Taxation Without Representation - Monied Politics

Liberty Election Reform & Political Integrity
1

Taxation Without Representation - Monied Politics

The following thread is a combination of a series of ideas from several users and seperate policy proposals formatted in a better manner. Here is a list of contributors, contributions, inspirations, and relevant proposals.

@DRSE @Nicole_C_Scott @PatriotAK @EthanHowardMfrr @Rovi6373 @MarkMeckler

Salary and Term Limits For Congress

Single Issue Bills for Congress

Call a Convention of the States to Limit the Scope, Power, and Jurisdiction of the Federal Government

The Separation of the Corporatocracy and the State

Issues with the US Gov’t and Economy as it Functions in 2024

Median Pay for Members of Congress

The Government’s Legal Right to Lie in Legislation: USC Title 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS Ch. 1: RULES OF CONSTRUCTION

Establish a Cap on Lobbying Per-Entity

Reapportionment of Representatives and Senators

Enforcement of the 1st Amendment in relation to Religious Reference in Official Text

Conversion of the US Economy from a Consumer Society to a Production Society

Preface

Through a series of subversive Acts and policies, an unapportioned Congress has wrought the Tyranny that Great Britain had sewn for the Framers of our Constitution, yet Congress is weaker and less loyal to itself; more sold out to conglomerates and special interest groups than the Monarchy ever was. Our Government has directly subverted the representation, part of it’s foundational functionality which is defined in the Constitution. Our nation sits idle, while our towns recede into abandoned lots as the funds of our citizens-which could be invested locally, into independent business and infrastructure-is funneled into militant-ideological foreign powers. So much so, that our government functions entirely on a deficit, and system of credit and interests payments that will not last.

Manufacturing of products, food, and energy needs to be done locally, and the only way to encourage our population to produce is to entice them with opportunities, the American Dream. Opportunities lie in a competitive market, not one limited in options by the few controlling powers. How is a upcoming local grocery store supposed to compete with a multi-national corporation with lobbyist backing?

Taxation without Representation;

US Constitution Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 says;

‘…The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;’

Representatives being apportioned to the populations they represent is extremely important to the function of our democracy. One member of Congress, regardless of their standing, could not accurately represent and communicate with 700,000+ people. We have the means to manage a large House of Representatives, anything short of apportionment is the representation of political interests over the People. Reapportionment of the Representatives must be continued.

US Constitution Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 states;

‘No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.’

Taxation needs to be established with a specific goal or purpose, always functioning on a sunset clause. The continuous direct taxation of the People’s lives through their property and labor to stave off a mismanagement of government revenue through interests payments and deficit spending is directly lowering the standard of living for the citizens of the United States through inflation of the prices of goods and services, and the devaluing, debasement, and mass circulation of the dollar.

These two subversive actions, the 16th Amendment and the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, directly ends Taxation with Representation.

Monied Creation of Legislation Lack of Representation;

Currently there is no financial cap to what any certain type of entity can lobby for in Congress. Businesses like Casey’s, Walmart, 7-Eleven, Target, Amazon, McDonald’s; all multi-million dollar, multi-national companies that could out lobby a majority of communities, and every individual; in the auction that is Congress.

Some would say there are certain advantages in funding and accumulating support for a bill through lobbying. In order to keep the benefits that financial incentive brings for legislation, but to remove the aspects that create unequal influence in Congress, we must establish a cap on the amount any entity can pay into a bill.

Other than what can be explicitly be protected by the 1st Amendment, an express stance of ending monied influence in Congress is imperative. The best way is ending the insider trading of stock and bonds for office holders, and a set salary based on the median wages of the district/state that they represent, along with term limits that do not inhibit the abilities of office holders. This would create financial incentive for politicians to increase the standard of living, and industry for their state/district.

The 17th Amendment doesn’t necessarily require that any State legislature empower the executive to make a temporary appointment like the original clause did. It also extends the amount of time the appointment has in office before an actual elected official gets in office.

The original vacancy appointment clause required that the executive preform their duty at the next recess of each State’s legislature, and that the next meeting-not the next election period-the legislature would officially fill the vacancies. The original clauses in Article I, Clauses 1 & 2 were superior in preventing corruption and assuring representation to the States, but lacking granting the People any say in their election/appointment.

Other Subverted Rights and Government:

Our Currency violates the 1st Amendment, and our Pledge is also in violation. Some state constitutions also prohibit those who do not believe in God from holding public office. Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas are in violation of this right.

Wording like ‘No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.’ is Unconstitutional.

The use of the phrases ‘In God We Trust’ and 'Under God’ violates the First Amendment.

‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’

‘…no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his two religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.’ - James Madison

‘The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.’ - James Madison

Through either petition, conventionally, or other method granted to us innately, the following actions must be taken into consideration:

First, a redefinition of said entities must take place.

This Title of the US Code allows for lawmakers to skew the meaning and phrases of the bills that they pass enabling courts to grant rights to legal structures, like corporations. Correcting this blatant abusive power will require a repeal, and an amendment/act that forces all legislation to be written with clear and concise language with singular meanings.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title1/chapter1&edition=prelim

Corrective Provisions for Title 1:

Laws in Plain Language:
→
Changes-or amendments-to Title 1 must explicitly require that all new statutes must be drafted in plain, or exact language. Mean revising sections like the one specifying the interpretation of words denoting number, gender, etc., to use more contemporary and inclusive language. For instance, replacing ‘words importing the singular must implore the singular and therefore the exact intention; words importing the plural must implore the plural and therefore the exact intention.’

Publication for Legislative Drafts:
→
The Office of the Law Revision Counsel should be required to publicize the complete set of policy, treaties, and acts for each Congress of the United States for public transparency of government action, much like the late United States Statutes at Large. The Office of the Law Revision Counsel, responsible for preparing and revising the United States Code, could also identify outdated references and wording for Congress. This focus would help to eliminate outdated references (like “insane person”) and ensuring that terms are defined in a way that avoids ambiguity.

About this Collection | United States Statutes at Large | Digital Collections | Library of Congress.

Legislative Review Panels:
→
Establish a panel that includes members from the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, plain language experts, and perhaps representatives from the public, affected communities, and a judge to review and suggest changes to Title 1, Chapter 1. This panel could recommend updates to definitions or interpretations to reflect modern standards or eliminate ambiguity-do to the latter provisions of the Code dealing with marriage and abortion.

Single-Issue Legislation:
→
Ensuring that each bill deals with a single issue might lead to less complex statutory construction rules. Every law must be straightforward in its intent and scope. The need for the limitation of legislative loopholes and footnotes is dire.

Public Engagement:
→
Before revising or adding to legislation, hold public consultations or use digital platforms to collect input on how the construction of legislation is understood by the public in order to establish expectations for clarity in the law that align with the intent of the law; any amendments are limited to the original intent or desired impact/effect. This could lead to amendments that reflect public comprehension and expectations for clarity in law

Government Transparency and Integrity:
→
Our government should not engage in the signing of treaties or oath taking for public image. A redefinition of ‘oath’ is required, along with a set time period in which the US can retain the ‘signed’ status of a treaty before ratification, or ratification as a prerequisite to a signature.

Second, an affordable, but influential, dollar amount must be set as a cap for individuals, corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies; in order to create equal economic influence. Ensuing that multi-million dollar, multi-national entities have the same influence as individual citizens and business.

Third, a system of transparency, and clear ‘donation’ paths must be established for the public. The influence behind any such bill should be publicized.

Fourth, all funds lobbied should have a priority purpose; either funding such proposition or going directly into the treasury/budget.

Fifth, a ban must be established on all foreign lobbying; for all entities, individuals, corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, joint stocks, and governments.

Sixth, the permanent continuation of the apportionment of representatives must be guaranteed, as the 1929 Act subverts the direct social contract established between the People and their government.

Seventh, the dismantling or the continuous reevaluation of all government/private agencies involved in the direct taxation of the People; deficit spending, over-circulation, and the debasement of the dollar.

Eighth, the limitation of multi-regional, multi-national horizontal and vertical expansion of business to promote a competitive and opportunitistic economy, through financial dissuasion.

Horizontal Expansion, could be described as single line of products/services that expands overtly in availability, and limits the opportunity of new and budding business. (as in, chain restaurants, chain retail, food packaging/production companies, etc.)

Vertical Expansion, could be described as a multitude of products/services that expands overtly in availability, and limits the opportunity of new and budding business. (as in, mass product shipping companies, chain super stores, chain convenience stores, etc.)

Ninth, end the insider trading of stock and bonds for office holders, and require a personal audit to hold office; ban members of Congress from lobbying.

Tenth, set a salary for representative constituents based on the median wages of the district/state that they represent.

Eleventh, establish term limits for members of Congress that do not inhibit the abilities of office holders.

Twelveth, during the recess of the legislature of any State, the Executive thereof shall make temporary Appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies through a special session general election.

Thirteenth, total enforcement of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendments by a Convention of the Several States.

Fourteenth, prevention of the strict duel-partisan organization of public elections, and the establishment of funding caps for campaigns.

Fifteen, reestablishment of the currency backing clarifed in the Constitution, hard currency; gold and silver.

Sixteenth, a complete repeal of the 16th Amendment, and the establishment of a financial system run by direct Congressional desicions, as defined in the Constitution.

Conclusion:

Through a series of subversive Acts and policies, an unapportioned Congress has dismanteled the very function of our Constitutional Republic. Our Government has directly subverted representation in it’s foundational functionality which is defined in the Constitution. In result, our population has been indebted, and their wealth debased, devalued, and inflated. So much so, that our government functions entirely on a deficit, and system of credit and interests payments that will not last. Production of goods, food, and energy needs to be done locally, and the only way to encourage our population to produce, is to entice them with opportunities, the American Dream. Opportunities lie in a competitive market, not one limited in options by the few controlling powers. How is a upcoming local grocery store supposed to compete with a multi-national corporation with lobbyist backing? They cannot.

Through either petition, conventionally, or other method granted to us innately, the right to change or abolish our government, the following actions must be taken into consideration.

  • For
  • Against
  • Abstaining
0 voters
2

Id say there’s only 2 things i see missing here. 1. would be this statement " Second , an affordable, but influential, dollar amount must be set as a cap for individuals, corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships." My issue here is THE only people who should be able to donate are individuals. Corporations, companies, firms, associations and partnerships are not “The people”. These are businesses as such should have no say at all. As i have yet to hear my dewalt impact driver speak of its opinions. These should focus only on their business and not our laws that they as a business would seek. As being out to make a product their opinions are tied to said product or endeavor.

  1. What i see missing is the end of non compete clauses. This would HAVE to happen to begin having true competition. For instance i worked for cable for a few years. You can directly see where our lines ended and the competitors began. Why? Because there was an agreement they service left side we service right side. This type of business has lead to what we now experience. You have no say over who your utilities come from. As if you dont like their price, policies, or service well to bad there is no one else.

You could easily keep companies expansion as many argue you’d need 5 different coax lines then in a house. Not true they all use the same lines of same type of service. What would happen is company A would build their lines hoping to gain business in the new development. However company B actually gets the service. As such company B now must pay a royalty to company A until such time as company A has recouped their costs for installing said lines. This would allow companies to project and expand. Without having to be concerned of “Loss” for the expansion. They would still recoup their pay and company B would own the line at such time. People change services and the process repeats itself. (I’m sure there’s a better way i just cant think of one at the moment)

Many i know do not like their service providers for internet, electric, or even gas. However these companies with their non compete clauses made it so they dont have to listen to their customers. Many also consider liability vs maintenance. For example homes that have blown up due to poorly maintained gas lines. Fires that have burned in California due to PG&E poor maintenance on their lines. They do not care as these customers are FORCED to be provided by these companies. So their only question is. The price to maintain their services vs pay you for your loss of home, and individuals. Sadly its cheaper to pay you for a funeral than to continue maintaining their service lines. Why, because they have neglected maintenance for so long its of no concern any longer.

1 Like
3

You make some great points about non-compete policy. Competition breeds a healthy market, and the policy that forces a certain region to pay for services from a certain provider is ridiculous.

I didn’t go into depth on it like you did, because of the broad scope of industry types, and the need for specific regulation. From your points tho, I do see how my 8th point could cause issues if it was used in the context of non-compete policies that services function under, but do you see the issue with Walmarts, McDonald’s, and Amazon out competing all local business and the overt horizontal and vertical expansion? Other than non-compete policy, how do you think we could prevent the merge of all local business and lack of opportunity in the independent sector of our economy?

As for the 2nd point, I agree with you, but like I said on the other thread, technically these groups could argue they have the Constitutional right to file grievances in this form, and organized through a business or seperate entity. So my comprimising solve was to allow the continuation of lobbying by each entity type, but capping each in order to create equal representation through ‘petitioned grievances’.

If the entity Walmart, as in it’s board of shareholders, needed to press for legislation that supports their business, which is their right, they should have the same diplomatic weight as an individual employee, or less. That being said, granted the majority supports it, I would support a ban on all entity lobbying except for ‘people’ and granted the definition stated in the Rules of Construction changes.

The first point I state above has to do with the definition of said entities (corps, partnerships, etc.) as they are currently defined as ‘people’. Which is a major issue for both of our opinions and solutions.

4

I agree with you and know about the grievances and also find it wrong. Just as wrong as when they claim “Illegals constitutional rights” are being violated. We need to stop counting businesses as people. They are not people the COO, CEO, owner and all executives have the right to vote as an individual. Constitutional rights are for CITIZENS not organizations who have the PRIVLIDGE to do business here. yes the PRIVLIDGE. It is not a right to be allowed to have your company here. Also illegals who cross have NO constitutional rights as they are not CITIZENS.

These ideas are things that had been lobbied for and passed based on these companies. I did read your proposals they are good, I’ve also voted for a couple of yours. Many I think we have small things I would disagree on but nothing is perfect. They are very good proposals that I’ve seen from you. As even my disagreements as you point out have laws elsewhere that need dealt with. I’m glad to see someone so informed and so thoughtful upon what they speak about!

1 Like
5

That’s why we’re here to cooperate! Thanks so much for the compliment, I’ll check your profile out.

I do like the argument that the 1st Amendment refers to People, and that the redefinition of corporate entities as individuals is a direct subvertion of the meaning and purpose of the amendment.

6

Had you not read the premble?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It’s pretty clear that it’s the people. Not the businesses, entities, firms, corporations or anything else. Its of the people. You’ll also notice they always refrence people throughout the constitution.

They made it clear these are people’s rights. As had they wanted it to be for corporations they would have stated so. As corporations exsisted even during their times. At least when i read the constitution it’s clear its specially for the people by the people.

1 Like
7

Who hasn’t? My statement was complimenting the stance, not a confusion about who rights are for, we both know about Ch. 1 Title 1.

1 Like