Should we change how we elect presidents?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
As long as the Presidency holds the immense amount of power it does today, it matters not how the person in that office is put there, the problem isn't in any lack of popular vote, the problem is in the gross aggregation of power that most assuredly corrupts this position.

What does it matter if the President is popularly elected, elected by electoral college, appointed by Congress and/or the judiciary, or born and bread to inherit the position, when that position comes with being Commander in Chief of the worlds most dangerous military? Who benefits from such blatant usurpation's as those committed by those who held the office of the Presidency? The People?

Who benefits from America being a world "super power"? Americans?

The issue of how we elect the President is just a pointless distraction from the real problem. Until We the People accept the responsibility we need to in order to reign in the excess of governance, not just by the POTUS, but by the Congress as well, it just doesn't matter how democratic the election process is.

If people truly want to believe, en masse, that freedom is gained through democratic elections then we will never see this desired state of freedom. If people, en masse, are so willing to abdicate their inherent political power and surrender their rights in order to have a government insisting on that abdication and surrender, no tweaks of the system will make it better.

Easy to say what we shouldn't do. I think people's intention and vote would mean something and Congress is a waste of space. Who needs the middleman anyway? We are computerized now and think my SS number alone should guarantee me some say. My fair share of say. Then I'd like the "Government" (same one you suggest shouldn't be there) to act accordingly.

Should we throw in the towel?
Or do you have any brilliant ideas?

...and I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically.
I fully expect something astonishing and nothing less!

Originally posted by newcovenant
Easy to say what we shouldn't do. I think people's intention and vote would mean something and Congress is a waste of space. Who needs the middleman anyway? We are computerized now and think my SS number alone should guarantee me some say. My fair share of say. Then I'd like the "Government" (same one you suggest shouldn't be there) to act accordingly.

Now, I may be speaking out of turn here, but I am not sure JPZ is saying "Government" shouldn't be there, as you have stated above. The point of the post by him, and I hope he corrects me if I am wrong is that the People (collectively, citizens of the several States and most importantly; individuals), have seceded so much power to the position of the president; willingly or not, that it matters not how they are elected.

The "middleman" you speak of, in a vacuum and perfect world is the prime agent that keeps the corrupt from being put into power. Of course, we do not live in such a vacuum and the Founders, writing in support (Jay, Madison and Hamilton to name a few), understood this fact too. Though their reasoning was to present the best ideas forward that presented the greatest amount of Liberty to the largest amount of people while maintaining some form of Government.

Of course, we can all say that individuals should be able to govern themselves. This much is true. But what about a land mass that encompasses the current United States of America? Forming Government is just as much as right as an individual deciding that they do not want to be part of that Government. (All types of government garner a form of consent...willingly or not.) Of course today, we see nothing remotely close to a free people going about their private lives in a manner they see fit; but rather a veiled charade that prances about upon a stage that declares freedom.

Adhering to one of the greatest political papers that Man has ever seen (the Constitution), is the best hope. Does the document have flaws? Of course! But under the wisdom of the past, we have the ability to amend said Constitution. The goal here is that the People that live under that Constitution and the Government it creates need to stand up and let it be known that the administration (not the current, in general terms) of Government has veered off track.

Getting back to what I think JPZ is getting at, is that in the current playing field and environment, it does not matter how we elect the president, nor should it. The power has been aggregated and consolidated to that position no a manner that it was never intended due to the lack of citizen participation. What does it matter if the president is elected by popular vote or by electoral vote when they will do what they will because of the power they have been given?

Given that, people always look to the National politics of things when locally they are anemic in their participation. Electors are begotten at the smaller levels of Government. Since the People fail miserably at the smaller levels and the various checks and balance that are put into place to elect strong leaders and statesmen, what else do you expect at the higher levels?

Please do not take this post as a direct refute against yourself. As you have stated, does anyone have any bright ideas? Participation by the individual within the political sphere is part of our lives if we are to say we are a self governed people. Instead, as prosperity grew, we passed on such participation to our representatives and abdicated our responsibilities as freemen that can dictate and govern ourselves best.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Now, I may be speaking out of turn here, but I am not sure JPZ is saying "Government" shouldn't be there, as you have stated above. The point of the post by him, and I hope he corrects me if I am wrong is that the People (collectively, citizens of the several States and most importantly; individuals), have seceded so much power to the position of the president; willingly or not, that it matters not how they are elected.

Thanks for your reply. Naturally we should not stray from the Constitution and that is always good advice but I was hoping for proactive suggestions and solutions rather than reasons why this or that won't work.

I also hope he corrects you if you are wrong since, although yours is a very good one, I was hoping for an answer from him. I understand this but am curious what sort of a system this could be replaced with? How much or how little government control do we want? Can we get away with? I asked him because I respect his opinion and am curious as to what he'll say.

I also wasn't suggesting he wants NO GOVERNMENT just pointing out the opposite extreme, again so he might point out where those boundaries and limitations should be.

reply to post by newcovenant

I also hope he corrects you if you are wrong since, although yours is a very good one, I was hoping for an answer from him. I understand this but am curious what sort of a system this could be replaced with? How much or how little government control do we want? Can we get away with? I asked him because I respect his opinion and am curious as to what he'll say.

Hi newcovneant;

I have no need to correct OBE as he did a fine job of representing my viewpoint. That said, I will add to that. First let me speak to your idea that your Social Security number alone should guarantee you some say.

First the S.S. number assigned to you is not yours, it is government property. I suppose, since We the People are that government, you can argue that the number is indeed yours, but actually as an inherent holder of the political power, all S.S. numbers belong to us. However, that is just a convoluted response because when we get into clusterf...'s such as Social Security it is nearly impossible to avoid convolution.

However, the common belief that Social Security numbers are somehow, in affect, some sort of fiat national identification number ignore several facts. The most important fact is that this Social Security number exists for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is in regards to Social Security. That so many people have acquiesced and imprudently given businesses and government agencies this number as a form of identification is a huge problem. Never mind the very real injury that comes from identity theft because of the imprudent use of a Social Security number, by giving your bank this Social Security number this is what enables tax collectors to clean out your bank account if they so choose. Without this acquiescence it would be much harder for banks to just hand over your wealth to a tax collector without even taking the time to inform you first.

However, that is just the tip of the iceberg. I believe, and this is just my not so humble opinion, that Social Security has been a method Congress and the IRS have used to trick people into assessing their own tax liability when it comes to the so called "Personal Income Tax". The issue of who is actually liable for this tax is a complex issue that requires citing much case law and relying upon Title 26 of the USC. I will not get into this here, but will point out that in all likelihood the only thing that ever made you liable for this so called "Personal Income Tax" was your own self assessment and contractual agreement to become a statutorily defined "taxpayer".

You may actually be involved in some form of taxed activity that would make you liable for the so called "income tax", but most Americans are not involved in any taxed activity and the only thing that makes them liable for the tax is their signature on a valid tax return signed under penalty of perjury.

Why do I bring this up? Because here is one of the answers to your questions of how we - to put your words into mine - reign in an out of control government. We begin by starving the beast.

Let me be clear about this: I am not advocating any form of tax protestation. Taxes are necessary in order to keep the slowly grinding wheels of government moving. However, if you have not been made liable for any so called "Personal Income Tax" then why the hell are you paying that tax? I know you are because you have mentioned a Social Security number as if it is your possession. Non taxpayers, (a term invented by the courts), do not have any Social Security number, and even if they at some point had one assigned to them, they do not recognize its validity.

Much hoopla is made of all the people who are in prison because they tried to challenge the assertion that they are actually liable for this so called "Personal Income Tax". Wesley Snipes is perhaps one of the most famous recent examples of someone who tried to challenge the system and lost. He lost because he made what I call "taxpayer" arguments. If you make "taxpayer" arguments you are necessarily arguing that you are indeed liable even while you are attempting to argue otherwise.

More convolution? You bet! This is the problem we face. Wesley Snipes made the mistake of using a section of the code to argue he didn't owe any taxes. This is a "taxpayer" argument. You cannot rely on the tax code to show how you are not liable, and frankly it is most imprudent to take up any invitations at all to prove non liability. A person who is not liable for any tax does not hold any responsibility in proving so. If tax collectors are claiming you owe a tax you know full well you don't, the burden of proof lies with tax collectors not you. This is a fundamental principle of American jurisprudence, that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff making the accusation.

If a tax collector sends you a bill and your response is to ask them to prove you are liable, that tax collection agency will reply by inviting you to enter into a tax court and make your arguments. Indeed, so outrageous are these tax collectors they have devised what they call "The Taxpayer Bill of Rights". When you are so inclined go online and find a copy of this "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" and compare it with the actual Bill of Rights just to see how blatant these usurpers are. There are no rights being acknowledged in this stupid "Taxpayer Bill of Rights", nor are there any civil rights being granted. In fact, one of these so called "rights" is the right to pay the tax before entering into a tax court to dispute the amount. Such a legal action is clearly a presumption of guilt until you can prove your innocence, which again, is not at all a part of actual American jurisprudence.

You will not find any Constitutional mandate for any "tax court", and these bogus simulation of legal processes are fairly what one would call a "kangaroo court". If a tax collection agency decides to prosecute you for some violation of tax law, they will not drag you into a "tax court" but will instead rely upon a Constitutionally mandate court, just to give you an inkling of how bogus "tax courts" are.

This is actually more than what I've wanted to speak to on tax issues, but this is the problem with convolution. Once things have been convolved it is very difficult to un-convolve things.

We have in this country standing armies, which is a most imprudent scenario for a free nation, that exist because people keep paying into an income tax system they are not even liable for. We have a national debt of 14 trillion dollars because of this stupid income tax system. We have an expanded federal government because of this stupid income tax system, and anyone who believes that at some point Congress will listen to the people and repeal the "income tax" is tragically deluded.

Starve the beast. Stop paying "income taxes" you do not owe. Of course, you are the one who assessed your own liability and will have to be you who comes to the conclusion, if indeed you are not involved in any taxed activity, that you were never liable to begin with and only assessed that liability yourself due to mistakes of fact, misinterpretation of law, and flat out fraud.

I keep putting quotes around "income" tax because income is not the subject of the tax. Which brings me to another point. Most American's have no idea what I mean by "subject of the tax". This is inexcusable and gives clue as to where the real problem lies, and it sure as hell ain't the Presidency. We are the problem. When the vast majority of American's do not even know what is meant by "subject of the tax", it should be no surprise that Congress has used their complete and plenary power of taxation to defraud the American public. American's have collectively pulled down their pants, bent over, and begged for what has happened to them.

Every tax comes with a subject. There is no such thing as a "subjectless tax". Look to the Constitution to get a better idea of the two great classifications of taxes, being either direct or indirect. Direct taxes are either capitation taxes, (poll taxes - of which Congress has never passed), or property taxes. If income were actually the subject of the tax it would be a property tax, that being a direct tax. All direct taxes require apportionment and the 16th Amendment did nothing at all to change that requirement.

Indirect taxes come in the form of imposts, tariff's and excise taxes. In other words, some form of activity becomes the subject of the tax. Under the so called "Personal Income Tax" there are sections that make it undeniably clear of whom is liable for this tax by the taxed activity named, i.e. the distillation and/or importation of spirits, and the manufacture and/or importation of tobacco. The taxed activities are clear. It is not income that is being taxed but instead the activity of manufacture or distillation of a product, or importation of that product. Income is merely used to determine how much is owed. Income is the measurement of the tax, not the subject of the tax.

Do you understand just how convoluted this all has become? It is, as I have stated, inexcusable that most American's have no idea what is meant by "subject of the tax". Because they have no idea what this means, it is fairly presumed that when a tax collector contacts them and presents them with a tax bill that they don't respond by asking that tax collector what the subject of the tax is.

Let me clarify something at this point. Asking a tax collector what the subject of a tax is will not act as magic words and make the demons go away, but what it does do, particularly for those who understand the law - not legislation but law - is begin the process of challenging jurisdiction. Which now leads to yet another problem created by We the People; most people imprudently assume that jurisdiction only relates to territory, and in real estate. However, jurisdiction relates to far more than real estate, and the territory of jurisdiction also relates to the Constitutional authority granted government officials.

I will share a recent personal story with you in hopes of better clearing up this confusion of jurisdiction. I live next to a very large park in the city I reside. The park has signs posted in numerous places claiming that the park - a public park - is only open from the hours of sunrise to sunset. There is no Constitutional authority that grants a municipality to criminalize being in the park after these hours, but posting signs suggesting a time frame is wholly Constitutional. Just as you and I and OBE have the freedom of speech, so do municipalities. As long as the ordinance that appears as a restriction on time in a park is used as merely directory, it remains Constitutional. The moment such an ordinance is applied as a criminalization of lawful behavior now we see an unconstitutional act.

So, I was in this park with some friends at around 11:30 pm. Two police officers approached us and "informed" us that we were in the park after hours. Not wanting to argue with these police officers, I started to get up and just leave, but the police officer wouldn't let me. I asked if I was being detained. Annoyed, one of the police officers answered yes, that I was being detained because I had committed a "misdemeanor" by being in the park "after 10:30 pm". Now, given the signs that claim the hours are from sunrise to sunset, I am not clear how this police officer came to the determination the closing time was 10:30 since even in the summertime 10:30 is well after sunset, but this gives clue as to how convoluted this stupid ordinance is.

Anyway, in response to the police officer admitting to her unlawful detention of me, I respectfully requested she call the Sheriff's. "The Sheriff's?" She asked incredulously. "The Sheriff''s don't have any jurisdiction here, we do!" I responded by informing her that the Sheriff is the duly elected law enforcement of the county and that if I believed that police officer had any actual jurisdiction I would not have requested the Sheriff's be called. She didn't know how to respond to this so she just shut up and said nothing until her partner, (also a woman), came back with another person she had rounded up in the park.

When the partner arrived, the one I had asked to call the Sheriff's informed her partner that she would handle all the other people but that she needed to deal with me because I had "issues". The partner was a real sweetheart, and while I do not carry any form of ID, I had all ready told her my name earlier, so she looked at me and said; "JPZ (Not my real name of course, and certainly not the name I gave her), what's going on?" I told her that her partner was grossly exaggerating the facts and that all I had done was respectfully request the Sheriff's be called. She asked me why I wanted the Sheriff's called and I explained I was challenging jurisdiction.

To her great credit, this police officer had an actual discussion with me regarding the so called misdemeanor of being in a park at unsuggested hours. I calmly and rationally began explaining to her case law and Constitutional law. At some point she got clearly confused and stopped me and said; "I have no idea what you are talking about." I smiled and told that was okay, as long as she understood that I did know what I was talking about. She said she believed I did know what I was talking about, and clearly wanting my sympathy at this point explained that she and her partner were only doing their job.

I responded to this by informing her that she and her partner took an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution, and that if she couldn't understand anything else about the case law I was rattling off that she should understand that one particular 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling I spoke to. In this ruling, where the ordinance itself was challenged as unconstitutional, the 9th Circuit upheld the ordinance as Constitutional, but made clear that the "as applied" was a different story. That police officer admitted she didn't really understand what it meant.

I respectfully informed her that what it meant was that the 9th Circuit upheld an ordinance as protected and sacrosanct but threw her to the wolves. I calmly explained that if she were to imprudently charge me with a "crime", or write me a ticket, that this would be the unconstitutional "as applied" action the court was speaking to.

Again, to her great credit, not only did she begin to understand what I was saying, she also did her level best to save face under the circumstances and told me that she had discretionary power when it came to writing up citations. I fully understood what she was saying and told her I thought she would show great wisdom in using that discretionary power and to stop detaining me and just let me leave the park like I was trying to do when they arrived. She complied, while still, at least in her mind, feeling as if she asserted her lawful authority.

I have told this personal story to make a point. If a government official has no jurisdiction, then the only authority they have is to dismiss the unlawful thing they are asserting was a "violation". The police officer did just this. I have seen that police officer since and she is a real sweetie and I enjoy talking to her. It is also clear she enjoys talking to me as well, and respects me.

This is not to say that all police officers will show the wisdom that one did. A few will not, but those few are thugs, acting on their own private beliefs and certainly not acting lawfully. Which leads to yet another problem; We the People have so foolishly allowed administrative agencies comfortably buffered from Constitutional restraints to usurp our authority. The Sheriff and his, or her, deputies are restrained by the State Constitution of which they reside in ways that a police officer is not. Where the Sheriff generally has actual jurisdiction in a matter, often times the jurisdiction a police officer finds comes from a construable behavior by We the People. In other words, if We are not openly and firmly challenging the jurisdiction, that becomes legally construed as a tacit grant of jurisdiction.

However, the even greater point is this: Before the rise of administrative agencies in this nation, government acted much more lawfully instead of acting legally. So, if you were assaulted at a time when all there was were Sheriff's, you would go to that Sheriff and file a verified complaint. This verified complaint is an oath, under penalty of perjury, that it is true the crime you are accusing another of actually happened. This verified oath protects people from false charges in that if ever someone perjured themselves under verified oath the penalties for such a crime are harsh. Yet, when a police officer arrests someone and charges them with a crime based upon some others accusations - all too often an anonymous accuser - this protection is gone. Anyone can anonymously accuse another and increasingly this simple process leads to an arrest, and even when charges are either dropped or the person is acquitted, their lives have been dramatically injured because of this.

Even so, this is not my point. My point is that because we have become so far removed from the process of filing verified complaints and instead relying on officers from administrative agencies to handle the crime for us, that when it comes time to handle a criminal police officer we foolishly rely on police officers to handle this problem, instead of filing a verified complaint ourselves, and then if and when that criminal police officer is not charged with any crime we show our collective outrage as if this is some how a causative action as opposed to a knee jerk reaction.

I could go on and on and on about how convoluted it has all become, but I just don't have the time to do so and can only hope the few examples I have spoken to in this post inform you enough as to precisely what we are up against in terms of reigning in an out of control government.

Some would say the only answer is a violent revolution. I would suggest that such a strategy is only valid as a last resort and we are far from exhausting wiser strategies before resorting to such a thing as violent revolution. I qualify the word revolution with violent because too many people are too comfortable in equating the term revolution with violence, but revolution is change, and there are such things as peaceful revolutions, or velvet revolutions, where nary a shot be fired to usher in the needed changes of an out of control government.

All of which I have described in this post has absolutely nothing to do with the President. Can you understand what I am getting at? This phrase: "The most powerful person in the free world" to describe the POTUS is fantasy. It is an illusion and the President has been presented as if he is the Great and Powerful Oz, and currently the odd little man behind the Curtain is Barak Obama. Barak Obama didn't run for that office because he wanted to be Barak Obama. Barak Obama, George Bush's I and II, Bill Clinton, all the way down to probably John Adams, and maybe even George Washington (although all I've read about this man and President is that he had no interest in holding power) wanted to be the Great and Powerful Oz.

We the People today lament that if only we had a brain and we demand the President of the U.S. of Oz give us a brain. Then we lament that if only we had a heart and demand that the POTUS grant us all heart. Then we lament that if we only had some courage and demand the Great and Powerful Oz give us some courage. We are a nation of scarecrows, tin men, and cowardly lions, and this is not a good thing. It has been argued that Baum, with his book The Wizard of Oz, crafted an allegory about America and that illusive American Dream. It has been suggested that the scarecrow represented the American Farmer, affable in their earnestness, and brainless in their business sense. The tin man represented the American industrial laborer, a tragically mechanized heartless set, and the cowardly lion represents the American politician, all bluster and blow hard without the courage of conviction.

I have no idea what Baum intended to write with the Wizard of Oz, but these suggestions do not paint a pretty picture of Americans, if you ask me.

I am running out of time, and I felt compelled to set up my "answer" as best as possible. Here is my answer to you. At this point it just doesn't matter who gets elected as the Great and Powerful Oz, in the end, they're all just odd little men behind the curtain. This does not mean they are not problems or problematic, but it is important to develop a wisdom that allows to know the difference between the things we can change, and the things beyond our grasp at the time, and simply just focus on that which we can change.

That change has to begin at a local level. The greatest trick that the manipulators of the Great and Powerful Oz have managed to pull off is convincing a public to place so much focus on Oz while the mayor and his little lolipop kids are gallivanting about town running roughshod over everyone and every thing. What can you personally do about the President? Very little, however you personally can do much in terms of reigning in the out of control government in your area.

The greatest trick that We the People, as the holders of the inherent political power, have is the magic of non acquiescence. You do not have any legal, and you certainly do not have any lawful obligation to acquiesce to unlawful legislation, or unlawful executive actions, or unlawful judicial decisions. As President Jackson once said in response to a Supreme Court ruling; "They have rendered their decision, now let them enforce it." It is perhaps the most famous example of American non acquiescence, but a little fact not so famous is the reason as to why Congress, 13 years after passing the 18th Amendment, repealed it. The 18th Amendment was the prohibition of alcohol. Congress repealed it 13 years later because the stupid legislative acts that followed the 18th Amendment couldn't be enforced. American's consistently refused to convict distillers and importers of alcohol, and of course, people drank anyway. Congress had to relent, just as they will have to eventually relent on the ill advised "drug war".

The difference between the 18th Amendment and the "drug war", besides the fact that Congress had no compunction to write an Amendment in order to find authority to prohibit drugs, is that juries are too willing to convict, not just drug dealers, but drug users! Jury nullification is an extremely powerful tool that We the People possess. Of course, all kinds of government people and their sycophants will insist that jury nullification is "illegal", but this is a lie and no one anywhere will ever be able to present one example of a jury being convicted of nullification. Jury's absolutely have the power of nullification and when We the People begin using this power on a regular basis when it comes to bogus legislation, then you will begin to see substantive changes in this out of control government.

Non acquiescence, jury nullification, and the courage of conviction to live your life free and lawfully. What does it mean to live lawfully? It means that unless you find yourself in a position where you have to defend your life, the life of others, or your property, then cause no harm. What causes no harm is a right. That which I do that causes no harm, I do by right. That is what it means to live lawfully. Why does such a thing take courage of conviction? Because living lawfully has been criminalized by local, state, and federal legislators and there are executive branches all to willing to enforce these bogus acts of legislation, and more often than not, courts too willing to acquiesce themselves to this unlawful legislative nonsense. Although the courts still remain the best branch of government to use to keep the other two branches in check.

What do we do? We flourish and prosper! We use our prosperity to expand our circle of influence so that we can reach out to as many people as possible to help them understand just how incredibly powerful and free they actually are. This takes much more effort than simply casting a vote for President, but it is, in my not so humble opinion, the right thing to do. All the while that we are acting lawfully and flourishing and prospering, we continue to engage in non acquiescence, when the opportunity arises we embrace jury duty and nullify any bogus acts of legislation, if only in the narrow case of the poor individual being charged with a fictional crime, and we always do so with the courage of our convictions.

you should change what a president can do. and his powers.
Obama now has far to much power.
the emperor makes him self a god.
each state should had independent powers.

Originally posted by buddha
you should change what a president can do. and his powers.
Obama now has far to much power.
the emperor makes him self a god.
each state should had independent powers.

President Obama is enjoying no more power than the previous, nor the one before him. I lay blame upon the complete electorate. Failure to be involved in local politics (may it be by design through increase taxes and burden or general laziness), we have failed the general duties as free people to maintain a high standard and knowledge to govern ourselves.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


JPZ, I am glad I did not take your previous posts out of context. As I have read your post, I ask but a simple question... Would it be wise for the public (please read as the People) be best inclined to engage within local politics?