Funny, though you posted several versions of democracy, you didn't post one of republic.
republic (ri publik) n. 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. 2. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch and is usu. an elected or nominated president. 3. the form of government of such a state. 4. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
Now which fits better the form in question? I refer you back to your own comment on the argument of semantics. Anyway, just because your definition is the most widely accepted does not make it right. However, your point that your definition does not conflict is true, to the extent that it is broad enough to encompass the definition of "republic."
sovereign power resides in the people as a whole
Note the wording. In this country, sovereign power is held by the individual, not the people as a whole. (Note: I'm speaking theoretically here, since only a small percentage choose to actively protect their rights.) Lastly, I should have made it clearer in my comment on education of history who I meant. I was speaking of people both who have little education on the matter at hand, and those who do have it, but a) don't look at the historical context and/or b) show evident bias.
How about this: look up "United States," "republic," and "commonwealth." You should be able to fit the pieces together. Some are obvious, some are less so.
"We are a democratic nation" "it is disruptive of our democracy"
Look up "democracy" in a dictionary. The United States is not a democracy. Try republic next time. People who attempt to comment on history prior to learning it annoy me.
Re:You don't own your car UNLESS...
on
License to Surf
·
· Score: 1
It depends on the usage of the vehicle. States have a vested interest in regulating commerce in and through their jurisdictional holdings. However, the courts have agreed that the right to travel by the common means of the day (originally, horses, then by horse-drawn carriages, and now by horseless carriages) in a non-commercial capacity. Essentially, that little scrap of paper is meaningless, except as original proof of ownership. However, it is essentially unnecessary in the same way that a certificate of origin is not necessary to own a television, or a computer, or anything else.
Not sure what you mean by "of Trust." Sounds like you missed a word. License doesn't say anything new. I fail to see your point in any event. The Certificate and licenses have nothing to do with the issue.
As for never being ticketted, that is generally moot. You either end up in jail, know your stuff, or are just really lucky. Since I don't know you, I can't guess which, but I only know a couple other people who successfully do that, and they've had decades to study and perfect. Anyway, the research should never end.:)
Remove all laws and controls over the roads and let people go 100mph while drunk through a school zone at 8am.
I backed my statement with proven factual evidence. Where's yours? (Asking what it is would look stupid, go back and read the previous post.)
As for licensing, I already stated that those who want to drive, will, irregardless of the law. If you believe otherwise, it's your choice to stick your head in the sand.
Figures.
Ah, such a mature statement. I'm sorry my family doesn't meet with your approval.
I don't see any reason why non-oceanic life could not develop on a high-gravity planet. Life would merely evolve to the gravity of the planet it evolved on, just like we did.
Consider if we colonized Mars. In a couple generations, children born there would not have the bone structure or muscle mass to live comfortably on Earth.
Basically, if you had a complex hydrocarbon life-form evolve on a high-gravity planet, it would be extremely muscular. Travelling to Earth, it would consider our gravity to be like we consider the moon's gravity. We'd have a new world-record for the high-jump held by Gruph'nix of planet Zebo.;)
Ah, but here comes the part that most who don't study the law never delve into: definitions. No, I'm not talking about what a given word means in the common vernacular, but the legal definition. We'll take "traffic" for example. I'd do "motor vehicle," but I don't have a Bouvier's law dic handy, only a Black's 6th (sorry, for those of you who know the difference between the 4th and later versions).
Traffic. Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise...The subjects of transportation on a route, as persons or goods; the passing to and fro of persons, animals, vehicles, or vessels, along a route of transportation, as along a street, highway, etc.
Transportation. the movement of goods or persons...by a carrier.
Carrier. Individual or organization engaged in transporting passengers or goods for hire.
Now, traffic laws. Most people think these have sway over everyone operating an automobile. No, they're for enforcing commercial law, as is shown by the very simple, 3-minute exercise of connecting the dots via definition as shown above.
In conclusion, you're right about needing a license to operate a motor vehicle, because a motor vehicle is a commercial transport, subject to the laws regulating commerce. However, operating a private automobile is not subject to those same regulations.
"Lawyers don't lie, they just tell the truth judiciously so as to guarantee utter confusion."
This is a nearly verbatim copy of an article I read several years ago on the subject of communism in America. It illustrates the point that America is about as communist as countries go, except maybe China, fairly well. Probably won't be taken well by someone who has hardcoded beliefs in the goodness of "American governmeent."
Sounds like you're throwing anyone with Libertarian beliefs into the pot with the Righties. Anyway, you're overgeneralizing. Those "laws" that you say are treated as magic spells, well, they make it so peaceful revolution is still possible. The other option is violent revolution. Which would you pick? You can be assured that all those freedom-lovers, who you put into one little group and call paranoid and bigotted right-wing extremists, have the firepower to make no small effect should a peaceful revolution become impossible.
I think the dullest and most dangerous are those who just follow, and don't think about how and why they believe the way they do, and merely accept the status quo.
Re:You don't own your car UNLESS...
on
License to Surf
·
· Score: 1
You shouldn't post on this sort of topic until you've done your own research, instead of regurgitating what you've read off of websites. Go down to the local law library and start pulling out relevant texts. The Manufacturor's Certificate of Origin is nothing more than proof that nobody but yourself has a security interest in said vehicle. Do you know how often that comes up, even with people who drive without licenses? Not very often, to my knowledge. In your haste to put these ideas out there, you make people who haven't yet started to learn even more incredulous at this sort of idea.
Re:You CAN travel without a Driver's License
on
License to Surf
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunate that you didn't include probably the most comprehensive and well-written brief in support of operating an automobile on the public roads without holding a driver's license. After all, several courts have upheld the open, untaxed usage of the public roads as a right. Anyone who knows anything about Constitutional law will know that a right cannot be taxed.
You only believe that because that has been what you've been led to believe all your life. Take the German Autobahn for example. Did you know that most people travel well in excess of 100mph on this highway? Funny that there is an incredibly low rate of accidents. You know why? Because when you're travelling at 150mph down the highway, you're not letting your mind wander, and you watch your ass, because you know that if you wreck, you have very little chance of surviving. So you don't wreck.
You think that most people with licenses are competent and safe? You know how many cities have licensing places that give out licenses as long as you don't do anything overtly illegal? I know of quite a few in only a couple cities in several states. Your argument doesn't wash.
Do you really think that people who want to drive and can't get licenses, or have their liceneses suspended, don't drive? BS, I have two in my immediate family, and know several more.
But then again, I'm one of those people who actually watches out for the other idiots on the road, since even if it's not my fault, the accident is inconvenient. Better not to put myself in that situation in the first place. To each their own though...
Unfortunately, that's the way it is most of the time. To really extract yourself without lots of problems takes more work than most people care to put forth. As legislation is not likely to go through on this issue, the next best thing is to inform juries of their right to decide law as well as fact, so that people who are scared of not filing can stop being. Too bad the Supreme Court ruled that judges are no longer required to inform juries of this right, even though it still exists. The gubbmint just had too many problems with juries overriding their laws.
(Note: I don't promote slavery, as many would think with my usage of the name that the UnCivil War should have been called.)
Most people don't realize that the War of Northern Aggression wasn't really about freeing the slaves, as that was steadily being done anyway. It was more about forcing the will of those who had the power onto those who didn't. What most people don't realize though is that the war did not end when it was publicized to end, but in fact many years later. After it was officially declared to be over, the Southern States refused to ratify the 14th Amendment, which was their right. Northern Congressmen voted to deny enough seats in both the House and Senate to secure a majority vote, even though they were several votes short on both accounts. The members from the Southern states were ejected. The vote on the Amendment was called, and came up several votes short as well, but was still sent to the States to ratify. The final vote tally included several states that had changed their vote to "no." These were ignored. Additionally, the legislatures of the Southern states were held in martial law (this being after the aggressions were formally ended) until they ratified the Amendment. They were then forced to draft new constitutions that were then sent to Congress for approval (completely unconstitutional behavior) an ratification. The people of these states were excluded under military duress. Finally, after denying "no" votes, and forcing "yes" votes from Southern legislatures, the Amendment was "officially" ratified. The reason that the 14th Amendment is so nasty would take a much longer time to explain. Those who want to know, do some digging, what you find may shock you. Since I'm completely off-topic, I'll wrap up. Constant vigilance is necessary to protect your rights. PenguinX's quote from good ol' Ben is right on the money, which means that most people in this country get what they deserve, neither liberty nor safety.
If you don't like it, don't support it. Do what more and more people who despise the federales do, quit paying as many taxes as you can, income tax included.
"...the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation..." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103.
"The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as a common-law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry." 48 Am Jur 2d, section 2, page 80.
Ergo, no new power means no new subjects of taxation. The previous income tax was invalidated for being repugnant to the Constitution, so why should this one not be? Because people who file tax returns are declaring, under penalty of perjury, that their "income" is taxable under the IRC, when in fact it is nothing more than compensation for labor, a Constitutionally protected right, not subject to taxation.
Unfortunately, documents of this type can be hard to find unless you have access to a decent law library. However, they do exist, albeit it can take some work to dig to them. You can find the CFR (Codified Federal Regulations) at the Online Cornell Law Library at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cfr/ It's searchable by title and section. The Cornell LII is probably one of the best online resources regarding federal law on the internet. The only other source I've found for these hefty federal tomes online is the Government Printing Office at http://www.gpo.gov
I'm actually not a US citizen either, though I am an American national and a sovereign of the State of Oregon. There's legal signifigance in the difference, mainly in that I don't pay federal income taxes and that I am not subject to a single federal law or regulation unless it concerns another State or country.:) If anyone would like more information, contact me at my addy above.
The courts can only do something about it until it,'s contested, and unfortunately, most Americans are sheep where the law comes in, and do what they're told to do. I mean, come on, federal law only applies to individuals in respect to matters that affect more than one state or nation./No/ federal law applies to you unless they have jurisdiction. Federal courts are legally obligated to prove that they have jurisdiction, as long as you contest their jurisdiction, but they don't actually tell you that...
You can refuse to disclose your SSN to your employer, you just won't get your withholding credited to your SSN account (unless you're aware of how tax law really works and legally aren't required to pay taxes like me, but that's off-topic;)
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, though you posted several versions of democracy, you didn't post one of republic.
republic (ri publik) n.
1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch and is usu. an elected or nominated president.
3. the form of government of such a state.
4. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
Now which fits better the form in question? I refer you back to your own comment on the argument of semantics. Anyway, just because your definition is the most widely accepted does not make it right. However, your point that your definition does not conflict is true, to the extent that it is broad enough to encompass the definition of "republic."
sovereign power resides in the people as a whole
Note the wording. In this country, sovereign power is held by the individual, not the people as a whole. (Note: I'm speaking theoretically here, since only a small percentage choose to actively protect their rights.)
Lastly, I should have made it clearer in my comment on education of history who I meant. I was speaking of people both who have little education on the matter at hand, and those who do have it, but a) don't look at the historical context and/or b) show evident bias.
How about this: look up "United States," "republic," and "commonwealth." You should be able to fit the pieces together. Some are obvious, some are less so.
Democracy? There is no democracy anymore.
:)
There never was any democracy in this country.
Try republic next time.
"We are a democratic nation"
"it is disruptive of our democracy"
Look up "democracy" in a dictionary. The United States is not a democracy. Try republic next time. People who attempt to comment on history prior to learning it annoy me.
It depends on the usage of the vehicle. States have a vested interest in regulating commerce in and through their jurisdictional holdings. However, the courts have agreed that the right to travel by the common means of the day (originally, horses, then by horse-drawn carriages, and now by horseless carriages) in a non-commercial capacity.
:)
Essentially, that little scrap of paper is meaningless, except as original proof of ownership. However, it is essentially unnecessary in the same way that a certificate of origin is not necessary to own a television, or a computer, or anything else.
Not sure what you mean by "of Trust." Sounds like you missed a word. License doesn't say anything new. I fail to see your point in any event. The Certificate and licenses have nothing to do with the issue.
As for never being ticketted, that is generally moot. You either end up in jail, know your stuff, or are just really lucky. Since I don't know you, I can't guess which, but I only know a couple other people who successfully do that, and they've had decades to study and perfect. Anyway, the research should never end.
Remove all laws and controls over the roads and let people go 100mph while drunk through a school zone at 8am.
I backed my statement with proven factual evidence. Where's yours? (Asking what it is would look stupid, go back and read the previous post.)
As for licensing, I already stated that those who want to drive, will, irregardless of the law. If you believe otherwise, it's your choice to stick your head in the sand.
Figures.
Ah, such a mature statement. I'm sorry my family doesn't meet with your approval.
I don't see any reason why non-oceanic life could not develop on a high-gravity planet. Life would merely evolve to the gravity of the planet it evolved on, just like we did.
;)
Consider if we colonized Mars. In a couple generations, children born there would not have the bone structure or muscle mass to live comfortably on Earth.
Basically, if you had a complex hydrocarbon life-form evolve on a high-gravity planet, it would be extremely muscular. Travelling to Earth, it would consider our gravity to be like we consider the moon's gravity. We'd have a new world-record for the high-jump held by Gruph'nix of planet Zebo.
Yup, and it also requires you to fly slower than the bullets you'd be firing. :)
Ah, but here comes the part that most who don't study the law never delve into: definitions. No, I'm not talking about what a given word means in the common vernacular, but the legal definition. We'll take "traffic" for example. I'd do "motor vehicle," but I don't have a Bouvier's law dic handy, only a Black's 6th (sorry, for those of you who know the difference between the 4th and later versions).
Traffic. Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise...The subjects of transportation on a route, as persons or goods; the passing to and fro of persons, animals, vehicles, or vessels, along a route of transportation, as along a street, highway, etc.
Transportation. the movement of goods or persons...by a carrier.
Carrier. Individual or organization engaged in transporting passengers or goods for hire.
Now, traffic laws. Most people think these have sway over everyone operating an automobile. No, they're for enforcing commercial law, as is shown by the very simple, 3-minute exercise of connecting the dots via definition as shown above.
In conclusion, you're right about needing a license to operate a motor vehicle, because a motor vehicle is a commercial transport, subject to the laws regulating commerce. However, operating a private automobile is not subject to those same regulations.
"Lawyers don't lie, they just tell the truth judiciously so as to guarantee utter confusion."
This is a nearly verbatim copy of an article I read several years ago on the subject of communism in America. It illustrates the point that America is about as communist as countries go, except maybe China, fairly well. Probably won't be taken well by someone who has hardcoded beliefs in the goodness of "American governmeent."
Sounds like you're throwing anyone with Libertarian beliefs into the pot with the Righties. Anyway, you're overgeneralizing. Those "laws" that you say are treated as magic spells, well, they make it so peaceful revolution is still possible. The other option is violent revolution. Which would you pick? You can be assured that all those freedom-lovers, who you put into one little group and call paranoid and bigotted right-wing extremists, have the firepower to make no small effect should a peaceful revolution become impossible.
I think the dullest and most dangerous are those who just follow, and don't think about how and why they believe the way they do, and merely accept the status quo.
You shouldn't post on this sort of topic until you've done your own research, instead of regurgitating what you've read off of websites. Go down to the local law library and start pulling out relevant texts. The Manufacturor's Certificate of Origin is nothing more than proof that nobody but yourself has a security interest in said vehicle. Do you know how often that comes up, even with people who drive without licenses? Not very often, to my knowledge. In your haste to put these ideas out there, you make people who haven't yet started to learn even more incredulous at this sort of idea.
Unfortunate that you didn't include probably the most comprehensive and well-written brief in support of operating an automobile on the public roads without holding a driver's license. After all, several courts have upheld the open, untaxed usage of the public roads as a right. Anyone who knows anything about Constitutional law will know that a right cannot be taxed.
You only believe that because that has been what you've been led to believe all your life. Take the German Autobahn for example. Did you know that most people travel well in excess of 100mph on this highway? Funny that there is an incredibly low rate of accidents. You know why? Because when you're travelling at 150mph down the highway, you're not letting your mind wander, and you watch your ass, because you know that if you wreck, you have very little chance of surviving. So you don't wreck.
You think that most people with licenses are competent and safe? You know how many cities have licensing places that give out licenses as long as you don't do anything overtly illegal? I know of quite a few in only a couple cities in several states. Your argument doesn't wash.
Do you really think that people who want to drive and can't get licenses, or have their liceneses suspended, don't drive? BS, I have two in my immediate family, and know several more.
But then again, I'm one of those people who actually watches out for the other idiots on the road, since even if it's not my fault, the accident is inconvenient. Better not to put myself in that situation in the first place. To each their own though...
Unfortunately, that's the way it is most of the time. To really extract yourself without lots of problems takes more work than most people care to put forth. As legislation is not likely to go through on this issue, the next best thing is to inform juries of their right to decide law as well as fact, so that people who are scared of not filing can stop being. Too bad the Supreme Court ruled that judges are no longer required to inform juries of this right, even though it still exists. The gubbmint just had too many problems with juries overriding their laws.
Fully Informed Jury Association
(Note: I don't promote slavery, as many would think with my usage of the name that the UnCivil War should have been called.)
Most people don't realize that the War of Northern Aggression wasn't really about freeing the slaves, as that was steadily being done anyway. It was more about forcing the will of those who had the power onto those who didn't. What most people don't realize though is that the war did not end when it was publicized to end, but in fact many years later. After it was officially declared to be over, the Southern States refused to ratify the 14th Amendment, which was their right. Northern Congressmen voted to deny enough seats in both the House and Senate to secure a majority vote, even though they were several votes short on both accounts. The members from the Southern states were ejected. The vote on the Amendment was called, and came up several votes short as well, but was still sent to the States to ratify. The final vote tally included several states that had changed their vote to "no." These were ignored. Additionally, the legislatures of the Southern states were held in martial law (this being after the aggressions were formally ended) until they ratified the Amendment. They were then forced to draft new constitutions that were then sent to Congress for approval (completely unconstitutional behavior) an ratification. The people of these states were excluded under military duress. Finally, after denying "no" votes, and forcing "yes" votes from Southern legislatures, the Amendment was "officially" ratified. The reason that the 14th Amendment is so nasty would take a much longer time to explain. Those who want to know, do some digging, what you find may shock you.
Since I'm completely off-topic, I'll wrap up. Constant vigilance is necessary to protect your rights. PenguinX's quote from good ol' Ben is right on the money, which means that most people in this country get what they deserve, neither liberty nor safety.
If you don't like it, don't support it. Do what more and more people who despise the federales do, quit paying as many taxes as you can, income tax included.
"...the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation..." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103.
"The right to labor and to its protection from unlawful interference is a constitutional as well as a common-law right. Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own industry." 48 Am Jur 2d, section 2, page 80.
Ergo, no new power means no new subjects of taxation. The previous income tax was invalidated for being repugnant to the Constitution, so why should this one not be? Because people who file tax returns are declaring, under penalty of perjury, that their "income" is taxable under the IRC, when in fact it is nothing more than compensation for labor, a Constitutionally protected right, not subject to taxation.
I take it you've never bothered to read the Bill of Rights.
Only as relates to commerce.
They have no power to regulate the movement of an individual solely within the boundaries of a single State.
Unfortunately, documents of this type can be hard to find unless you have access to a decent law library. However, they do exist, albeit it can take some work to dig to them.
:) If anyone would like more information, contact me at my addy above.
You can find the CFR (Codified Federal Regulations) at the Online Cornell Law Library at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cfr/
It's searchable by title and section. The Cornell LII is probably one of the best online resources regarding federal law on the internet. The only other source I've found for these hefty federal tomes online is the Government Printing Office at http://www.gpo.gov
I'm actually not a US citizen either, though I am an American national and a sovereign of the State of Oregon. There's legal signifigance in the difference, mainly in that I don't pay federal income taxes and that I am not subject to a single federal law or regulation unless it concerns another State or country.
The courts can only do something about it until it,'s contested, and unfortunately, most Americans are sheep where the law comes in, and do what they're told to do. /No/ federal law applies to you unless they have jurisdiction. Federal courts are legally obligated to prove that they have jurisdiction, as long as you contest their jurisdiction, but they don't actually tell you that...
I mean, come on, federal law only applies to individuals in respect to matters that affect more than one state or nation.
You can refuse to disclose your SSN to your employer, you just won't get your withholding credited to your SSN account (unless you're aware of how tax law really works and legally aren't required to pay taxes like me, but that's off-topic ;)