That kind of bullshit started with Alexander Hamilton.
"A Read The Rule Bill"
- Thread starter Annie
- Start date
That kind of bullshit started with Alexander Hamilton.
Sallow
The Big Bad Wolf.
Yep. He went over real big with Madison and Jefferson, and Adams too. For him, Federalism, was a stepping stone to the construction of his Oligarchy Empire. He was not big at all on the voice of the people, like your input was to show up and vote the choices his class allowed you, and the rest of the time it was your job to shut the fuck up, and follow instruction. So what does that remind you of?????
I'd tell you to come visit the Empire State, but I see you already live here. What Borough????? Life in the land of fines, fee's , and penalties, unless you are of the privileged class. 
See how fast those Red Light Ticket Camera's are multiplying????? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Last edited:
"Torturing people: No Constitutional reason I can think of for that."
Try reading some of Vince Flynn. Seriously, the first issue here is the definition of Torture, which there is disagreement on. Secondly, the First Charge of Our Government is Our protection, in the case of eminent threat, security takes priority. It is because of that, you can still enjoy being alive to dispute the point.
"Iraqi War: Nothing in the Constitution permits that."
We should have finished the job the first time around. Saddam violated most of the terms of the cease fire. That in itself justified action. It was not Candy Land that we Conquered, but a Totalitarian Regime.
"Funding Religious Organizations: The Constitution actually prohibits that."
Like in Building Mosques?
Actually when it comes to things like funding Charter School's which are in fact Non-Secular, I do support Government funding going to Religious Institution's. The rules are clearly defined there. Same holds for Pantries and Food Banks, and the like. They have the infrastructure set up, which makes the money go further. Outside of that we are in agreement.
"Warrantless Wiretaps: Nope..big no no."
At some level the Highest Authority needs to be able to act. There does need to be Oversight, Accountability, Chain Of Command, and Due Process, it should be classified, and not Public Information.
Holding Americans (or anyone for that matter) without trial: Another prohibited practice.
Habeas Corpus applies to US Citizens, not Illegal Combatants, whom are not US Citizens.
I like the Proposed 28th Amendment that requires all Laws to be applied impartially or not at all.
Here is a better take......
http://the28thamendmentproposal.org/new/
Logical Choice Action Group
Let's Change America
Appeal for Support
This appeal will be wrapped in the cliches espoused during the tumultuous time of our nation's founding, and for good reason. There is no need to look further than the wisdom and foresight of our Founding Fathers, and the Framers vision of The People's future, which is now our present. Very little revision to their own words is needed, for the very concepts they subscribed to, emphasized and used as impetus for mobilization are equally relevant and timely today as they were over 230 years ago.
The liberty bell has been rung. Many have sounded the alarm, and many have responded, or at least awoken from their comfort and sleep. The trappings of security and prosperity over the past two centuries have lulled the American People into allowing a perverse and dangerous enemy to invade our liberties from within. This has not happened overnight, this is not a process solely of the current administration or power base. A steady and paced degradation has whittled away at freedom after freedom, and a calculated but patient effort to concentrate power in Washington - at the cost of our Individual liberties, State sovereignties and the fruits of our labor - has intentionally led our country to the precipice of an unrecognizable and unthinkable structure. No one party is solely responsible, as such invasions could not proceed without the complicit approval of officials in both parties. This is not a political issue, it is not a partisan issue, it is a repetition of the human rights issues our forefathers addressed in the Declaration and the Constitution.
For the same reasons a group of Patriots issued an edict to the King of England and his minions and governors in 1776, we submit this edict to our current rulers. The Spirit of '76 is the guiding force for this effort to throw off the chains of bondage and the usurpation of our Natural Rights derived to us solely by birth and granted by no simple man. This governance that only derives its only right from our very consent now must know that our consent no longer applies.
We appeal to you, do not allow the work of our Founders to be thrown away. Do not cede or waive the rights that have been granted to you by the Highest Power and Authority. Allow no man or group of men to claim that Authority as their own, and hold that Power over you as if they are Kings or Gods. This is the very nature of the formation of our Nation and our liberty.
Friends, citizens, patriots: we are at a diverging path. There is no crossroads, as there is no continuing road ahead, no comfortable status quo to perpetuate. YOU must choose which path you wish to take. In the one direction are the chains of slavery, the intrusion of rulers into every area of your life, the rape of your labor and property, the already proven evil and failure of collectivism and redistribution. To the other direction is light, freedom, self-determination, and a restoration of the liberties that are your very birthright.
We ask from you no money. We ask not that you hold the role of Jefferson or Franklin or Washington. All we ask from you is action. Inaction is choosing the path of slavery. Action is choosing to be the patriot in tattered clothes with a rusting musket and a dearth of gunpowder. We ask you act, that you have the inner strength and faith to survive the winter at Valley Forge in your tattered clothes, to have the conviction to cross the frozen Potomac, to reclaim the rights and liberty that no man has justification to invade.
We only ask that you act, do not allow impetus to overwhelm you or the waves of destruction simply wash over you. Act. Please. Join us.
The 28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
Second Draft Proposal
Section 1.
The 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2.
Congress may collect no revenue by any means other than a flat individual income tax not to exceed 15% of an individual's earnings, a flat corporate tax not to exceed 10% of net revenues, and actual user fees for services. All citizens and businesses shall be taxed at the same rate, and no exceptions, exemptions or credits will be allowed.
Section 3.
A. Any budget passed by the Congress must be funded by actual revenues collected through taxes as described in Section 2. Except in time of War as defined below, no deficit spending, borrowing on future funds, borrowing from other entities or other mechanism to meet budget requirements will be allowed.
B. For purposes of this section, "War" shall be defined as hostilities declared by the President of the United States in his Constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief, and duly authorized by the Congress under the terms of the "War Powers Act" of 1973. Any funds borrowed shall be used exclusively for executing that War and shall be re-paid entirely no later than 15 years from the end of the War.
Section 4.
All agencies, programs, entitlements and other devices that will be excised by budgetary requirements will be returned to the responsibility of the individual States. No federal regulations or legislation will dictate how the States fund or execute such devices.
Section 5.
The Congress may not make State eligibility for redistribution of revenue contingent on compliance with regulations or legislation that has the effect of a nationally uniform standard.
Section 6.
Those areas of federal responsibility prescribed by the original Constitution will have budgetary priority. No bill will be passed that funds any other concern without first meeting the budgetary requirements of these areas. No funding will be included in the budget for a concern that is the responsibility of and reserved to the States.
Section 7.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows:
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations and with the Indian tribes"
This is not a simple theoretical proposal. A full national effort from the grassroots level is being pursued to adopt this amendment into the US Constitution. This will require a huge and coordinated amount of assistance and effort from ordinary citizens - this means YOU!
If you are interested in volunteering your time, energy and passion into this effort, please contact us. We are in need of volunteers in many areas, which are explained HERE. At the least, if you support this proposal, please spread the word to your friends and family
The 28th Amendment Proposal
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
The problem with this rule is most bills today amount to nothing more than legal gibberish and references to changes being made in existing bills.
The Average person, and even most Politicians find it hard to even understand what the Bills say, after reading them.
The Average person, and even most Politicians find it hard to even understand what the Bills say, after reading them.
One word.... Repeal. There is no justification for the Statutes as they exist today. Some day the perspective will be viewed as total incompetence, corruption of Spirit and Will and Trust. One step at a time, either Justice is served or opposed, there really are less places to hide, the puppet masters need to start learning fast, the stupid pills only last for so long.
LordBrownTrout
Diamond Member
Yeah, he was the founding father of big government. I'm sure he's looking up smiling at our massive big spending govt. Screw Hamilton.
Pretty much a general blue print for screwing over the individual and cementing the alliance between big Government and big Business. What they did not anticipate was getting pegged in broad daylight. The excuses and obstruction of justice and fair play, plain for all to see, when you look past the diversion and false claims. Pity, it is so much a part of the fabric of the Foundation of this Republic. I think Hamilton overwhelmed President Washington from the start, and that Washington was out of the loop most of the time in relation to Hamilton's schemes. I sort of apologize for using Wiki here, yet is is a good account, with good references.
Whiskey tax
Alexander Hamilton in a 1792 portrait by John TrumbullA new U.S. federal government began operating in 1789, following the ratification of the United States Constitution. The previous government under the Articles of Confederation had been unable to levy taxes; it had borrowed money to meet expenses, accumulating $54 million in debt. The states had amassed an additional $25 million in debt.[3] Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, sought to use this debt to create a financial system that would promote American prosperity and national unity. In his Report on Public Credit, he urged Congress to consolidate the state and national debts into a single debt that would be funded by the federal government. Congress approved these measures in June and July of 1790.[4]
A source of government revenue was needed to pay the bond holders to whom the debt was owed. By December 1790, Hamilton believed that import duties, which were the government's primary source of revenue, had been raised as high as was feasible.[5] He therefore promoted passage of an excise tax on domestically distilled spirits. This was to be the first tax levied by the national government on a domestic product.[6] Although taxes were politically unpopular, Hamilton believed that the whiskey excise was a luxury tax that would be the least objectionable tax that the government could levy.[7] In this he had the support of some social reformers, who hoped that a "sin tax" would raise public awareness about the harmful effects of alcohol.[8] The whiskey excise became law in March 1791.[9]
[edit] Western grievances
The whiskey excise was immediately controversial, with many people on the frontier arguing that the tax unfairly targeted westerners.[10] Whiskey was a popular drink, and farmers often supplemented their income by operating small stills.[11] Farmers living west of the Appalachian Mountains distilled their excess grain into whiskey, which was easier and more profitable to transport over the mountains than the more cumbersome grain. A whiskey tax would make western farmers less competitive with eastern grain producers.[12] Additionally, cash was always in short supply on the frontier, and so whiskey often served as a medium of exchange. For poorer people who were paid in whiskey, the excise was essentially an income tax that wealthier easterners did not pay.[13]
Small farmers also protested that Hamilton's excise effectively gave unfair tax breaks to large distillers, most of whom were based in the east. There were two methods of paying the whiskey excise: paying a flat fee or paying by the gallon. Large distillers produced whiskey in volume and could afford the flat fee. The more efficient they became, the less tax per gallon they would pay. Western farmers who owned small stills did not usually operate them year-round at full capacity, and so they ended up paying a higher tax per gallon, which made them less competitive.[14] Small distillers believed that Hamilton deliberately designed the tax to ruin them and promote big business, a view endorsed by some historians.[15] However, historian Thomas Slaughter argued that a "conspiracy of this sort is difficult to document".[16] Whether by design or not, large distillers recognized the advantage that the excise gave them, and they supported the tax.[17]
In addition to the whiskey tax, westerners had a number of other grievances with the national government. Chief among these was the perception that the government was not adequately protecting the western frontier: the Northwest Indian War was going badly for the United States, with major losses in 1791. Furthermore, westerners were prohibited by Spain (which then owned Louisiana) from using the Mississippi River for commercial navigation. Until these issues were addressed, westerners felt that government was ignoring their security and economic welfare. Adding the whiskey excise to these existing grievances only increased tensions on the frontier.[18]
[edit] Resistance
Many residents of the western frontier petitioned against passage of the whiskey excise. When that failed, some western Pennsylvanians organized extralegal conventions to advocate repeal of the law.[19] Opposition to the tax was particularly prevalent in four southwestern counties: Allegheny, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland.[20] A preliminary meeting held on July 27, 1791, at Redstone Old Fort in Fayette County called for the selection of delegates to a more formal assembly, which convened in Pittsburgh in early September 1791. The Pittsburgh convention was dominated by moderates like Hugh Henry Brackenridge, who hoped to prevent the outbreak of violence.[21] The convention sent a petition for redress of grievances to the Pennsylvania Assembly and the U.S House of Representatives, both located in Philadelphia.[22] As a result of this and other petitions, the excise law was modified in May 1792. Changes included a 1-cent reduction in the tax that was advocated by William Findley, a congressman from western Pennsylvania, but the new excise law was still unsatisfactory to westerners.[23]
"Famous Whiskey Insurrection in Pennsylvania", an 1880 illustration of a tarred and feathered tax collector being made to ride the rail.Appeals to nonviolent resistance were unsuccessful. On September 11, 1791, a recently appointed tax collector named Robert Johnson was tarred and feathered by a disguised gang in Washington County.[24] A man sent by officials to serve court warrants to Johnson's attackers was whipped, tarred, and feathered.[25] Because of these and other violent attacks, the tax went uncollected in 1791 and early 1792.[26] The attackers modeled their actions on the protests of the American Revolution. Supporters of the excise argued that there was a difference between taxation without representation in colonial America, and a tax laid by the elected representatives of the American people.[27]
Opposition to the whiskey excise was not limited to western Pennsylvania. There was resistance to the tax in the western counties of every other state in Appalachia: Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The whiskey tax went uncollected throughout the frontier state of Kentucky, where no one could be convinced to enforce the law or prosecute evaders.[28] In 1792, Hamilton advocated military action to suppress violent resistance in western North Carolina, but Attorney General Edmund Randolph argued that there was insufficient evidence to legally justify such a reaction.[29]
In August 1792, a second convention was held in Pittsburgh to discuss resistance to the whiskey tax. This time, the meeting was not led by moderates; men such as Brackenridge and Findley were not in attendance. One moderate who did attend—to his later regret—was Albert Gallatin, a future secretary of the treasury.[30] A militant group known as the Mingo Creek Association dominated the convention and issued radical demands. As some of them had done in the American Revolution, they raised liberty poles, formed committees of correspondence, and took control of the local militia. They created an extralegal court and discouraged lawsuits for debt collection and foreclosures.[31]
Hamilton regarded the second Pittsburgh convention as a serious threat to the operation of the laws of the federal government. In September 1792, he sent Pennsylvania tax official George Clymer to western Pennsylvania to investigate. Clymer's clumsy attempt at traveling in disguise, and his efforts to intimidate local officials, only increased tensions. His somewhat exaggerated report would greatly influence the decisions made by the Washington administration.[32] Washington and Hamilton viewed resistance to federal laws in Pennsylvania as particularly embarrassing, since the national capital was then located in the same state. On his own initiative, Hamilton drafted a presidential proclamation denouncing resistance to the excise laws and submitted it to Attorney General Randolph, who toned down some of the language. Washington signed the proclamation on September 15, 1792. It was published as a broadside and printed in many newspapers.[33]
The federal tax inspector for western Pennsylvania, General John Neville, was determined to enforce the excise law.[34] Neville, a prominent politician and wealthy planter, was also a large scale distiller. He had initially opposed the whiskey tax, but subsequently changed his mind, which angered some western Pennsylvanians.[35] In August 1792, Neville rented a room in Pittsburgh for his tax office, but the landlord turned him out after being threatened with violence by the Mingo Creek Association.[36] From this point on, tax collectors were not the only people targeted in Pennsylvania: those who cooperated with federal tax officials also faced harassment. Anonymous notes and newspaper articles signed by "Tom the Tinker" threatened those who complied with the whiskey tax. Those who failed to heed the warnings might have their barns burned or their stills destroyed.[37]
Resistance to the excise tax continued through 1793 in the frontier counties of Appalachia. Opposition remained especially strident in western Pennsylvania.[38] In June, Neville was burned in effigy by a crowd of about 100 people in Washington County.[39] On the night of November 22, 1793, men broke into the home of tax collector Benjamin Wells in Fayette County. Wells was, like Neville, one of the wealthier men in the region.[40] At gunpoint, the intruders forced Wells to surrender his commission.[41] President Washington offered a reward for the arrest of the assailants, to no avail.[42]
Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Whiskey tax
Alexander Hamilton in a 1792 portrait by John TrumbullA new U.S. federal government began operating in 1789, following the ratification of the United States Constitution. The previous government under the Articles of Confederation had been unable to levy taxes; it had borrowed money to meet expenses, accumulating $54 million in debt. The states had amassed an additional $25 million in debt.[3] Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, sought to use this debt to create a financial system that would promote American prosperity and national unity. In his Report on Public Credit, he urged Congress to consolidate the state and national debts into a single debt that would be funded by the federal government. Congress approved these measures in June and July of 1790.[4]
A source of government revenue was needed to pay the bond holders to whom the debt was owed. By December 1790, Hamilton believed that import duties, which were the government's primary source of revenue, had been raised as high as was feasible.[5] He therefore promoted passage of an excise tax on domestically distilled spirits. This was to be the first tax levied by the national government on a domestic product.[6] Although taxes were politically unpopular, Hamilton believed that the whiskey excise was a luxury tax that would be the least objectionable tax that the government could levy.[7] In this he had the support of some social reformers, who hoped that a "sin tax" would raise public awareness about the harmful effects of alcohol.[8] The whiskey excise became law in March 1791.[9]
[edit] Western grievances
The whiskey excise was immediately controversial, with many people on the frontier arguing that the tax unfairly targeted westerners.[10] Whiskey was a popular drink, and farmers often supplemented their income by operating small stills.[11] Farmers living west of the Appalachian Mountains distilled their excess grain into whiskey, which was easier and more profitable to transport over the mountains than the more cumbersome grain. A whiskey tax would make western farmers less competitive with eastern grain producers.[12] Additionally, cash was always in short supply on the frontier, and so whiskey often served as a medium of exchange. For poorer people who were paid in whiskey, the excise was essentially an income tax that wealthier easterners did not pay.[13]
Small farmers also protested that Hamilton's excise effectively gave unfair tax breaks to large distillers, most of whom were based in the east. There were two methods of paying the whiskey excise: paying a flat fee or paying by the gallon. Large distillers produced whiskey in volume and could afford the flat fee. The more efficient they became, the less tax per gallon they would pay. Western farmers who owned small stills did not usually operate them year-round at full capacity, and so they ended up paying a higher tax per gallon, which made them less competitive.[14] Small distillers believed that Hamilton deliberately designed the tax to ruin them and promote big business, a view endorsed by some historians.[15] However, historian Thomas Slaughter argued that a "conspiracy of this sort is difficult to document".[16] Whether by design or not, large distillers recognized the advantage that the excise gave them, and they supported the tax.[17]
In addition to the whiskey tax, westerners had a number of other grievances with the national government. Chief among these was the perception that the government was not adequately protecting the western frontier: the Northwest Indian War was going badly for the United States, with major losses in 1791. Furthermore, westerners were prohibited by Spain (which then owned Louisiana) from using the Mississippi River for commercial navigation. Until these issues were addressed, westerners felt that government was ignoring their security and economic welfare. Adding the whiskey excise to these existing grievances only increased tensions on the frontier.[18]
[edit] Resistance
Many residents of the western frontier petitioned against passage of the whiskey excise. When that failed, some western Pennsylvanians organized extralegal conventions to advocate repeal of the law.[19] Opposition to the tax was particularly prevalent in four southwestern counties: Allegheny, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland.[20] A preliminary meeting held on July 27, 1791, at Redstone Old Fort in Fayette County called for the selection of delegates to a more formal assembly, which convened in Pittsburgh in early September 1791. The Pittsburgh convention was dominated by moderates like Hugh Henry Brackenridge, who hoped to prevent the outbreak of violence.[21] The convention sent a petition for redress of grievances to the Pennsylvania Assembly and the U.S House of Representatives, both located in Philadelphia.[22] As a result of this and other petitions, the excise law was modified in May 1792. Changes included a 1-cent reduction in the tax that was advocated by William Findley, a congressman from western Pennsylvania, but the new excise law was still unsatisfactory to westerners.[23]
"Famous Whiskey Insurrection in Pennsylvania", an 1880 illustration of a tarred and feathered tax collector being made to ride the rail.Appeals to nonviolent resistance were unsuccessful. On September 11, 1791, a recently appointed tax collector named Robert Johnson was tarred and feathered by a disguised gang in Washington County.[24] A man sent by officials to serve court warrants to Johnson's attackers was whipped, tarred, and feathered.[25] Because of these and other violent attacks, the tax went uncollected in 1791 and early 1792.[26] The attackers modeled their actions on the protests of the American Revolution. Supporters of the excise argued that there was a difference between taxation without representation in colonial America, and a tax laid by the elected representatives of the American people.[27]
Opposition to the whiskey excise was not limited to western Pennsylvania. There was resistance to the tax in the western counties of every other state in Appalachia: Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The whiskey tax went uncollected throughout the frontier state of Kentucky, where no one could be convinced to enforce the law or prosecute evaders.[28] In 1792, Hamilton advocated military action to suppress violent resistance in western North Carolina, but Attorney General Edmund Randolph argued that there was insufficient evidence to legally justify such a reaction.[29]
In August 1792, a second convention was held in Pittsburgh to discuss resistance to the whiskey tax. This time, the meeting was not led by moderates; men such as Brackenridge and Findley were not in attendance. One moderate who did attend—to his later regret—was Albert Gallatin, a future secretary of the treasury.[30] A militant group known as the Mingo Creek Association dominated the convention and issued radical demands. As some of them had done in the American Revolution, they raised liberty poles, formed committees of correspondence, and took control of the local militia. They created an extralegal court and discouraged lawsuits for debt collection and foreclosures.[31]
Hamilton regarded the second Pittsburgh convention as a serious threat to the operation of the laws of the federal government. In September 1792, he sent Pennsylvania tax official George Clymer to western Pennsylvania to investigate. Clymer's clumsy attempt at traveling in disguise, and his efforts to intimidate local officials, only increased tensions. His somewhat exaggerated report would greatly influence the decisions made by the Washington administration.[32] Washington and Hamilton viewed resistance to federal laws in Pennsylvania as particularly embarrassing, since the national capital was then located in the same state. On his own initiative, Hamilton drafted a presidential proclamation denouncing resistance to the excise laws and submitted it to Attorney General Randolph, who toned down some of the language. Washington signed the proclamation on September 15, 1792. It was published as a broadside and printed in many newspapers.[33]
The federal tax inspector for western Pennsylvania, General John Neville, was determined to enforce the excise law.[34] Neville, a prominent politician and wealthy planter, was also a large scale distiller. He had initially opposed the whiskey tax, but subsequently changed his mind, which angered some western Pennsylvanians.[35] In August 1792, Neville rented a room in Pittsburgh for his tax office, but the landlord turned him out after being threatened with violence by the Mingo Creek Association.[36] From this point on, tax collectors were not the only people targeted in Pennsylvania: those who cooperated with federal tax officials also faced harassment. Anonymous notes and newspaper articles signed by "Tom the Tinker" threatened those who complied with the whiskey tax. Those who failed to heed the warnings might have their barns burned or their stills destroyed.[37]
Resistance to the excise tax continued through 1793 in the frontier counties of Appalachia. Opposition remained especially strident in western Pennsylvania.[38] In June, Neville was burned in effigy by a crowd of about 100 people in Washington County.[39] On the night of November 22, 1793, men broke into the home of tax collector Benjamin Wells in Fayette County. Wells was, like Neville, one of the wealthier men in the region.[40] At gunpoint, the intruders forced Wells to surrender his commission.[41] President Washington offered a reward for the arrest of the assailants, to no avail.[42]
Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
The T
George S. Patton Party
Keeps the LAWYERS employed....
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
Which is the scary part. The lawyers in effect are running the country, since the write the laws, and you need them to read them to you.
Last edited:
The T
George S. Patton Party
And a practivce that needs to cease. I'd like to see a Constitutional Amendment to that effect.
BasicGreatGuy
Aut libertas aut mors
The employers, "We The People," are charged with the duty of supervising the employees. If the employees aren't doing their job, it is our duty to make sure they are reprimanded, or voted out of office.
I see this as another "save us from ourselves" call. Until and unless the employers start doing their job, no amount of legislation is going to save them from the consequences of their actions, or more properly, the lack thereof.
I see this as another "save us from ourselves" call. Until and unless the employers start doing their job, no amount of legislation is going to save them from the consequences of their actions, or more properly, the lack thereof.
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
To bad there are not enough good choices to replace the bad employees with.
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,830
- 1,790
- Thread starter
- #38
That's nonsense. The whole purpose of the republic is to elect persons that will take the time to inform themselves, with help of aids, to the matters of import to all.
In the case of the health plan bill, it seems a higher percentage of the public read as much of the bill than members of Congress. Through all of the changes, but of course not all were posted before the vote, since they kept adding, willy nilly, up to the last moments. Something is very wrong with that.
Last edited:
I couldn't agree more. It would seem that they would think that one of the most important part of their jobs, is to convince us about how powerless we are to effect change. It is up to us to hold them accountable, and force correction, peacefully and unceasingly.
We need to reformat, one secure step at a time, establishing Justice, fair play, with respect to Unalienable Right's of All of us, from the weakest to the strongest. We all should matter, whether in the majority, or the minority. Numbers is not always the determining factor, especially when in conflict with Individual Conscience. There are Issues with Each Individual and their Maker, that no Society or Government has any business interfering with. The limits are for the Society to set, and maintain, not neglect, through reason and consent.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Government-commissioned report says Muslim Brotherhood posing threat to French unity- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 0
-
-
President Trump considering bringing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac public- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 5
-
Genocidal Hamas-linked Qatar's MEE is upset at UK: 'no genocide' in Gaza.- Started by Sayaras
- Replies: 1
-
