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.

 

Kicking out the politicians for good... A Pure Internet Democracy. Give us your best ideas

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   
100% paper only ballots that your selection must be WRITTEN IN not checked (proving a little better your an informed voter not just party line box-checker). 100% of all polls are manned by combat armed national guard from 4 randomly selected states 24 hours before the voting date and are sequestered. All votes are collected and tallied by the same military with members of the judicial branch not from that state, randomly selected 24 hours before the voting date and are sequestered. Every paper vote is saved for 30 years. Suspected voter fraud is met with immediate arrest. Biometric ID for every voter. If you don't care to register your biometrics to vote, same idea with states requiring fingerprinting to buy a gun, tough luck, go home. Handwritting the candidates is your mark that can be matched with analysis to verify your vote is valid.
edit on 15-9-2013 by tkwasny because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


The normal state of the government should be paralysis.

I respectfully disagree, as I think most people would.

In the event of war, natural disaster or other crisis, the last thing one wants is a paralysed government.

When justice cries out to be done, the last thing one wants is a paralysed governement.

No sane person would want to serve in a paralysed government.

Wanting small and limited government is one thing. Wanting a government that cannot properly govern is something else entirely.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 05:44 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 05:50 AM
link   
I agree that voting is essential.

However, only for scientific, technological and environmental issues.

Politics as it exists today and the monetary system are no longer relevant.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


The 13th and 14th amendments were created to change US law, more specifically, the nationality and citizenship of US "residents." Actually, the 14th amendment in particular creates a new "class" of persons that pertains only to the newly freed slaves. The court case Dred Scott vs Sandford proves this.

The 14th amendment is a voluntary class of protection offered by the federal government, and is distinct from the de jure citizenship of white men before the civil war.

Every time you check a box asking "are you a citizen of the United States?" You voluntarily place yourself under the umbrella of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment codified the phrase "citizen of the United States," and gave it a different definition from the intent of the framers.

Basically, there are two separate classes in the US today, and it is all based on nationality.


RESIDENT, persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall's Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377.



RESIDENCE. The place of one's domicil. (q. v.) There is a difference between a man's residence and his domicil. He may have his domicil in Philadelphia, and still he may have a residence in New York; for although a man can have but one domicil, he may have several residences. A residence is generally tran-sient in its nature, it becomes a domicil when it is taken up animo manendi. Roberts; Ecc. R. 75.

2. Residence is prima facie evidence of national character, but this may at all times be explained. When it is for a special purpose and transient in its nature, it does not destroy the national character.



DOMICIL. The place where a person has fixed his ordinary dwelling, without a present intention of removal. 10 Mass. 488; 8 Cranch, 278; Ersk. Pr. of Law of Scotl. B. 1, tit. 2, s. 9; Denisart, tit. Domicile, 1, 7, 18, 19; Voet, Pandect, lib. 5, tit. 1, 92, 97; 5 Madd. Ch. R. 379; Merl. Rep. tit. Domicile; 1 Binn. 349, n.; 4 Humph. 346. The law of domicil is of great importance in those countries where the maxim "actor sequitur forum rei" is applied to the full extent. Code Civil, art. 102, &c.; 1 Toullier, 318.

3. There are three kinds of domicils, namely: 1. The domicil of origin. domicilium originis vel naturale. 2. The domicil by operation of law, or necessary domicil. 3. Domicil of choice.

4. - §1. By domicil of origin is understood the home of a man's parents, not the place where, the parents being on a visit or journey, a child happens to be born. 2 B. & P. 231, note; 3 Ves. 198. Domicil of origin is to be distinguished from the accidental place of birth. 1 Binn. 349.

8. - §3. The domicil of origin, which has already been explained, remains until another has been acquired. In order to change such domicil; there must be an actual removal with an intention to reside in the place to which the party removes. 3 Wash. C. C. R. 546. A mere intention to remove, unless such intention is carried into effect, is not sufficient. 5 Greenl. R. 143. When he changes it, he acquires a domicil in the. place of his new residence, and loses his original domicil. But upon a return with an intention to reside, his original domicil is restored. 3 Rawle, 312; 1 Gallis. 274, 284; 5 Rob. Adm. R. 99.



The 14th Amendment Clarified
edit on 17-9-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Also, when I said that for a vote to pass--the vote should be unanimous, you asked about paralysis of government.

Why would a mandatory, unanimous vote cause paralysis?
edit on 17-9-2013 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon
Why would a mandatory, unanimous vote cause paralysis?

If you have to ask then it means you have not thought it through.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   

daskakik

LewsTherinThelamon
Why would a mandatory, unanimous vote cause paralysis?

If you have to ask then it means you have not thought it through.


Or it means, I want to hear in his words why he feels it would cause paralysis.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 

Well they may not be his words but, the obvious words are "you will never get a unanimous vote on anything" so nothing would ever pass. In effect "paralysis".



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 



you will never get a unanimous vote on anything


Which is not true.



posted on Sep, 17 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 

Don't mean to sound like an a-hole but, do you know what unanimous means?



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


The 13th and 14th amendments were created to change US law, more specifically, the nationality and citizenship of US "residents." Actually, the 14th amendment in particular creates a new "class" of persons that pertains only to the newly freed slaves. The court case Dred Scott vs Sandford proves this.

The 14th amendment is a voluntary class of protection offered by the federal government, and is distinct from the de jure citizenship of white men before the civil war.

Nonsense. Tendentious, history-denying, hatred-steeped nonsense.

Before we go any further, let's make sure everyone on ATS understands what you're really saying.


US Supreme Court, Dred Scott vs. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856): judgement, delivered by Chief Justice Taney

EXTRACT
The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race... and put it in the power of a single State to make [a freed negro African former slave] a citizen of the United States, and endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent? Does the Constitution of the United States act upon him whenever he shall be made free under the laws of a State, and raised there to the rank of a citizen, and immediately clothe him with all the privileges of a citizen in every other State, and in its own courts?

The court think the affirmative of these propositions cannot be maintained.

Under your fine constitutionalist pretence, what you are really trying to do is

deny African-Americans their citizenship rights.

*


You are, of course, wrong. Absurdly, haplessly, fantastically, pitiably wrong. The Dred Scott case was brought at a time when slavery was legal in many states of the union; indeed, the judgement in that case was one of the casus belli of the Civil War. The case was brought in Missouri, a slave state that had already given its name to the infamous Missouri Compromise. Judgement in the case was superseded and nullified by precisely the two constitutional amendments we are discussing: the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth.

Here is the Thirteenth Amendment, in full:


SECTION 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

SECTION 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

And here is the Fourteenth Amendment, also in full though only the first two sections and the last are relevant. Section 2 was introduced to penalise states that denied the franchise to black men (or anyone else).


AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SECTION 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

SECTION 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

SECTION 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

SECTION 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

It is plain to see that the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment is precisely the opposite of what you insist it is.

Here is how decent, intelligent, civic-minded folk see the Fourteenth Amendment:


In response to the Thirteenth Amendment, various states enacted "black codes" that were intended to limit the civil rights of the newly free slaves. In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment countered these "black codes" by stating that no state "shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States... [or] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, [or] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment gave Congress the power by section five of the Fourteenth Amendment to pass any laws needed to enforce the Amendment.

During the reconstruction era that followed, Congress enacted numerous civil rights statutes. Many of these are still in force today and protect individuals from discrimination and from the deprivation of their civil rights. Source

Let me just say in conclusion that it gives me great pleasure to think how you must loathe living in modern civil society, paying your taxes, having to treat African-Americans and other non-white Americans with courtesy and be treated by them as no better than they are, knowing all the time that America will never again be the white elitist slave-holding republic of your nostalgic antebellum fantasies. When I think about that, it makes me go




edit on 18/9/13 by Astyanax because: of the usual niggles.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ATS4dummies
 


1. It seems to me that any tech is ultimately hackable . . . particularly given, essentially, unlimited $$$$$$ and time.

2. How on earth could such a set-up prevent the seemingly exceedingly easily propagandized and manipulated public?

3. How many layers of watchers watching the watchers watching the watchers . . . is remotely practical? imho, There's really likely no human solution to every layer of watchers watching the watchers also being corruptible.

4. Given that RE the general population . . . half and below . . . are half and below average IQ. Throw in another 20-30% who are UNIFORMED and DISINTERESTED in key details of national issues. Soooooooo it's reasonable to conclude that 70-80% of the general population

WOULD BE GROSSLY ILL-EQUIPPED TO VERY DESTRUCTIVELY BENT TOWARD MAKING UTTERLY FOOLHARDY JUDGMENTS AND DECISIONS ABOUT NATIONAL ISSUES. Would you really want even 50% making poor judgments about daily life national and defense issues . . . not to mention 60, 70 or 80%???

I don't think the current state of affairs is all that good either--the reps etc. are about as sensible as the lowest common denominator.

I just think that the notion of a direct democracy is fraught with VERY SERIOUS looooonacies very difficult to overcome.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


No. The 14th amendment does create a separate class of citizen that has been used as an umbrella against everyone regardless of their skin color.

What I was getting at is that the de facto system needs to end (namely, the one created by the 14th amendment), for the benefit of everyone.

It was because of the ignorance of men of the past through the practice of slavery that gave the European bankers a backdoor into American law, and a foothold to usurp the de jure republic.

If anything is "racist" it is the 14th amendment, because it was written with the assumption that the freed slaves were a separate class from the state nationals, so they made them federal citizens instead.

Which is exactly what all of us are today. Federal citizens, and "residents" (no domicil just transient foreigners) of one of the several states.

You are using a red herring, I am not racist, anyone can study the language of the 14th amendment for themselves and draw their own conclusions.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

daskakik
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 

Don't mean to sound like an a-hole but, do you know what unanimous means?


Yes, and if it were true that we would never get a unanimous vote on anything, then our juries would never come to a decision through deliberation. We would just have hung juries all over the place.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Errant Position #1: The term "citizen of the United States" as used in the 14th Amendment, means the same thing in the opening verse of the U.S. Constitution.

Truth: The phrase "Citizen of the United States", as used in the opening of the U.S. Constitution, does not have the same meaning as the term "citizen of the United States", as used in the 14th Amendment.

The phrase "Citizen of the United States", as used in the opening of the U.S. Constitution, is shorthand for "All the Citizens of the 13 independent nations [called "states"] that are a party to this Constitution". This meaning is made unmistakably clear when one reads the words of Chief Justice Taney in the Dred decision. To our knowledge, no rational person has ever contended otherwise.

Chief Justice Taney makes it crystal clear that the phrase "people of the United States", and its pre-Civil War synonym, "Citizen of the United States" (as used in the opening of the U.S. Constitution), have a meaning that is forever fixed. It is forever fixed (according to Taney) because those phrases mean only what the men who wrote them, and voted on them, meant them to mean. That is the preeminent rule of constitutional interpretation.

In other words, neither you, nor I, nor the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court can indulge in revisionist history in order to pretend that the words now mean something new and different than they did the day the author wrote them. Whether we like it or not, those words mean (forever) only the white citizens of the 13 independent states (and all states admitted to the Union thereafter).

That is not a racist statement; that is a historical legal reality. Sometimes a historical legal reality may bruise our modern conscience and sensibilities, but the fact that we may feel bruised and angry does not change what the men who wrote the document meant when they wrote the words.

Because the phrase "Citizen of the United States", as used in the opening of the US Constitution, has a fixed meaning for all time, it obviously can never be used to mean people of African decent brought here for the purpose of slavery, or their posterity; so says the US Supreme Court. [see Dred].

A constitutional amendment may change a mechanism or methodology of a constitution, but it can never change the meaning the framers had in mind when they wrote the document. Those who wish to dishonestly apply the 14th Amendment to people concerning whom it was never intended, will try to persuade you that even though the phrase "Citizen of the United States", as used in the opening of the US Constitution, has a fixed and permanent meaning for all time, the 14th Amendment somehow changed what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote that phrase. That proposition is obviously absurd and can only be promoted by people who are either ill-informed or dishonest.

Since the term "citizen of the United States", as used in the 14th Amendment, quite clearly does embrace people of African decent, brought here for the purpose of slavery, and their posterity, this "citizen of the United States" must be a new and different term, separate and distinct from that used in the opening stanza of the US Constitution. And it is!

Citizen of the United States (as used in opening of the US Constitution):

Any free white male who was a citizen of any of the original 13 states, and any free white male who is a citizen of any state thereafter admitted to the Union.

citizen of the United States (as used in the Amendment):

Any person born in any state of the Union who was held in the bondage of slavery or involuntary servitude, and under the provisions of the Constitution of such state (at that time), not a citizen thereof.

In short, the 14th Amendment created another [new] class of citizen. This new type of citizen was not created by the well-settled and long existing rules and tradition of international law as relating to citizenship, such as is the case for men who gained their state citizenship by birth upon the land. This new class of citizen gained his citizenship by the citizens of the "original class of citizenship" agreeing to establish a new class of citizenship and gifting that new class of citizenship (by the Amendment) to a certain designated "class of persons" who, at that time, were without any form of citizenship.


LINK



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 

But your not talking about 12 jurors or even 500 statesmen willing to work things out. In the US it would be hundreds of millions all with personal convictions and all it would take is 1 to throw a wrench in the works.

If you think that you would not have the oddballs that would vote against just for the lulz then, you are not being realistic.

edit on 18-9-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-9-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 

Again: the Dred Scott case is irrelevant. Its decision and the opinon published by the Supreme Court have been invalid since the Civil War ended and slavery was abolished.

The web site from which you are culling your quotes is not authoritative. It is a site designed to provide intellectual justification for the anti-social views of right-wing extremists.

I will withdraw the accusation of prejudice, or not, depending on your answer to this question: should African-Americans and members of other minorities, including for example naturalised first-generation Arab Muslim immigrants and illegal immigrants who have taken advantage of sundry amnesties to legalise their position, have the same rights and privileges as native-born white, Christian Americans?



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



should African-Americans and members of other minorities, including for example naturalised first-generation Arab Muslim immigrants and illegal immigrants who have taken advantage of sundry amnesties to legalise their position, have the same rights and privileges as native-born white, Christian Americans?


Yes, that is what I was kind of trying to get at.

When it comes to liberty and natural rights, everyone should be included.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 

I apologise, then, for the accusation of prejudice (I didn't call you a racist, which is something a bit different).

Your interpretation of the US Constitution and the amendments under discussion is still wrong, though.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join