Socialism works until you run out of other people's money.[W:954]

[head of joaquin]

In the USA, the constitution doesn't give us our rights. It RESTRICTS government from trampling them.
Constitutional amendments COULD ALSO have been created and used to restrict multi-national companies from trampling our rights, BUT unfortunately, the government isn't ABIDING by the constitution, and collectivists are stealing the country.
And too many americans don't even KNOW we are unique, an individualist country with God given unalienable rights.

Oh dear, the natural rights hogwash.

Funny how the natural rights conservatives claim God gave them always involves their property.

 

[yobarnacle]

Oh dear, the natural rights hogwash.

Funny how the natural rights conservatives claim God gave them always involves their property.

The Massachusetts Bill (1778), written almost entirely by John Adams, began, “all men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.” Article seven of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights declared: “Government is instituted for the common good . . . and not for the profit, honor or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men . . . .” And Article 10 read: “Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property . . . . No part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people . . . . And whenever the public exigencies require that the property of any individual should be appropriated to public uses, he shall receive a reasonable compensation therefor.”6

Later, in the national Bill of Rights, the 10 amendments to the United States Constitution ratified in 1791, many of the rights proclaimed by the individual states in the 1770s became part of the entire country’s supreme law. Later still, in the 14th Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1868, each state was forbidden to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”



Read more: Individual Rights: The Crumbling Foundation of American Government : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education



If you don't agree with our Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and ALL the 'ORGANIC LAW of the USA" then LEAVE!

 

[head of joaquin]

If you don't agree with our Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and ALL the 'ORGANIC LAW of the USA" then LEAVE!

BWHHAHAHAHAH!

You got to love how tea partiers are reduced to babbling nonsense when their knownothing ideas are challenged.

I'll think instead of leaving I'll stay and debate tea partiers about the Constitution and show what fools they are.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Why? That is the key question, but it usually goes unanswered because it's not asked. What you said is absolutely true, but why is it this way? Government tries to regulate anything and everything, but it's patently obvious that regulation can't cover every situation that may come up. Something new and unexpected arises that no regulation specifically addresses and business may not be responsible for the consequences. After all, there was no law against what the business did. That doesn't help the party that was harmed, and there is little recourse. Only after the fact does the government step in with another new regulation to address that specific problem. That's why we have a Federal Register that is bloated with thousands upon thousands of pages of rules and regulations, and thousands more will never make it comprehensive.

So what would happen in the absence of regulation? Not going to speak for you, but I bet you think it would be anarchy and life would be brutal. What stops McDs from selling burgers made with bad meat, or Bayer selling placebos instead of aspirin, or companies not providing fire extinguishers, or a machine shop from having safeguards on the equipment, if there were not enough exits, or...?

The answer is deceptively simple. Companies make more profit when they provide a quality, cost-effective product and they can't do it without workers. If people get sick from eating at McDonalds they will quit going there. Take a Bayer aspirin and it does nothing to relieve your pain and you'll soon seek other alternatives. Fire extinguishers, exits, safe equipment, it's in the best interest for a company to take care of its workers and property. If the workers are getting killed or maimed on the job, it will be nearly impossible to find replacement workers willing to risk life and limb. Letting their buildings burn down because they were initially too cheap to install sprinklers and fire extinguishers is not conducive to success. A good business doesn't need a regulation to tell it what needs to be done, and a bad business won't stay in business. When recourse is necessary, a framework of law and property rights under a common law system can be utilized just as it was before the progressive era began the trend to screw it all up.

Of course, of course! It's all so clear now! If we'd only get rid of all the regulations, businesses would only make quality stuff and nobody would ever get hurt!

And if somebody sells bad meat, even though there's NO WAY to track down where the meat came from, that's okay....because the market will magically make everything all better! It's the no-regulation fairy-dust that's the cure for all that ails us!

Are you really so naive about the profit motive? All too often, short term profits take priority over long-term sensibility, even in the richest, most successful companies.

Look at BP - they didn't want to spend an extra $500K on a blowout preventer because they didn't have to - there were no regulations requiring it like there already are in Brazil and Norway. And HOW many billions, how much damage was there because they didn't want to spend a lousy half million?

Better yet, remember that explosion that took out much of West, Texas? Well, come to find out there's several more places that are storing fertilizer just like the facility in West...the state authorities wanted to go inspect those places to see if they're storing their fertilizer safely (like the one in West was NOT)...and you know what happened? The facilities refused the inspections. Why? Because there's NO REGULATIONS allowing state authorities to inspect them. Who the hell cares about safety - that costs money!

Have you ever lived in a third-world nation? If you do, you find out that people will sell whatever they can, however they can...as long as they can get away with it. Look at China - their market is pretty deregulated...and they were selling baby formula that affected 300,000 babies, 54,000 of which needed hospitalization. They had been adding melamine - a fire retardant that is also used as a pesticide - to the baby formula...something that COULD NOT HAPPEN in the states because of the regulations that we have here that prevent things like melamine from being added to items for consumption. And why did this happen in China? Because there was no way to track what was happening, like there is here in the states.

Here's another question - asbestos. It's one of the most effective flame retardants known to man. If there's NO REGULATION and thus NO LIABILITY, then there's NOTHING to stop industries from using asbestos once more, never mind how many of their workers will wind up with asbestosis thirty years in the future?

Your no-regulation theory sounds so nice to you...but you are NOT looking at what can happen - what HAS happened - when there are no regulations, and no liability. Many, many people get hurt - including babies, as shown above, and some die.

 

[yobarnacle]

BWHHAHAHAHAH!

You got to love how tea partiers are reduced to babbling nonsense when their knownothing ideas are challenged.

I'll think instead of leaving I'll stay and debate tea partiers about the Constitution and show what fools they are.

After the 'Preamble' to the Declaration of Independence,

The Declaration continued by explaining that the rebels had not rashly taken up arms against the established government:

Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The Declaration went on to present a lengthy list of grievances against the King, including the complaint that he had “erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance.”



Read more: Individual Rights: The Crumbling Foundation of American Government : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education


How long suffering do you think we ARE, before it gets 'UNHEALTHY' for socialists in this country?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Regulations have the force and PENALTY of law. But, are NOT laws.
They are interpreted and enforced by regulatory agencies, over whom there is little or NO oversight!
Do you want to live in a nation governed under Rule of LAW?
Or one where your freedoms have been regulated away, and you are "subject" to the whim of some low level "OSHA" clerk or other functionary?
Anybody surprised Mr Contrary LIKED working in that field?

And that's your fantasy, that those inspectors from regulatory agencies subject businesses to their 'whims'. I wish the retired Marine I worked for there - who was every bit as conservative as anyone here - could be here to show you just how deep your ignorance goes.

Inspectors don't - can't - "subject businesses to whims". We used something called the "29 CFR" (Code of Federal Regulations), and if something didn't fall under that, then we couldn't ping someone on it. But by using it, we made sure that the squadrons at NAS Whidbey stayed safe places to work.

Now, to give the flip side of the coin - life in a nation without such regulations. I have a house in the Philippines. We had bars added to the windows - which is almost de riguer in third-world countries - and so the contractor we hired came over to make the bars on site. So they got to work, and I looked at this guy who is arc-welding a set of bars together. He was wearing a t-shirt, shorts, flip-flops, no gloves, no goggles. Why? Because such things are not expensive...and such are not required (or such regulations are not enforced at all). So as a result, even if this guy doesn't electrocute himself in the years to come, he's exposed to splatter, and so he'll eventually have systemic exposure to heavy metals...and then there's the small matter of using no welding goggles while arc-welding....

And what's sad is that this is NORMAL there. It's EXPECTED there. The fact that this guy might get electrocuted from his lack of safety equipment (while working on MY house), is likely to lose several years off his lifespan (not to mention permanent spot blindness) is of no concern at all. Why? Because silly little things like safety equipment costs a company MONEY. MONEYMONEYMONEY.

If you really want to live in a nation without regulations, go for it. I have...I've seen what it's really like. You obviously haven't.

 

[head of joaquin]

After the 'Preamble' to the Declaration of Independence,

The Declaration continued by explaining that the rebels had not rashly taken up arms against the established government:

Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The Declaration went on to present a lengthy list of grievances against the King, including the complaint that he had “erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance.”



Read more: Individual Rights: The Crumbling Foundation of American Government : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education


How long suffering do you think we ARE, before it gets 'UNHEALTHY' for socialists in this country?

Oh dear, you think the Declaration of Independence is law. A common tea party meme.

 

[yobarnacle]

Oh dear, you think the Declaration of Independence is law. A common tea party meme.

WHY THE ORGANIC LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ARE NOT TAUGHT IN ANY AMERICAN LAW SCHOOL - EDRIVERA.COM

WHY THE ORGANIC LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ARE NOT TAUGHT IN ANY AMERICAN LAW SCHOOL
Filed Under Articles of Confederation, COMMON LAW, CONSTITUTION, CRIMINAL LAW
The Declaration of Independence, 1777 Articles of Confederation, Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 and the Constitution of September 17, 1787 are the sources of all written laws made by the Congress of the United States. When they are properly studied, these Organic Laws prove that the Congress of the United States can only make laws for the federal government and the administration of the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.

The Organic Laws can also show how any American can decide to be an Inhabitant under the Articles of Confederation and still be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states. An American Inhabitant can collect earned Social Security benefits without admitting to United States residence.

The United States of America, where Inhabitants live, was made free by the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution. The Articles of Confederation were completed and ready to be adopted by November 15, 1777 and finally ratified by all thirteen States on March 1, 1781. Final ratification by the State of Maryland formed a Confederacy called the United States of America that was responsible for prosecuting the Revolutionary War against the British. After the successful conclusion of that war, the United States in Congress assembled continued to represent the States of the United States of America in foreign affairs until the United States in Congress assembled officially became the Senate of the United States.

The first Congress, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives according to the Constitution, convened on March 4, 1789 in New York City. According to Article I Section 3 Clause 2, the Senators, newly selected by State legislatures, were divided into three Classes, which would serve staggered terms of two, four and six years. These staggered terms would provide for a Senate that will be in continual session from March 4, 1789 to the present. In that same period there have been 111 Congresses. This is conclusive proof that the Senate of the United States is the equivalent of the Article X Committee of States provided for in the Articles of Confederation.

I am the only law professor in America that teaches how the Organic Law creates a Senate that functions as the United States in Congress assembled under the Articles of Confederation and as the United States Senate under the authority of the Constitution of the United States. All education is now controlled by the government, so the government will only teach what the government wants you to know. The government does not want you know why George Washington took an oral oath to be President of the United States and that the United States is the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.

Every law school in America teaches that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, but they won’t teach that the replacement was limited to the Northwest Territory, which was the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America at the time. This is why the Congress of the United States, which consists of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives and is vested with legislative power, may only make laws for federal territory, territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America. Proof that the Articles of Confederation are still viable law can be found here: http://edstudents.angelfire.com/papers/ORGANIC_LAW.pdf

 

[yobarnacle]

Volume 18of the Revised Statutes of the United States as enacted by the 43rd Congress (A.D. 1873-1875) and published by the Government Printing Office in A.D. 1878. (Note that Volume 18 reflects the law as it was known to exist after the 14th Amendment was (allegedly) ratified in A.D. 1868.)

In that Volume 18, the Congress published a section entitled “The Organic Laws of The United States of America”. That section includes four documents:

1) The “Declaration of Independence”;

2) The Article of Confederation;

3) The Northwest Ordinance; and,

4) The Constitution of the United States.

There is nothing in that collection of documents to suggest that the Constitution is the only component of “The Organic Laws of The United States of America”. Instead, the four documents are presented as a cohesive collection, each of which are still every bit as much the Law as the Constitution.



• The implications are enormous.

For example, we have legal authority to assert the principles in the “Declaration of Independence” as carrying the force of law.

 

[yobarnacle]

And that's your fantasy, that those inspectors from regulatory agencies subject businesses to their 'whims'. I wish the retired Marine I worked for there - who was every bit as conservative as anyone here - could be here to show you just how deep your ignorance goes.

Inspectors don't - can't - "subject businesses to whims". We used something called the "29 CFR" (Code of Federal Regulations), and if something didn't fall under that, then we couldn't ping someone on it. But by using it, we made sure that the squadrons at NAS Whidbey stayed safe places to work.

Now, to give the flip side of the coin - life in a nation without such regulations. I have a house in the Philippines. We had bars added to the windows - which is almost de riguer in third-world countries - and so the contractor we hired came over to make the bars on site. So they got to work, and I looked at this guy who is arc-welding a set of bars together. He was wearing a t-shirt, shorts, flip-flops, no gloves, no goggles. Why? Because such things are not expensive...and such are not required (or such regulations are not enforced at all). So as a result, even if this guy doesn't electrocute himself in the years to come, he's exposed to splatter, and so he'll eventually have systemic exposure to heavy metals...and then there's the small matter of using no welding goggles while arc-welding....

And what's sad is that this is NORMAL there. It's EXPECTED there. The fact that this guy might get electrocuted from his lack of safety equipment (while working on MY house), is likely to lose several years off his lifespan (not to mention permanent spot blindness) is of no concern at all. Why? Because silly little things like safety equipment costs a company MONEY. MONEYMONEYMONEY.

If you really want to live in a nation without regulations, go for it. I have...I've seen what it's really like. You obviously haven't.

What is obvious to YOU isn't TRUTH!
I've worked all over the world since 1966 and have homes both in the US and in Mexico.
I too, have seen welders weld without protective gear.

When it was MY project, I BOUGHT them goggles, gloves, and a leather apron.

Did YOU?

And if you HAVEN'T experienced one fed office saying you COULD do something, and another office of same agency saying, you COULDN'T, then you haven't had much experience with the reality of regulations, and the capriciousness of regulatory agencies. I HAVE!

 

[AngryOldGuy]

yobarnacle do you doubt the One's desire to uphold the Constitution?
I'da thunk Obamacare would have convinced you that it is a 'Living document'

 

[yobarnacle]

yobarnacle do you doubt the One's desire to uphold the Constitution?
I'da thunk Obamacare would have convinced you that it is a 'Living document'

I believe the Organic Laws of the USA (includes the Constitution) are "living" laws.

I also believe every politician (regardless of office) and judge in Washington is trashing the Constitution.

Throw ALL the bums out 2014!

organic - definition of organic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
or·gan·ic (ôr-gnk)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or derived from living organisms: organic matter.

2. Of, relating to, or affecting a bodily organ: an organic disease.

3.
a. Of, marked by, or involving the use of fertilizers or pesticides that are strictly of animal or vegetable origin: organic vegetables; an organic farm.

b. Raised or conducted without the use of drugs, hormones, or synthetic chemicals: organic chicken; organic cattle farming.

c. Serving organic food: an organic restaurant.

d. Simple, healthful, and close to nature: an organic lifestyle.

4.
a. Having properties associated with living organisms.

b. Resembling a living organism in organization or development; interconnected: society as an organic whole.

5. Constituting an integral part of a whole; fundamental.

6. Law Denoting or relating to the fundamental or constitutional laws and precepts of a government or an organization.

7. Chemistry Of or designating carbon compounds.

n.
1. A substance, especially a fertilizer or pesticide, of animal or vegetable origin.

2. Chemistry An organic compound.

Organic law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[froggigger]

Of course, of course! It's all so clear now! If we'd only get rid of all the regulations, businesses would only make quality stuff and nobody would ever get hurt!

Why do you have to make stuff up? I never said or implied that businesses would only make quality stuff and nobody would ever get hurt. If I had said that, there would be no need for me to also talk about recourse through common law.

And if somebody sells bad meat, even though there's NO WAY to track down where the meat came from, that's okay....because the market will magically make everything all better! It's the no-regulation fairy-dust that's the cure for all that ails us!

Do you actually believe there would be no way to track down where the meat came from without regulation? You evidently think business leaders are stupid. The free market is all about accountability. The fairy dust comes from government.

Are you really so naive about the profit motive? All too often, short term profits take priority over long-term sensibility, even in the richest, most successful companies.

Why do you have such a problem with profit? In a free market, profit can only be made if both sides agree to a voluntary exchange that is mutually beneficial. Without that, there is no profit in any form. Private companies can't force behavior. That's government's domain.

Look at BP - they didn't want to spend an extra $500K on a blowout preventer because they didn't have to - there were no regulations requiring it like there already are in Brazil and Norway. And HOW many billions, how much damage was there because they didn't want to spend a lousy half million?

There you go making stuff up again.

BP oil spill trial: Blowout preventer on Macondo well had dead battery, miswired solenoid, expert testifies

BP oil spill trial: Blowout preventer on Macondo well had dead battery, miswired solenoid, expert testifies | NOLA.com

Better yet, remember that explosion that took out much of West, Texas? Well, come to find out there's several more places that are storing fertilizer just like the facility in West...the state authorities wanted to go inspect those places to see if they're storing their fertilizer safely (like the one in West was NOT)...and you know what happened? The facilities refused the inspections. Why? Because there's NO REGULATIONS allowing state authorities to inspect them. Who the hell cares about safety - that costs money!

How many of those "several more places" are still storing fertilizer like the facility that blew up? I'd bet the other places changed their storage methods so the same accident doesn't happen to them. The facility that blew up lost money - a LOT of money. Surely you don't believe that the other places just went ho-hmmm and crossed their fingers hoping that the same didn't happen to them.

Have you ever lived in a third-world nation? If you do, you find out that people will sell whatever they can, however they can...as long as they can get away with it. Look at China - their market is pretty deregulated...and they were selling baby formula that affected 300,000 babies, 54,000 of which needed hospitalization. They had been adding melamine - a fire retardant that is also used as a pesticide - to the baby formula...something that COULD NOT HAPPEN in the states because of the regulations that we have here that prevent things like melamine from being added to items for consumption. And why did this happen in China? Because there was no way to track what was happening, like there is here in the states.

China's problem is that it is an emerging economy with an almost total lack of business ethics. The Chinese government has backed away from total control and allowed a bit of economic freedom. It can't be sorted out overnight.

Here's another question - asbestos. It's one of the most effective flame retardants known to man. If there's NO REGULATION and thus NO LIABILITY, then there's NOTHING to stop industries from using asbestos once more, never mind how many of their workers will wind up with asbestosis thirty years in the future?

For some reason, you still insist there would be no liability in an unregulated marketplace. That's simply not true.

Your no-regulation theory sounds so nice to you...but you are NOT looking at what can happen - what HAS happened - when there are no regulations, and no liability. Many, many people get hurt - including babies, as shown above, and some die.

Bernie Madoff made millions under the watchful eye of the SEC. Meat packing plants have full-time government inspectors but tainted meat still arrives on the market. The FAA heavily regulates safety but crashes still occur. The housing market was heavily regulated but it still crashed and burned. Meningitis linked to contaminated drugs killed 14 people in Massachusetts despite regulations to prevent it.

Your regulation theory sounds nice to you, but you are not looking at what can happen even with strict regulations and liability in place. Many, many people still get hurt, and some die.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

 

[Glen Contrarian]

What is obvious to YOU isn't TRUTH!
I've worked all over the world since 1966 and have homes both in the US and in Mexico.
I too, have seen welders weld without protective gear.

When it was MY project, I BOUGHT them goggles, gloves, and a leather apron.

Did YOU?

I didn't buy it for him - I already had it on hand. As part of bringing much of my personal belongings to the Philippines (it's a military retirement perk), I had gone to Lowe's and bought an arc-welder and all the associated safety equipment for my brother-in-law...but when I saw the guy in my postage-stamp-size back yard using no safety equipment, I brought out the welder's gloves and goggles (but not the leather apron, since it would not have fit him) and handed them to him. He accepted the goggles, but refused the gloves - I guess he thought wearing hot gloves in the Manila heat was worse than the risk of being electrocuted or getting splatter.

But that's NOT the point. YOU bought them the safety equipment, and I have no reason to doubt you. But the POINT is that YOU and I personally provided the gear that they did not already have...which means that on most or all of the jobs they'd worked before, they'd had no such safety gear...because none was required. And after they were done working and went elsewhere, they that had safety gear were the EXCEPTION to the rule.

And if you HAVEN'T experienced one fed office saying you COULD do something, and another office of same agency saying, you COULDN'T, then you haven't had much experience with the reality of regulations, and the capriciousness of regulatory agencies. I HAVE!

Yeah? So? And your point is?

Sarcasm aside, welcome to the one thing that is common to all modern nations - a large bureaucracy. If you don't want to deal with bureaucracy, go buy an abandoned oil rig and declare your own country. Otherwise, bureaucracy - like death and taxes - are an immutable fact of life. Deal with it.

And YES, there will be times you'll find silly situations like the one you described...but you know what? Railing against the concept of bureaucracy because you ran into a rather maddening conflict between two agencies isn't any different from railing against air you breathe because the guy next to you ripped a particularly obnoxious beer fart...because when the fart dissipates and goes away, you'll still breathe the same air...just as when the conflict between the two agencies will - IF you work at it without ticking off the people in that bureaucracy - dissipate and go away, but you'll still have to deal with the same bureaucracy regardless.

You know what I've found, YB? When it comes to government bureaucracies, every single time I've had a problem with them that was their fault - every single time, without exception - all I have to do is to take it up their chain of command...and sooner or later I find someone in a position to fix the problem. Every. Single. Time.

Why can I do this? Because when it comes to government, civil service bureaucrats almost never have a dog in the fight when it comes to my personal problems. Most of them really do want to help - they ARE regular people, just like you and me, trying to do a job (regardless of how much the Right Wing Echo Chamber wants you to believe that anyone working for the government is some kind of parasite). If you ran into a problem with the government that you couldn't get fixed - unless it's truly systemic among the people like racism was (and is today, if to a lesser extent) in the Deep South - then the problem likely isn't with them, but with you, with your approach. If you show up and they can see hostility written all over your face, they'll give you a lot less help than if you go to them with a smile and give them the opportunity to do the right thing.

 

[head of joaquin]

WHY THE ORGANIC LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ARE NOT TAUGHT IN ANY AMERICAN LAW SCHOOL - EDRIVERA.COM

WHY THE ORGANIC LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ARE NOT TAUGHT IN ANY AMERICAN LAW SCHOOL
Filed Under Articles of Confederation, COMMON LAW, CONSTITUTION, CRIMINAL LAW
The Declaration of Independence, 1777 Articles of Confederation, Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787 and the Constitution of September 17, 1787 are the sources of all written laws made by the Congress of the United States. When they are properly studied, these Organic Laws prove that the Congress of the United States can only make laws for the federal government and the administration of the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.

The Organic Laws can also show how any American can decide to be an Inhabitant under the Articles of Confederation and still be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states. An American Inhabitant can collect earned Social Security benefits without admitting to United States residence.

The United States of America, where Inhabitants live, was made free by the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution. The Articles of Confederation were completed and ready to be adopted by November 15, 1777 and finally ratified by all thirteen States on March 1, 1781. Final ratification by the State of Maryland formed a Confederacy called the United States of America that was responsible for prosecuting the Revolutionary War against the British. After the successful conclusion of that war, the United States in Congress assembled continued to represent the States of the United States of America in foreign affairs until the United States in Congress assembled officially became the Senate of the United States.

The first Congress, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives according to the Constitution, convened on March 4, 1789 in New York City. According to Article I Section 3 Clause 2, the Senators, newly selected by State legislatures, were divided into three Classes, which would serve staggered terms of two, four and six years. These staggered terms would provide for a Senate that will be in continual session from March 4, 1789 to the present. In that same period there have been 111 Congresses. This is conclusive proof that the Senate of the United States is the equivalent of the Article X Committee of States provided for in the Articles of Confederation.

I am the only law professor in America that teaches how the Organic Law creates a Senate that functions as the United States in Congress assembled under the Articles of Confederation and as the United States Senate under the authority of the Constitution of the United States. All education is now controlled by the government, so the government will only teach what the government wants you to know. The government does not want you know why George Washington took an oral oath to be President of the United States and that the United States is the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America.

Every law school in America teaches that the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, but they won’t teach that the replacement was limited to the Northwest Territory, which was the territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America at the time. This is why the Congress of the United States, which consists of the United States Senate and the House of Representatives and is vested with legislative power, may only make laws for federal territory, territory owned by and ceded to the United States of America. Proof that the Articles of Confederation are still viable law can be found here: http://edstudents.angelfire.com/papers/ORGANIC_LAW.pdf

The vapid rightwing meme continues. Like clockwork.

 

[sawdust]

And you know very well that political philosophies and definitions change over time. Republicans were once the liberals. Democrats were once (and not so long ago) the strong conservatives.
And the very existence of all the first-world democracies today disprove de Tocqueville's maxim.

Just because someone famous (or infamous) says something doesn't make it true. That's why I pay attention to the actual state of the nations today, rather than to hide in an echo chamber that tells me only what I want to hear.

Some republicans were classical liberals which is one whole truckload of difference than the lunacy that is modern liberalism. With respect to democracies, no true democracy has existed since ancient Greece except in tribal cultures. All modern democracies are some form of representative democracy or republic.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

Some republicans were classical liberals which is one whole truckload of difference than the lunacy that is modern liberalism. With respect to democracies, no true democracy has existed since ancient Greece except in tribal cultures. All modern democracies are some form of representative democracy or republic.

:applaud Well said

 

[yobarnacle]

I didn't buy it for him - I already had it on hand. As part of bringing much of my personal belongings to the Philippines (it's a military retirement perk), I had gone to Lowe's and bought an arc-welder and all the associated safety equipment for my brother-in-law...but when I saw the guy in my postage-stamp-size back yard using no safety equipment, I brought out the welder's gloves and goggles (but not the leather apron, since it would not have fit him) and handed them to him. He accepted the goggles, but refused the gloves - I guess he thought wearing hot gloves in the Manila heat was worse than the risk of being electrocuted or getting splatter.

But that's NOT the point. YOU bought them the safety equipment, and I have no reason to doubt you. But the POINT is that YOU and I personally provided the gear that they did not already have...which means that on most or all of the jobs they'd worked before, they'd had no such safety gear...because none was required. And after they were done working and went elsewhere, they that had safety gear were the EXCEPTION to the rule.



Yeah? So? And your point is?

Sarcasm aside, welcome to the one thing that is common to all modern nations - a large bureaucracy. If you don't want to deal with bureaucracy, go buy an abandoned oil rig and declare your own country. Otherwise, bureaucracy - like death and taxes - are an immutable fact of life. Deal with it.

And YES, there will be times you'll find silly situations like the one you described...but you know what? Railing against the concept of bureaucracy because you ran into a rather maddening conflict between two agencies isn't any different from railing against air you breathe because the guy next to you ripped a particularly obnoxious beer fart...because when the fart dissipates and goes away, you'll still breathe the same air...just as when the conflict between the two agencies will - IF you work at it without ticking off the people in that bureaucracy - dissipate and go away, but you'll still have to deal with the same bureaucracy regardless.

You know what I've found, YB? When it comes to government bureaucracies, every single time I've had a problem with them that was their fault - every single time, without exception - all I have to do is to take it up their chain of command...and sooner or later I find someone in a position to fix the problem. Every. Single. Time.

Why can I do this? Because when it comes to government, civil service bureaucrats almost never have a dog in the fight when it comes to my personal problems. Most of them really do want to help - they ARE regular people, just like you and me, trying to do a job (regardless of how much the Right Wing Echo Chamber wants you to believe that anyone working for the government is some kind of parasite). If you ran into a problem with the government that you couldn't get fixed - unless it's truly systemic among the people like racism was (and is today, if to a lesser extent) in the Deep South - then the problem likely isn't with them, but with you, with your approach. If you show up and they can see hostility written all over your face, they'll give you a lot less help than if you go to them with a smile and give them the opportunity to do the right thing.

In many countries INCLUDING the USA, technicians and craftsmen are expected to provide their own tools and safety gear.
I'm expected to purchase and carry steel toed boots, a hard hat, and safety glasses with me, and I'm MANAGEMENT!

Companies provide little other than "standards", requiring employees to provide the equipment.
The military provides everything, but, don't pay as well as private industry. Great retirement benefits though. I don't know even ONE private industry that provides an immediate pension after 20 years service.
I'm a vet. But 4 years active and 2 reserve was enough. Fought 1 year in Viet Nam. mid 68 to mid 69. There for Tet.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

In many countries INCLUDING the USA, technicians and craftsmen are expected to provide their own tools and safety gear.
I'm expected to purchase and carry steel toed boots, a hard hat, and safety glasses with me, and I'm MANAGEMENT!

Companies provide little other than "standards", requiring employees to provide the equipment.
The military provides everything, but, don't pay as well as private industry. Great retirement benefits though. I don't know even ONE private industry that provides an immediate pension after 20 years service.
I'm a vet. But 4 years active and 2 reserve was enough. Fought 1 year in Viet Nam. mid 68 to mid 69. There for Tet.

BUT in countries where there is little or no enforced regulation, if you don't have your own safety gear, no big deal - pick up the leads and start arc-welding. And if you don't, you don't have a job, and you don't eat.

Here in America, if you don't have the safety equipment, you don't work. What's the difference? In America, if a company allows you to work without safety gear, they get sued and fined. In third-world nations, if a company allows you to work without safety gear, no big deal...even if you get killed on the job and your family has no further source of income.

 

[head of joaquin]

Some republicans were classical liberals which is one whole truckload of difference than the lunacy that is modern liberalism. With respect to democracies, no true democracy has existed since ancient Greece except in tribal cultures. All modern democracies are some form of representative democracy or republic.

Oh God, the anti-democracy meme. Like clockwork.

Do you vote or don't you? If you vote, it's a democracy.

 

[yobarnacle]

BUT in countries where there is little or no enforced regulation, if you don't have your own safety gear, no big deal - pick up the leads and start arc-welding. And if you don't, you don't have a job, and you don't eat.

Here in America, if you don't have the safety equipment, you don't work. What's the difference? In America, if a company allows you to work without safety gear, they get sued and fined. In third-world nations, if a company allows you to work without safety gear, no big deal...even if you get killed on the job and your family has no further source of income.

That's the way it was in the USA until the lawyers took over.
The criminal justice system is broken. Trivial civil suits tie up the civil courts, and most of the politicians are lawyers.
What do you call a bus load of lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good FIRST days start!

 

[sawdust]

Oh God, the anti-democracy meme. Like clockwork.

Do you vote or don't you? If you vote, it's a democracy.

I'll try to keep this simple so you can understand it. In a true democracy citizens vote on issues. In a representative democracy citizens vote for representatives and representatives vote on issues. Both have democracy in their descriptions but words mean things.

 

[head of joaquin]

I'll try to keep this simple so you can understand it. In a true democracy citizens vote on issues. In a representative democracy citizens vote for representatives and representatives vote on issues. Both have democracy in their descriptions but words mean things.

Yes, yes, the "true democracy" meme. Got it. Do you vote? If you do it's a democracy. Period.

 

[yobarnacle]

Yes, yes, the "true democracy" meme. Got it. Do you vote? If you do it's a democracy. Period.

Yes but there are lots of democracies. That is NOT our strength or uniqueness. We are an INDIVIDUALIST society and government. THAT has always been our strength and we ARE unique.
Collectivists like socialists, want us to be collectivist. You will have to throw out the constitution to do it. It is an INDIVIDUALIST document and prohibits government from infringing on the rights of individuals.
Before you can throw away the constitution, you will have to fight in the streets and countryside. We WILL not let you trash the constitution while we live!

We? We are patriots.
If you want to trash the constitution, you are NOT a patriot!