Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Roughly 236 years ago...

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Roughly 236 years ago...

    Folks got fed up with taxation without representation and took this country for their own.

    For the first 180 years, things proceeded pretty much as planned, the next fifty however, lost alignment with original intents.

    As the industrial revolution came full swing, new laws to "protect" people, business, industry, and special interest came into play.

    More specifically, rights became optional components of the constitution, the "living document" indeed became exploited, the legislative and executive branches opted to trample it at will, leaving the people only the judicial branch to protect them from the elites whom constantly attempted to rule vs serve.

    Noting this problem, both parties began manipulating the judicial branch, pouring monies into campaigns of judges known to swing one way or the other in contrast to simply literally interpreting the words on paper called laws. This began the spiral that continues today. It is no longer truly what one can call justice or fairness, it is a matter of nothing but money.

    A simple man no longer enjoys the protection of the constitution as he is unable to afford the price to speak to the highest court at a half million dollars just to be heard, it is a pipe dream, so he is left to grovel at the feet of the lower courts which have been purchased by both ruling parties.

    A week or so ago, our highest court sealed our fate, not unlike the king of England some 200 plus years ago. Forced to buy a service, no opt out as if you do a "tax" may be imposed upon you. Now I do not subscribe to Christian Scientist or a couple of other well known religions that are committed to "healing through prayer" but clearly those who do are now being forced to adopt something they do not believe in, or pay for it without regard for their rights under our founding document in several ways.

    Today is the 4th of July, a day we celebrate our independence from tyranny, as we do so, we are coming full circle and again are faced with taxation without representation. Think wisely in your choices and effect change this election year, the 4th is a day to consider choices in November and if we do not become smart in those choices, we are likely to have a new "independence day" soon as the rulers are continually exercising their power over the peoples rights and now SCOTUS has said "when the subjects do not comply, you may tax them as you see fit" in a few other words, and that ladies and gentlemen is where we are today.

    Celebrate your freedom, what little remains and happy 4th of July, the independence part now only means free from England.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  2. #2
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Well said, Rich. It is unfortunate, but I suspect the vast majority of people in this country will "celebrate" this day as if it is just another day off work to BBQ some steaks and drink some beer, without ever giving a single thought or care to what our independence really meant at one point, and just how much sacrifice was made to gain it. I believe this is evidenced by how easily the American people have given it all up on the promise of security and welfare from a bunch of fat-cat politicians who are self-serving, self-righteous, and who have made sure to exclude themselves from the vast majority of laws and rules under which we "subjects" must live.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Just a few random ideas I've picked up along the way:

    1. Taxation without representation was apparently a pretty serious point, not just empty rhetoric. I once read it explained roughly thus: Think of the king as the chief nobleman. He could do most anything he wanted--as long as he paid for it himself out of his own pocket. If he wanted even one shilling more, he must obtain the consent of Parliament. Translation: if he wanted more money than he himself could or would pay out of his own pocket, it meant he would have to levy a tax to obtain the money. And, the only way he could levy a tax was with the consent of Parliament. Thus, the idea was that an Englishman consented, at least indirectly, to paying a tax, because his representative in Parliament consented.

    2. The colonists were not upset just because they were Americans being tyrannized. The colonists were mad as the devil because they were Englishmen being denied the fundamental rights of Englishmen. It wasn't that these were natural rights that were being argued over for the first time, that the English were denying the Americans. It was that the colonials were Englishmen and they were being denied already-established rights they considered they deserved as Englishmen. If you go back and read the original charters of the colonies, for example, Jamestown, you will find that all but one expressly declared that the colonists had all the rights, privileges, and protections of law of Englishmen. The common-law went with them, by royal charter.

    The Bill of Rights only includes a few new and genuinely American rights: no quartering troops in homes, search and seizure, no state religion. Others were most definitely recognized in England prior to the break, for example, right against self-incrimination, right to due process of law, jury trial, etc.

    3. One element of this rights/taxation angle was that from 1607 until, what?, 1740's?, the colonists were not taxed by Parliament. No tax money was being paid back to England. To the colonial governments--by way of the colonial legislatures once established--but not back to England. Then, along came some taxes. Now, we all know about the taxation/ representation in Parliament angle. But, also consider that the colonists hadn't been taxed at all, except on maybe imports and exports at the other end. Imagine how annoyed that would make you! to wake up one day and be told you personally had to pay a tax on playing cards, official documents, etc. (Stamp Act--the tax stamp being affixed to the document not unlike a postage stamp.)

    4. Another aspect of the taxation without representation problem--a very sore point--was how England enforced the taxation, namely searches and seizures under general warrants. In the 1750's and 60's, the population was really, really annoyed about custom's officers who could without probable cause break into a home, break into a bedroom or cellar, and search for goods upon which the tax had not been paid and seize whatever he wanted on the barest suspicion or assertion by himself that it was an item upon which the tax had not been paid. Some towns were so annoyed with this that groups of people would go and rescue back the seized goods! In at least one instance in (Boston?) the customs officials decided against asking the gathering crowd for assistance breaking into a barricaded shop. They decided it would be better to avoid bloodshed--their own! Some courts were giving up trying to enforce the general warrants because the population was taking up physical opposition. The problem with a general warrant was two-fold. First, it wasn't specific as to what uncustomed goods would exist, or where, so no limitation on what could be searched for or where it could be searched for (meaning there was no need for probable cause in the first place because probable cause would necessarily provide the ability to describe what was suspected and where.) And, second, a general warrant could be of long-term time duration, for example, the general, blanket warrant given to customs officials. Meaning, such a general warrant was as good as Parliament imbueing the customs official with the authority to search where ever for whatever he wanted as part of his job title, and just skip giving him a piece of paper called a warrant. One particular kind of warrant for customs officials was good until the king died!

    So, you didn't actually have to have any uncustomed goods or fail to pay a tax. They customs officials had almost carte blanche to search whoever's house or shop or tavern on the barest suspicion.


    If you want to learn more about this, there are two very good books still in print by Leonard Levy: The Origins of the Bill of Rights, and The 5th Amendment, The Right Against Self-Incrimination.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-04-2012 at 04:34 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    613
    Honestly, after looking at the history of the world and western civilization, I do not see how it is possible to avoid a bloody revolution/civil war. I could not have fathomed that it was possible just 20 years ago. Now, I cannot conceive of how it might be avoidable. Not because I believe that the citizens cannot stand up to the government, but because the (majority of) citizens are too STUPID and refuse to see the obvious trek down the path of tyranny we have already taken and continue to march down, and do not even see the NEED to stand up and throw the bums out of office.

    War and death have always been and will always be the answer. The founding fathers already warned us quite clearly. It is merely a matter of time...*sigh* ... unless Iceland has really figured out the bloodless coup and it is possible to implement here. The main difference is that the vast majority of Icelanders wanted the government out...
    __________________________________________________ __________________________

    "The problem with Internet quotes is that no one has verified the source" -- Abraham Lincoln

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by peterarthur View Post
    Honestly, after looking at the history of the world and western civilization, I do not see how it is possible to avoid a bloody revolution/civil war. I could not have fathomed that it was possible just 20 years ago. Now, I cannot conceive of how it might be avoidable. Not because I believe that the citizens cannot stand up to the government, but because the (majority of) citizens are too STUPID and refuse to see the obvious trek down the path of tyranny we have already taken and continue to march down, and do not even see the NEED to stand up and throw the bums out of office.

    War and death have always been and will always be the answer. The founding fathers already warned us quite clearly. It is merely a matter of time...*sigh* ... unless Iceland has really figured out the bloodless coup and it is possible to implement here. The main difference is that the vast majority of Icelanders wanted the government out...
    I have been thinking the same thing for the past year. Many people just go home to watch their Jersey Shore and do not give a rats ass about anything that is affecting their lives, just sit back and say, "oh well i guess that will be ok" and hope that something will change. I see your point of view 100%.

    If certain rights get taken away, there will be many peoples who will have the balls to stand up and die for their rights and their freedom. Don't wants rights or freedom...move farrr east. see how that goes for ya.
    Unfortunately and personally, I do not think anyone has enough power to throw anybody out of office. I will come down to the citizens of USA exercising some of their rights...
    Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •