold face LIE. See court precedent that our government has no responsibility for the protection of the citizenry. That right there PROVES beyond ANY DOUBT that our government and courts are no longer for justice, they are for tyranny at the end of a gun.

Yes, I know a few lawyers that would not be on the list, ones with honor and integrity. Those that did not sell their soul to the likes that Faust did. One is in a jail cell in California right now, where he has spent over a year for contempt of court!

Contempt of court, what, do these judges think, they are GOD now?

Maybe I have stated something too extensive, maybe I should have stated we bring back the original 13th Amendment and just seize all assets of lawyers and then throw their asses out of the country. Marks of nobility for sure!

The BAR, what does that stand for?

British Accreditation Registry, now where and when did this come about?

Well, one thing going for Obama, at least he had his BAR taken from him.



I don't know where to begin.

As a Lawyer, I cannot defend the actions of all the members of my profession. There are lawyers out there doing some bad things. However, it is not fair to blame every problem on lawyers. America is in trouble because bankers were flipping garbage securities, everyday folk were buying houses they could not afford, real estate speculators were trying to make a quick easy buck, everyday folk were running up large credit card bills buying frivolous things, government workers unions are not allowing the government to keep payrolls at reasonable amounts, the military is spending too much money losing wars, etc. etc. etc.

As far as your comments about the law and the "priest class" of the legal profession, you are way off the mark. When I went to law school, sat for the bar, and was sworn in I did not make any oath of allegiance to the Crown or Britain. Perhaps lawyers in the Commonwealth or UK make such oaths, but not American lawyers.

Second, the role of the jury has ALWAYS been that of a fact finder in Anglo-American jurisprudence. It was always the role of judges in our common law system to interpret laws and establish precedents. Juries do not interpret laws. As it is now, litigation is risky and unpredictable. If jurors were allowed to interpret laws and people could not rely on precedents, chaos would break loose. Nobody would know whether the contracts they entered into were valid, whether the securities they held granted them any rights, or what their tax bill was going to be.

Finally, you said the only law was not to harm another or infringe on their rights. This might be a nice way of summarizing much of the laws out there, but the fact of the matter is their are hundreds of pages of statutes, regulations, and court cases that apply to any American in any given state. Even if we were to argue that all those statutes, regulations, and court cases were somehow invalid, how could your principle be of any guidance to someone engaging in the many complex transactions people engage in.

For example, if I want to start a corporation and issue stock, does your principle require me to make any disclosures to the people who want to buy my stock? Will I get into trouble if I make false disclosures or omit material facts? If do get into trouble, what remedy should the stock buyers have?

Under your principle, am I allowed to make a will and leave property to my loved ones when I die? If so, what is going to happen if two or more people claim to have my one true will? What will happen if my will leaves "my car" to "my son" but I sold my car and used the money to get a boat? Does my son get the boat? What if I have no son or my son dies? What if I have two sons? How does your principle instruct me.

I could go on and on about how your principle is deficient and why we need statutes, regulations, and court cases to give us guidance. But I will leave you to your simple conceptions on how the world works.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 



As a Lawyer, I cannot defend the actions of all the members of my profession. There are lawyers out there doing some bad things. However, it is not fair to blame every problem on lawyers. America is in trouble because bankers were flipping garbage securities, everyday folk were buying houses they could not afford, real estate speculators were trying to make a quick easy buck, everyday folk were running up large credit card bills buying frivolous things, government workers unions are not allowing the government to keep payrolls at reasonable amounts, the military is spending too much money losing wars, etc. etc. etc.


Garbage securities, hurt others by FRAUD.
People that went over their ability to pay. Let them fail.
Banks over extended themselves. Let them fail.
Real Estate speculators, do you mean people flipping then got burnt? Let them fail.
Government unions costing the government too much money? Who signed the contracts? I would like to bring up Socialist Security, is that a contract? Since the government has broken 5 of the 6 components of a contract, is that then a reason for me to call it null and void?
The military is NOT for police action, it is for WAR. Where is the declared war?



As far as your comments about the law and the "priest class" of the legal profession, you are way off the mark. When I went to law school, sat for the bar, and was sworn in I did not make any oath of allegiance to the Crown or Britain. Perhaps lawyers in the Commonwealth or UK make such oaths, but not American lawyers.

Well, the priest class reference is for the reasons you mention later as precedent and interpretation. A judge was NEVER meant to interpret law in a jury trial. Unless of course you are referring to Judge Roy Bean.

Is a law Constitutional, THAT IS WHAT A JUDGE SHOULD INTERPRET!
What is the oath? Can we see into the priest class?
So, tell me where in the Constitution you think, gives the government the RIGHT to infringe on the rights of an individual. Is that the "elastic" clause?
Where the rights of society or the government are superior to the individual.



Second, the role of the jury has ALWAYS been that of a fact finder in Anglo-American jurisprudence. It was always the role of judges in our common law system to interpret laws and establish precedents. Juries do not interpret laws. As it is now, litigation is risky and unpredictable. If jurors were allowed to interpret laws and people could not rely on precedents, chaos would break loose. Nobody would know whether the contracts they entered into were valid, whether the securities they held granted them any rights, or what their tax bill was going to be.

Role of the jury. Been on several, and HAVE interpreted the LAW by asking myself and other jurors if the law was Constitutional. Did it infringe on the RIGHTS of the individual. Sorry, JURY NULLIFICATION is ABSOLUTELY the right of a jury. No matter what the PRIEST CLASS states. Let us say the government passes an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law like say THE PATRIOT ACT. Can a jury find a defendant not guilty because the government overstepped the Constitution? Of course they can. This is the LAST right of an oppressed people. So, how does the priest class and government remove this right of jury? Well they eliminate it like how they have removed it for TAX courts. Hmmmm? Wonder why they do not have juries in Tax Courts?



Finally, you said the only law was not to harm another or infringe on their rights. This might be a nice way of summarizing much of the laws out there, but the fact of the matter is their are hundreds of pages of statutes, regulations, and court cases that apply to any American in any given state. Even if we were to argue that all those statutes, regulations, and court cases were somehow invalid, how could your principle be of any guidance to someone engaging in the many complex transactions people engage in.

This is not a summarization of current law. This is the basic tenet of NATURAL LAW. The only TRUE law. Law is the basis of a society, otherwise you have chaos. Kind of like what we have NOW. Of course the priest class has to make it SEEM complex. Complexity is ALWAYS the work of criminals. Period. I wonder why the Constitution was not complex? Maybe because LAW is not complex. It is common sense. Please, tell me a complex system. Accounting? Hell, been through several courses on that component. The main reason why accounting has the myriad rules that are used, is to fudge the numbers. When to use LIFO FIFO, etc etc etc. Hmmm, has accounting been infiltrated with "color of law"?



For example, if I want to start a corporation and issue stock, does your principle require me to make any disclosures to the people who want to buy my stock? Will I get into trouble if I make false disclosures or omit material facts? If do get into trouble, what remedy should the stock buyers have?

Are they selling something? What is it they are selling? That would about do.
False disclosure is FRAUD. You know, criminal. Pretty common sense.
Civil courts and criminal courts are there for that. Hmmm, all right there in the Constitution.



Under your principle, am I allowed to make a will and leave property to my loved ones when I die? If so, what is going to happen if two or more people claim to have my one true will? What will happen if my will leaves "my car" to "my son" but I sold my car and used the money to get a boat? Does my son get the boat? What if I have no son or my son dies? What if I have two sons? How does your principle instruct me.

Wills are contracts, are they not?
Car analogy, that would be fraud on the purchaser of said vehicle. Contract made to purchaser so he keeps the vehicle. What is it you are asking? Was there a will-contract made? Common sense, if no will, split evenly amongst immediate family only all assets unless the immediate family comes to an agreement before the case is heard.



I could go on and on about how your principle is deficient and why we need statutes, regulations, and court cases to give us guidance. But I will leave you to your simple conceptions on how the world works.


No, this is not how the world works, it is HOW IT SHOULD WORK as is laid out in the Constitution. Period.

[edit on 5/11/2010 by endisnighe]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join