Question for those who say they are losing rights in the US

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
While we're on the subject of this so called "Personal Income Tax", another question that might be asked is does Congress - who undeniably has the complete and plenary power of taxation - have the power to tax a right. Is not earning an income a fundamental right?

Earning the income yes. But once we take ownership of the monetary amount, that amount becomes property. Property taxes have never really been a big issue among Americans. Damn, I could be a darn good politician!

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Earning the income yes. But once we take ownership of the monetary amount, that amount becomes property. Property taxes have never really been a big issue among Americans. Damn, I could be a darn good politician!

But, the so called "Personal Income Tax" is not a direct tax upon property, it is an indirect tax on some specific taxed activity, and income is used to measure how much is owed.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
But, the so called "Personal Income Tax" is not a direct tax upon property, it is an indirect tax on some specific taxed activity, and income is used to measure how much is owed.

Quite true. Here is something too to ponder. The IRS claims "You may have taxable income from certain transactions even if no money changes hands" or if you barter, you have to determine "fair market value for your services/goods exchanged".

I can see why the "tax" business is a multi-billion dollar industry.

What a mess....IRS Junk

Originally posted by mal1970
to infringe: from Latin - infringere - to break, to weaken.
ANY restriction or weakening by the Fed Gov of my right to keep & bear arms is an infringement. My right has been weakened unlawfully & in violation of the supreme law of the land.

to question: to challenge or dispute, to cast doubt upon
Any challenge or dispute by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to my right to bear arms has been forbidden by it's own Constitution.

You are guaranteed the right to possess a weapon. Its does not specifiy which weapon. As irritating as that is, its left to the states. As far as your definitions go thats nice, but the Supreme Court has used their interpretation of those words and how they apply in this case. If you dont want to respect their interpretation, why should they respect yours? Before you go off half cocked and slam me for that, its is one of the more major issues people seem to be having.

They latch onto an interpretation that suits their own agenda. People claim the government ignores the constitution, yet at the same time your throwing it out the window as well by disregarding the supreme Court are you not?

If you argue the government is acting unlawfully, and you turn around, using the exact same document, do the exact same thing, what does it make you?

Originally posted by mal1970
No, they should not 'allow' it because I ALREADY HAVE that right. Both the Fed 2nd Amendment & Art1Sec21 of my State Con simply state that the Fed Gov & my State Gov respectively do not have the power or authority to restrict, trespass upon, hinder or even question that right. Period. It is other color-of-law statues that violate these superior laws that restrict my ability to do so.

When the Supreme Court rules its an individual right applied to the people of the states, which the 2 recent lawsuits from DC and Chicago did, they did not state what weapons were or were not allowed.

Originally posted by mal1970
Edit to further add:

Now, to use your own logic against you, you have stated that protestors blocking a street are violating others right to travel. But, by your reasoning, if they have an alternate means of reaching that destination, then no one's rights are being violated. So, next time protestors close down a street, tough crap. Turn around & find another way. The only time protestors would be in the wrong is if that street is the *only* way to go from point A to point B. Correct?

Nope - there is a fundamental difference between a persons right to protest and a persons right to keep and bear arms. The point you left out is when a persons right infringe on the rights of another, thats where their right stops. In the case of owning a firearm, its a personal decision and entails a person going to a store, picking out a gun and returning home with it.

In a protest, when people head into the street and block the lane of travel, they are infringing on the rights of the people choosing not to protest from using that poublic right of way. Their right to protest just interfered with the other poples right to travel freely on a public right of way. If the people wanted to get the permit (that everyone whines about but doesnt understand) to have the street shutdown they can.

Would it be any more fair for protesters who are in the middle of the street to be mowed down people people in cars wanting to use the road?

nice try though.

Originally posted by mal1970
So then turning airports into constitution free zones & molestation stations is perfectly fine, as you don't have to fly, you can drive, walk, take a horse, etc. So this logic would hold true for picketers clogging up 4th St. Take 5th St instead & let the protestors alone.

edit on 2011/10/17 by mal1970 because: further addendum

If that is how you view it thats your problem not mine. You arent being forced into anything when you get to an airport. Reggardless of how you and nothers want to spin the argument, its not a violation since you are giving consent by agreeing to go through security. If you dont like it, dont go through it and find another means to travel.

And again the actions you are describing specifically infringe on the rights of people wanting to drive down that road. The rights of the people in the street end when they interfere with the rights of the people wanting to drive down the road.

Your attempt to pass the 2 off as equal shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how your rights work and affect others. This is what I am talking about when I say people must know what their rights are, how they work, and how the government works at ALL levels, if you want to successfully make your argument and hold the government accountible.

reply to post by Oceanborn


I did respond.. Next time take the extra few seconds to read the threads. I will report it, again, right here for you. This can be found at the top of page 25, in my response to you.

2 party system - Confusion? I guess if we include people who are not able to think for themselves. If we look at political ads, speeches, etc that they put out, we can see no one is being forced to read watch or listen to them. We have the ability to form new parties, yet we stick with the status quo. Why have the people not forced the issue in order to get campaign finance, truth in political ads, require politicians to support their claims with the source they got it from.

Is the Government not the people? Our Government does not elect itself does it?

The school issue is a topic all on its own, as well as fitting into this thread, but it is part of the problem. Using the excuse of the parents work is a cop out and nothing more. The schools didnt have the children, the parents did. The parents are responsibile for their kids education, and that includes being active in their kids life as well as being involved in the school itself to ensure their kids are getting the best education they can to prepare them for life. Since you dont wish to discuss it, Ill stop here.

As far as reading your posts in their entirety I have. Whats apparent though is you have not read my posts, and that is evident by stating im defending the government, which I am not doing.

Your view, from what im getting out of your post, is that the Government is to blame for the issues we have and for the people being unable to think on their own - that the government confuses them.

My point is the government answers to the people. The people should take the time to learn how it works and take active participation in it, instead of bitching all the time and doing nothing. If a candidate makes a claim, and a person takes that claim at face value without doing their homework, whose fault is that?

As I said, the government doesnt elect itself, the people do. Call it what you want - confusion, apathy, anger, happiness, it all comes back to the starting point - The People.

So because the government confuses people, we can use that as an excuse for the mess we are in? If people dont get with the picture, we can have this exact same conversation over and over and over for decades to come. I say we are done with talking, and should take action, which means education, participation and follow through on the people elected to office.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Xcathdra
My direction was to point out that the people stating their rights were being aken away, couldnt adequately explain what their rights are. If they dont know, then how can they make the claim?

Freedom is a privilege?

You must prove yourself competent to deserve rights?

Absolutely not, in any sense of the imagination. As ive stated, if people cannot explain what their rights are, how they work and are applied, how can they expect to make changes? If they dont understand how the government works, how they must take part of the process on mor than just an election every 4 years, how can they fix thigns.

Everyone is complaining and looking to blame everyone else wehn in reality its the lack of partiticpation and understanding of the government that gets us here. Our system of government waas designed to be run by the people, not a ruling class of politicians that we have now.

I asked the question I did to demonstrate the lack of knowledge some people have about the government. The very same people who constantly scream the government is taking something from them, when in reality (and the broadest sense of the term based on the extreme lists) they arent.

As an example the minor back and forth over the 4th amendment and who it applies to and how it works. People see it, and assume it applies to them when it doesnt. Ive exaplined why that is and people still yell the government is violating that right. They constantly repeat the amendment over and over and over yet fail to do the proper research to learn the exceptions to it, where those exceptions came from and how they are applied.

In this and other threads ive given detailed info on that process, and people refuse to learn it, falling back to the old cliche of government evil, cops evil, armed revolution wooyah.

If peopl dont have the most fundamental understanding of our government how can we fix it? how can we keep it in check?

This is not one of those issues here people can spout off and walk away with the mindset someone else will do the hard work. We are beyond that point and if this country is to get back on the right track, people MUSt participate and be educated on the topic.

Originally posted by mal1970

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Life liberty and the pruist of happiness is not a right, yet people invoke it.

Woah, wait, what?!

Life is not a right? Liberty is not a right? I think you are missing a major point here. These 'non-rights' are natural rights, endowed upon us by our Creator, inherent in all mankind. They are so fundamental as to not need to be mentioned or enumerated & they are certainly beyond questioning. I can see now why you *think* traveling in any method one chooses is not a right. It is, of course, falling under Liberty, but i can see your argument against it with your... umm, belief structure. You call upon all these statues, the fallacy of case law, & your LE background, but you fail to grasp the basic rights of just being a human in God's image.

Wow, just... wow. That clears things up for me.

When you dont bother to read the thread, you can jump to the wrong conclusions, as you did in this case.

When listing thier rights, people have invoked life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. the problem with that is its not in the constitution, but in fact found in the declaration of Independance.

The Constitution guarantees an individual the freedom to travel unhindered within a state as well as across state lines. It does not specify the manner of transportation. People want to use their own interpretations of the constitution based on what they think it should be, and its avalid point, but doesnt take into account the remaning population in the country.

My point was to show that if the people dont understand their rights, where they come from and how they apply, and how the levels of government work and apply, how can we expect things to be fixed? As I pointed out in a post prior to this, we are beyond the part where the mindset of "this is bad, someone else will fix it". Its all hands on deck or abandon ship.

I for one want to see the ship of state fixed and restored, but the only way to do that is for people to educate themsevles on the government and participate, in all of it.

Originally posted by openyourmind1262
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Check your facts again Mr.Shill. It was presented to congress prior to Ist Trade Center Bombing. It failed to get the votes. But after.... well we all know the outcome. And we as individuals cannot do anything about repealing the patriot act. Plain & simple. It aint on the ballot.

Saying it does not take rights away is silly.

I have, and if you spent time reading you would see The Patriot Act was not passed until October 2001. It can be proposed as many times as it can, but until its voted on and passes and is signed off by the prsident, its not a law now is it.

secondly, your continued use of the term shill is only reinforcing my point that when you dont understand something, you lump it into a category. I am not shilling for the government, and if you spent anytime at all reading and understanding my posts, you would see that. Since you wont, let me help you out.

I am not defending the government. What I am pointing out is the issue of people now knowing what their rightsaare , how they work or how they are applied. they dont understand how the governmnt works and its various levels. They claim the government tkaes something from them, yet they cant even explain where its at and what document its loacted in.

The days of ssomeone else will take care of it are overwith. People must learn the basics on their government, and must actively participate in it, if they want to see real change.

I look forward to your next response, sans the shill portion.

Thanks

reply to post by openyourmind1262


Got to love the 100 meter rush to judgment. Even more so when questions are posed that you are unsure of how to answer. Had you spent anytime reading the thread you would see what im getting at. Since you didnt, lt me help.

the question in the op was asked to highlight the lack of knowledge people have about their rights, how it works, how they are applied in addition to demonstrating a sever lack of understanding on ho the overnment works at various levels. People MUST get the baiscs is we are to make the changes needed to our government in order to reclaim it.

When people give me a right thats not listed in the constitution, what are we to think? How effective of an argument can be made when an example given is not found anywhere in the constitutin, but the declaration of Independance?

the days of someone else will fix it are overwith. Its what got us into this mess, and its going to rquire everyone to get us out. In order to do that, people should be at least familiar with the document dont you think?

Originally posted by Stratus9
HEY you are RIGHT!! That's exactly how Hitler used the Gestapo to get past the German constitution!
Wow people- stop complaining! You haven't lost any rights at all!

Ah yes, sarcastic wit.. nice...

Your misplaced comparison aside, take some time to read the thread before opening your mouth. You would see what my point is, and its far from protecting the government. I am pointing out that people do not know what their rights are, how they work and are applied. They dont have the basic about how their government works, and how their interaction within that government affects it.

People are pissed with the government and its actions, as I am as well, and want to fix it. If they dont have even the basics down, how is it going to get fixed?

Take a few minutes to compose yourself before responding please, and knock the Nazi bs and actually give a thought out reply. If you arent capable, feel free to move onto a different thread.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Easy answer here . . .

I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

--Laws are constantly made to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

This is an interesting topic for discussion and JPZ would better suited to answer; but the basics of it would be:

If Government has been restricted and is prohibited from the free exercise thereof, why do we require permission from the IRS to proclaim our faith in regards to tax purposes. Maybe Jean Paul could expand that for me. I know him and I have discussed that very issue.

If this is any area you guys wish to expand into in this thread you are more than welcome to. I feel the more of a debate we can get going, the more people we might be able to get in to participate.

Originally posted by Mexocali
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Lousianians can't sell used items to anyone with cash
Californians can't have more than 10 bullets on hand
Colorado can't collect the water off their own roof
Tenesee cops stop people and take their cash without charging them
Most states you cannot buy raw milk
Local zoning has stacks of incredulous restrictions, like no hanging laundry outside, no camping on your property
The list is big these are just the headlines research yourself

I am familiar with them sine they have been posted here. If it has anything to do with the government or police, its on this site and usually in triplicate.

a few things to chew on -

Louisianna does not use and is not based off of English common law. It was a French possession and as such use Napolenoic code (hence the use of the term parishes instead of couties).

As for the rest they are issues, but if you look at those issues and compare them to the constitution of the US, as well as State Constitutions and laws, the argument falters some. People have this tendancy to only view things from the top of the pyramid - in this case the Us Constitution. They either ignore, overlook, or just dont know that a lot of whats being listed is because of state law.

People make the argument that that because something is not specifically spelled out in the constitution they can do it, yet fail to accept the fact that anything specifically not listed is reserved to the states, and in some fo the case you listed, its a state issue.

My point is people can make the lists, yet they fail to understand those rights, in addition to not knowing what document it comes from. If we want to hold the government accountible, dont you think we should be familiar with the documents in use?

The mindset of someone else will fix it is done and gone. Its what got us into this mess, and as Einstein stated -

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. - Albert Einstein"

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I can't slap a gun on my hip and travel freely.

Yes you can.


No, you can't In fact some states without proper privileges endowed by the state you may not walk around with a gun in your own home. Others you might but it will be dependent on the manner you carry it. In other states a weapon in the trunk of your car is considered concealed therefore you need said privilege to allow you to transport a weapon. Try it in Ohio, To lawfully transport a weapon in the trunk in Ohio you require a concealed permit. I thought that was BS, until I had to bail a friend out of jail I had been to the local range with. I guess the 2a there means you have a right to apply for a permit.

Over regulation of a right curtails ones ability to exorcize said right. When one can not exorcize a right it has been lost.

You only need two basic premises to run a country the golden rule : do onto others as you would have them do unto you.

And eye for an eye enforcement - steal and you shall be robbed, murder and you will be killed.

There is no law that gives freedom only those that rob peter to pay paul IE shift freedoms from one place to another by taking them away.

We are born free and for a brief time in our life have few if any restrictions. Later on in life especially as an adult we fall under more oppressive burdens of rules and regulations.

I think Churchill made one of the better statements on this “If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.” Laws that are supposed to define freedom not take it away.


But when you have a country that will place non obvious right turn prohibited between x hours signs and then place officers in the area specifically to profit from it you have a fundamentally corrupt system. And if you think it's not corrupt ask the guy that served 18 months in jail for fixing his fence in LA without a permit.

reply to post by gwydionblack


The steerer is not Government but The banks and Wall Street, Federal Reserve.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

When you don't bother to read the thread, you can jump to the wrong conclusions, as you did in this case.

When listing their rights, people have invoked life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. the problem with that is its not in the constitution, but in fact found in the declaration of Independence.

Irrelevant. I have read the entire thread up until this post to which i replied & have not commented on any post after that. Also, I do know full well where this is listed. I carry these documents on my person daily & refer to them somewhat often.

Our rights do not come from these documents nor are they enumerated in them. The Declaration of Independence is not a list of rights or freedoms. It is a statement of record that the Natural Law, the Laws of Nature's God have been violated against the people of the colonies by their former ruler. The Laws of Nature & Nature's God precede the documents referring to them. Neither does the Constitution 'list' our rights in any fashion. It simply set the rules for how the FedGov is supposed to be established & function and sets restrictions upon it.

These rights people are referring to are not enumerated anywhere that i can think of, though some are mentioned in both documents. THE right to freedom of speech, THE right to bear arms, THE right to Life, Liberty, etc. These already exist & are not the concern of the Gov, except to protect them. The 9th & 10th Am are further proof of this by stating, 'we've enumerated a few restrictions on the FedGov, but in case we didn't specifically mention it, if we didn't give you the authority, you don't have it.'

The Dec of Ind states that in order to protect these freedoms, government is to be established. Ironic, isn't it that the largest threat to & destroyer of our freedoms is the very organism created to safeguard them.

The Constitution guarantees an individual the freedom to travel unhindered within a state as well as across state lines. It does not specify the manner of transportation.

It does not have to, nor did the People give the government the right to infringe upon that right. It is an inherent right of mankind to travel about freely as he chooses, on the common way, as long as he does not violate the rights of another. It's pretty simple really and only a lawyer, a judge or a politician can muddy the issue.

Here are links to the Fed & PA Cons. Show me where we gave them the power to restrict that right. I know you won't, but none-the-less...
USCon
PACon

People want to use their own interpretations of the constitution based on what they think it should be, and its a valid point, but doesn't take into account the remaining population in the country.

I don't believe people are as guilty of that as you think. The Constitution for the United States of America is a common law document written in common language. It was not written in legal-eze. It harbors no secret meanings. It is not a 'living' document, in that it's meaning doesn't change with time, though it can be changed over time via amendments.

It is the Gov itself & its agents putting up the pretense that we need their 'interpretation' to understand it. It is the progressive/Hamiltonian view of it (like you appear to have) that is destroying it's meaning. "To not infringe" means just that. Hands off. You, Government, have No say, No authority, No power to break or even weaken that right. Period. Your job is to protect it.

My point was to show that if the people don't understand their rights, where they come from and how they apply, and how the levels of government work and apply, how can we expect things to be fixed? As I pointed out in a post prior to this, we are beyond the part where the mindset of "this is bad, someone else will fix it". Its all hands on deck or abandon ship.

I for one want to see the ship of state fixed and restored, but the only way to do that is for people to educate themselves on the government and participate, in all of it.

Misunderstandings aside, this is where we will probably never agree. The government doesn't work any longer, at least not the way it was intended. The ship has already struck the iceberg. Rearranging deck chairs will not make a difference & neither will any amount of bailing water. Do you honestly think the gov will relinquish any of the power it has stolen from the people? Let me answer that rhetorical question. No Sir, it will not. It never has, it never will.

What good are your rights when you have a government that infringes upon those rights without consequence?

So, I think the real question here is: What rights are being violated so much and so often that it has become so common that the people consider it normal and do nothing about it?

And for a direct answer to the OP's question sense he/she obviously wants something specific:

I HAD a right to a fair trial.

Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

WIKI


This right was taken away with the patriot act.

Look in SEC. 412. of The Patriot Act

There you have it on paper in black and white.

-Alien

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Quite true. Here is something too to ponder. The IRS claims "You may have taxable income from certain transactions even if no money changes hands" or if you barter, you have to determine "fair market value for your services/goods exchanged".

Take note how careful the IRS is to use the word "may" in their suggestion. They are inviting "taxpayers" to take on more debt. This is the game of legality. This is the holy ritual handed down to us by the priest class lawyer sect, and you have just shared with us all one of their mystical incantations.

"Ooooga boooga oooga....maybe.....oooga booga oooga!"

Do you understand? No? Me neither. Leave mysticism for the mystics and law for the scientists.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Quite true. Here is something too to ponder. The IRS claims "You may have taxable income from certain transactions even if no money changes hands" or if you barter, you have to determine "fair market value for your services/goods exchanged".

Take note how careful the IRS is to use the word "may" in their suggestion. They are inviting "taxpayers" to take on more debt. This is the game of legality. This is the holy ritual handed down to us by the priest class lawyer sect, and you have just shared with us all one of their mystical incantations.

"Ooooga boooga oooga....maybe.....oooga booga oooga!"

Do you understand? No? Me neither. Leave mysticism for the mystics and law for the scientists.

Hilarious my friend. I remember one of my professors telling me I will never understand the power of the word "shall" until I negotiated a contract or got sued. Oh the words Jean Paul..... the words.

reply to post by Xcathdra

When you dont bother to read the thread, you can jump to the wrong conclusions, as you did in this case.

I have now read the thread in its entirety. I have waited to see if you were just playing devils advocate regarding natural and unalienable rights, or if you were actually arguing that the only rights people have are those rights government permits.

Are you arguing that freedom is that which tyrants permit?

When listing thier rights, people have invoked life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. the problem with that is its not in the constitution, but in fact found in the declaration of Independance.

You are mistaken, it is "listed" within the Constitution, and here is the Amendment that settles the matter:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

~Ninth Amendment; The Bill of Rights~

Plenty of people have all ready pointed to this Amendment, including myself in my very first post in this thread, but you either side step the Amendment, ignore it, or pretend it says something other than it does.

As a point of law, and as a matter of fact, the Ninth Amendment expressly forbids federal government from making the arguments you've made. No federal employee can deny or disparage an individual rights and then turn around and say: "Show me where the right to breathe is listed in the Constitution?" Of course, they can in that people cannot murder but the do anyway, but legally and lawfully speaking no federal employee has been granted any express power, nor any implicit power that gives them authority to deny and or disparage an individuals right, enumerated or not.

As a point of law, and as a matter of fact, all of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, are not as you attempt to portray them, which would be grants of rights, quite the opposite, they are express prohibitions on government officials. The language of each Amendment is quite clear in its prohibitory nature. To misrepresent these acts of prohibition as being some sort of benign grant of rights to the people is beyond erroneous, it is shamefully wrong.

In understanding government, as you seem to be advocating, we have to understand the basis for government. The clear attempt of the Constitution for the United States of America is to protect the freedom, and rights of the individual. To do this, the Framers established a federal government that holds a certain amount of authority over every state within that Union. What authority they do not have is reserved fro the states, or the people respectively. Beyond the federal, you have the states, all of which have adopted their own constitutions, including declaration, or a bill of rights as well. Then there are the local municipalities, towns, hamlets and villages in each state, all of which have established some form of government harmonious with the state constitution, which in turn is harmonious with the federal Constitution.

Even before this basic civics lesson, however, there is the reason why we even bothered to establish a government to begin with. There can be many reasons, and with every reason a political doctrine put in place. Thus, we can hold that the Divine Right doctrine is a reason, and that Machiavelli's The Prince, is an ingratiating doctrine in defense of Divine Right and a treatise on how to gain, use, and maintain power.

Constitutionally speaking, for The United State of America, the reason for establishing this republic was to protect the individual rights of People. It was recognized that all People have the right to life. It follows that if one has the right to life, they have the right to self defense. It also follows that since all of us have this right, we also have the right to form an organization towards this same end. This organization is what we call government.

The primary mandate for this government is the protection of rights, and failing that, a method by which a redress of grievances can be had, and some sort of remedy made. To establish Justice. To insure domestic Tranquility. To provide for the common defense. To promote the general Welfare, and to secure the Blessings of Liberty. This is why our government exists.

To establish justice, government must be just and act within the boundaries of the law. The law must be recognized as being a recognition of a right. Without this recognition, there is no justice. Without it, no domestic Tranquility. Without it no commonality to defend, and no general Welfare. Without it, the Blessings of Liberty were never secured.