MJ.....I read this piece. What are your thoughts about it and if the "US" was to do away with the constitution, then what should it be substituted with?
S On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:19 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > *American Slavery > *By Chris Dates > by Bill | June 20th, 2011 > > *“My subject, then, fellow citizens, is American slavery. I shall see this > day and its popular characteristics from the slave’s point of view. Standing > there identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine. I do not > hesitate to declare with all my soul that the character and conduct of this > nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July!”* -- > Frederick Douglass > > I always hear folks saying, “if we could only get back to the > Constitution”. Well, in the spirit of the 4th of July coming up in a couple > of weeks, I would like to examine the founding documents of this country > with the hopes of pinpointing just where we went off track. Did we actually > get away from the Constitution? > > I would like to start with the Declaration of Independence. In my opinion, > the Declaration is pure American poetry, and the first couple of paragraphs > are beautiful. It’s enough to make you proud to be an American again. Here > we go- > > The Declaration of Independence > > *In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. > > The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, > > When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to > dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to > assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to > which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect > to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes > which impel them to the separation. > > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, > that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that > among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure > these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just > powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of > Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People > to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its > foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to > them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, > indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed > for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, > that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than > to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. > But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the > same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is > their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide > new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance > of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to > alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of > Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having > in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. > > *I would like to examine this sentence very closely -- > > *That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, > deriving their JUST powers from the consent of the governed. > > *Do you see that word -- Just -- in there? I would like to define that > word, as it was put there for a reason. It does not say “deriving their > powers from the consent of the governed”. > > *Just -- *Honorable and fair in one’s dealings and actions: consistent > with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause. > > Armed with the logic of the Declaration, let’s dive into the Constitution, > and see if we really got away from this sacred piece of parchment. The > Constitution claims The Congress has many powers, but the Constitution never > really claims where The Congress got them from in the first place. Remember, > the Declaration only claimed that Governments derive their “just” powers > from the consent of the governed. I would like to dissect the Constitution > here and see how just these powers the Constitution claims “The Congress” > retains really are. > > *Article 1 Section 8 > > 8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts > and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general > welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be > uniform throughout the United States; > > *Is the power to tax a just power? I honestly do not believe it is. I > think it is completely immoral, and I don’t believe any mere mortal has > possession of the power to tax. Well, they might believe they have that > power, but if any individual tried to exercise that power, it might get them > severely hurt, or killed. What I mean by that is if you claim you have the > power to tax, you also claim you have the power to steal. Simply changing > the name of the action does not relieve a person of the morality of it. If > murder is called by a different name, is it still wrong? You do not possess > the “power” to go over to your neighbor’s house to lay and collect taxes on > him; therefore you CANNOT give that power away. So, where does The Congress > derive this power from? It’s is not from the people, it is impossible. I > would really like to focus on the morality issue here for just a second. > Without The Congress claiming this power, none, and I mean none of this > tyranny we have now would be possible. I’m sure some of you might think it > would be worse without this power to steal; it might be (gasp) Anarchy! > Although that is a lovely conversation, I do not want to get into that in > this essay. Besides, my colleagues here at zerogov.com have done a very > good job slaying that dragon. > > The Constitution specifically says The Congress has the power to lay and > collect taxes, but it never says what the limit on this taxation is. I think > I know the reason that no limit was put on taxation. It is impossible to put > a limit on theft. Theft is either wrong, or it’s not. It’s an either/or > proposition. Please, don’t think I’m pulling and intellectual slight-of-hand > here, taxation is theft. Beneath all of the bureaucracy, tax bills, and > paperwork, lies is a gun. I have had many conversations with people who say > “it won’t come to violence if you just pay”, this is where I ask them to > give me their wallet. Of course, it doesn’t have to come to violence if they > just give it to me, they usually get the point, although I’m sure they got > the point already, the red pill is a tough one to choke down. OK, back to > taxation. How much would you, the “citizen”, or “the tax payer”, prefer is > stolen from yourself? How much would you prefer is stolen from me? You see, > if you do not stand on the principle that theft is morally wrong, then you > have no principle to point to when the Government takes it all. You have > nothing to point to in order to justify your outrage. Are you good with 10% > theft? 20% theft? 50% theft!? If the issue of taxation always rests on a > preference, it will ALWAYS differ between people. You either stand on > principle, or you agree with theft. Period. People say, “But you are being > provided a service!” I am an auto mechanic. I do not provide my services at > the business end of my pistol, although it would be so much easier, but that > is immoral, that is wrong. Wouldn’t it be wrong of me to come to your house, > repair your car, and then stick you up to pay for it? Of course that would > be wrong. The Government is no different than me, if it’s wrong for me, it’s > wrong for them. > > The problem here is when you consent to theft; you turn your neighbor into > a slave. If you consent to governmental theft, you also consent to > governmental slavery. I feel no moral obligation to pay taxes; I pay them so > men with guns don’t come to my house. I pay them strictly out of self- > preservation. Much the same way slaves kept working in order to avoid death. > Since I have to pay taxes, I have to work longer to pay for the things that > I need for my own life. This is slavery, and it is wrong on so many levels. > Slaves work all day for someone else, only to have a couple of hours left in > the day to try and take care of themselves and their families. Slave masters > have always understood that you cannot work the slave and take it all, which > would kill him. The only difference now, instead of having one slave master, > we now have millions of slave masters, who, with a vote, can take more and > more from us, making us work longer, and harder for our own needs. Theft and > slavery are morally wrong, it does not matter if the money is being stolen > to provide for the common defense, or the general welfare, or to feed > starving puppies, it is still wrong. We are all on the plantation, and > Democracy is the slave master. Of course, the intellectual elites of this > world are all laughing at us, because we have bought into this huge scam > hook, line, and sinker. It gives the quote, “the greatest trick the devil > ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn’t exist”, a whole new ring > doesn’t it? It takes a special kind of evil to make a man act immoral when > he normally wouldn’t. > > *8.2 To borrow money on the credit of the United States; > > *What does this even mean? To borrow money on the credit of the “United > States”. I’m not the “United States”; you’re not the “United States”, so > just who is borrowing this money? Why is the “United States” borrowing > money? And the more important question, who is liable to pay it back? If the > scumbags on Capitol Hill can borrow money on the credit of the United > States, and pawn the debt off on me, I should be able to do it to them. I > reckon it would go something like this, “I Chris Dates hereby borrow money > on the credit on The Congress”. This should relieve me of all responsibility > of having to repay money that was borrowed. Of course, I have now just made > all of the members of The Congress my slaves. Borrowing money in someone > else’s name and charging them to pay it back is so immoral it’s sick, but > hey, it’s right there in this sacred document we love so much. We need to > understand the severity of this line in the Constitution. This, in essence, > is the power to not only enslave me, buy every generation of my family to > come. There was no stipulation of when this money had to be paid back. There > was no generational clause in there; it was left very bland for a purpose. > This one line, along with the power to lay and collect taxes, gives The > Congress the power to enslave every generation of Americans, perpetually. > The Constitution is the blueprint for a perpetual slave machine. Sorry to > put it so bluntly, but it’s the truth. I do not possess the power to borrow > money on the credit of my neighbor, so I could not possibly give this power > to some entity calling itself “The Congress”. Do you have the power to > enslave your neighbor? No? Then how in the hell did “The Congress” get that > power? > > I could go on and on here, but I think I have laid out a pretty good case. > The Constitution is an immoral document, and, to paraphrase Lysander > Spooner, it is unfit to exist. If it is to exist, a Government should never > be based on it. It is a maker of tyrants, and a maker of slaves. If it is to > exist, it should be held up for all generations to come as what not to do > when deciding on government. It should be left in its pretty guarded glass > case only as a reminder that it is wrong to enslave our neighbors, even if > we use nice phrases and words like We the People, liberty, and security. The > Constitution cannot change what is right and wrong. There is no getting back > to the Constitution, we are here folks, and this is it. Nothing right could > ever come from a wrong. Immorality only begets more immorality. The reason > the government is wrong now, is because it was wrong at its inception. If > men of virtue are only allowed to play by immoral rules, it is irrational to > expect moral results. Which begs the question as to why men of virtue would > play such a game? They wouldn’t. > > Happy 4th of July, slaves. > > *“No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently > false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet > it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it > really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been > diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected > to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no > difference, in principle but only in degree between political and > chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man’s > ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that > other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, > and at their pleasure.”* -- Lysander Spooner > > http://zerogov.com/?p=1957 > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at > http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
