Wednesday, March 4, 2009

A Bargarian View on DC Voting Rights (Taxation without Representation)

Congrats to Lisa for having her first segment on Fox TV for a monthly feature. While she needs to work on her teleprompter skills (her words, not mine), she did well. Well, except for the fact that she should be looking at the viewer, not the screen.
:)


Speaking of Lisa, her blog Liberal Common Sense has a complaint; apparently, she doesn't like how Whalertly writes/argues his points in the previous two posts on DC and voting that he did. With that in mind, I decided that I am going to go ahead and take a crack at it myself: Here goes nothing.



As a starter, I want to say that I agree with Whalertly's main argument. The Constitution is clear on this issue, and it clearly says that only states can have a say in Congress. To me, this should mean that they have a vocal voice in congress, but no non-state entirety has a vote, even if it doesn't count. Nor should they be part of any committees at all. The Founding Fathers intended this to be, as they clearly worded this in the Constitution. Our government doesn't follow the Constitution enough, maybe it is time that they started here.

There is no way that you can interpret the Constitution to say something that it clearly says it is against. There is room for interpretation in privacy, in freedom of speech, and in freedom of the practice of religion. All of these are not fully defined, and they are all set up to adapt. However, there is no logical wriggle room in the statement:
”hall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states “. Additionally, as you need to be a citizen of the state that elected you, there is no way to get around this. Arguably, if the State of Ohio were to decide who represents DC then you have an interesting loophole. keep in mind, this would probably not hold up in court.

So, we know that there is no real way to get representation CONSTITUTIONALLY to DC or any of our islands, but there is a bigger issue here: That of taxation without representation.

A common argument brought up by those arguing for sovereignty is the concept that there should be no income tax unless they have representation. In fact, this is a point that Lisa brought up a few times. This believe stems from the assumption that the Boston tea party was a main factor in the revolution. This is a faulty belief, as most of our issues stemmed from the fact that we believed that the king was our leader, no parliament. We can safely assume that tax with no rep. Was simply the straw that broke the camels back. There is no backing what-so-ever to this argument historically based.

Furthermore, this argument falls apart when it comes to practice. We tax anybody who buys anything, tourists, kids, adults, yet most don't have representation. Taxes are covered on products and services, yet the people who end up paying them (consumers) do not always have representation. Obviously, they believe that only one tax matters...

Several groups pay income taxes and have no vote. Kids with jobs, felons in certain states, and illegal immigrants all pay income tax. Hell, those with a green card that are permanent residents also pay income tax. We don't want these groups to vote, but they are being deprived of the same 'right'. Obviously when you use selective enforcement you have an issue.

Overall, I believe that DC should not have the vote Constitutionally. This also applies to all of our territories and islands. Furthermore, I do not believe that the argument about taxation holds any water, as it is selective and not really historically based, regardless of how people argue it. If we amend the Constitution then I will support them having the vote, but, until then, they should not have it.

for the smart readers out there, you might have noticed that I never actually posted my own opinion on this issue... :)

38 comments:

Kadim said...

I always wondered how DC got screwed by income tax and no vote, but Guam and Puerto Rico did not.

Barga said...

It is irrelevant, but a good question. DC is part of the country, Guam/PR are simply territories

Kadim said...

It's not entirely irrelevant. What would happen if DC changed its tack and said "ok...what do we need to do to become a territory like PR?"

Hell, I've often wondered how Ohio could become a Puerto Rico like territory. We could call ourselves the Ohio Special Administrative Region. lol.

Barga said...

Well, to change they would need approval of their legislative body (For a state) and of congress (for everybody). That said, DC could not change unless there was a constitutional amendment, which is the same as voting rights for them...

We would need permission to do so, and i don't think our people want that

Kadim said...

Well in specific regards to Ohio...how do you think people would answer the general survey question:

Would you rather

a.) not pay federal income taxes

b.) pay federal income taxes, but, as a side-benefit, vote for congress and the president

Barga said...

The two should not be mutually exclusive, and there is no reason for them to be

Ander said...

On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning "COMMON LAW" in the federal government.

"THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF TORTS." (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. THOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188)

We have two governments.

Barga said...

Nice to see you back on here

that said, before I go home and dig out my law books, how is this relevant to the discussion?

Ander said...

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002

Ander said...

It has to do with where our tax system came from and why we can be taxed without being represented.

Barga said...

so you are agreeing with me?
i was wondering why you were talking about common law otherwise

also, the 16th is why we can be

Ander said...

Well I haven't fully pieced this together yet but it is something I am working on.

We have a Federal Government and a Republic Government. We can be taxed the way we are through contracts. When you fill out the 1040 IRS form you are claiming yourself to be a federal employee for the corporation UNITED STATES.

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A > § 3002

By declaring yourself a citizen of this corporation you are subject to its commercial laws and bylaws.

There was a corporate takeover of our constitution somewhere in our history by someone or some group.

Ben said...

Thats how I feel - get a Constituional Amendment passed and then get your House vote. Until then, no.

Barga said...

keep working on it, i am really confused about it. Are you sure that it isn't just talking about how business can use the US name?

also, we are the United States of America, not United States

Ander said...

"although in general international law does seek uniformity in admiralty law."

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/admiralty

The word United States in the US code is defined as a Federal Corporation. and all of its agencies and departments and everything else in the code.

"Admiralty law in the United States developed from the British admiralty courts present in most of the American colonies. These courts functioned separately from courts of law and equity. With the Judiciary Act, though, Congress placed admiralty under the jurisdiction of the federal district courts. Although admiralty shares much in common with the civil law, it is separate from it. Common law does not act as binding precedent on admiralty courts, but it and other law may be used when no law on point is available."

Ander said...

"This power is as extensive upon land as upon water. The Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on (my note - remember what the law of the flag said when you receive benefits from the king.) It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land." -- Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)

Ander said...

These definitions are not clear. There is something we are not being told about how this works.

And all the way back, before the U.S. Constitution John Adams talking about his state's Constitution, said:

"Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of Admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our Constitution and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation if the trial, of any matter on land was given to the admiralty." -- Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315, 342 (U.S. 1852)

Ander said...

Judiciary Act of 1789.

"It is only with the extent of powers possessed by the district courts, acting as instance courts of admiralty, we are dealing. The Act of 1789 gives the entire constitutional power to determine "all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," leaving the courts to ascertain its limits, as cases may arise." -- Waring ET AL,. v. Clarke, Howard 5 12 L. ed. 1847

Barga said...

ander, it is saying that the federal government has certain corporations that it owns and that is what US means, not that we are a corporation (read the second part of it again)

As for the Judiciary act, well, the act was required constitutionally, and it gave power to the courts as is supposted to be

Peter said...

Wondered what you thought about Kennedy's knighthood http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/local_mass_britan_ted_kennedy_knighthood20090304
in light of Article 1, Section 9 of the US constitution

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Barga said...

check back tonight

Ander said...

Yes but it is only defined as such for US code. Not the Constitution. These fall under different areas of law. The "Federal Government" is defined as a corporation and nothing else. Like I said, I don't have the complete picture yet. But this is a huge distinction. There should be nothing corporate about our governing body. Corporate structure is top down tyrannical and that is not what the Constitution or this country it supposed to be about.

When you file a 1040 you are claiming yourself to be a "federal employee"

Barga said...

I think that you are reading it incorrectly
they are using US to mean something like the US federal reserve, a governmental (arguable) corporation

Ander said...

No, that's what I am pointing it out to be. A quasi-governmental quasi-private organization, and I am sorry, but I don't want private governer's. I don't want secret government. It is not necessary. In fact it is scary. I am scared of things I don't have information about and my government is not something I should have to fear. What is in the light of the public and affects all of us should remain in the light for all of us to see.

Ander said...

There is an aspect of our governing body that currently exists to be defined as a corporation and there for under the eyes of the law has the same rights as an individual person and can contract as a private individual under commerce and contract law.

When we declare ourselves U.S. Citizens and file the 1040 form and almost everything else we "need" a license for, we are contracting with this body. Therefore we are subject to its jurisdiction and therefore its rules, regulations, and codes.

Ander said...

This is why almost no one has any rights. We all contract with this set of rules almost everywhere.

The codes and regulations have been made such that no one can even want to try to wade through it. But the government expects everyone to know the law.

There is a shadowy undemocratic legal structure that exists in our country. Why are your only pleas in court Guilty, Not Guilty, and No contest? They all contractually bind us to the code and regulation. If you end up in jail, you put yourself there.

Barga said...

Ander, i am quite sure that you are reading it wrong, as the courts have ruled several times that we are a public government, not a private corporation

that said, bring it all together and discuss it in a new psot

Ander said...

On April 25, 1938, the Supreme Court overturned the standing precedents of the prior 150 years concerning "COMMON LAW" in the federal government.

"THERE IS NO FEDERAL COMMON LAW, AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DECLARE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMON LAW applicable IN A STATE, WHETHER they be LOCAL or GENERAL in their nature, be they COMMERCIAL LAW or a part of LAW OF TORTS." (See: ERIE RAILROAD CO. vs. THOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L. Ed. 1188)

Ander said...

I don't know how you misread a U.S. code definition that defines the usage of United States to mean Federal Corporation.

Ander said...

Why does it not define its usage in the code to mean Republic or the Public government of the people?

Ander said...

Why does it not define its usage in the code to mean Republic or the Public government of the people?

Ander said...

corporation n. an organization formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business (or other activities), which can sue or be sued, and (unless it is non-profit) can issue shares of stock to raise funds with which to start a business or increase its capital.


"United States" has been incorporated as an artificial person to carry out business.

Ander said...

U.S. code is corporate law. The same as a company defining it's rules and regulations that those who contract with the entity must abide by.

Barga said...

Um, what the ruling says is that federal decisions are not applied to the states, nothing else

Ben said...

I cant believe you are still arguing about this.

Barga said...

why

Ben said...

Because it is obvious that DC is not entitled to represenation in either the House or Senate without an Amendment.

Barga said...

I know that, have just been arguing with Ander over a court case

Redirect

You will be redirected shortly to our new website. If you are not redirected within 5 seconds please CLICK HERE!

Copyright Notice

(C) All articles, postings, images, etc. on this site are protected by relevant copyright law, unless otherwise specified. To use any original material in totality please ask for author permission.

(C) 2009, all rights reserved by whalertly.blogspot.com, Robert M. Barga, and all contributing authors.