AMERICAN PATRIOT PARTY

OPPOSITION to the
FAIRTAX, FLAT TAX
8% Percent Solution tax
and other
Tax Schemes

The FairTax is to Constitutional Taxation as the Patriot Act is to the 2nd Amendment and being secure in your papers and effects.

They are Arbitrary Undelegated BUY, SELL AND TRADE TAXES meant to support the wasteful bureaucracies we now have; While it presents the removal of the IRS, it establishes a joint invasive federal over state tax bureaucracy.

When you dislike the devil, do you invite him to dinner?

 Then give him TITLE to your home and state?!!!

This is what the FairTax and 8% Tax propose!

Open your eyes before you get stuck with another catchy title! These "so called economists" that the Fair Tax group has stated have reviewed and support it, are exactly what got us the income tax to pay for more government; and you want to listen??? They have no more safeguards against political interpretation or manipulation than they have with the income tax now!

It invites the federal government to combine state and federal powers of taxation into ONE TAX.

The danger is under the surface in the guise of  "simple" and "fairness", it is tax founded on Jealousy just as the income tax is now. And you can see how well the income tax has worked. Yes, the income tax needs to be removed as well as the IRS, But you do not need to replace it with a more invasive tax; And invasive it will be.

Instead of creating a constitutionally sound system separating the powers, or limit and control spending, it establishes yet another undelegated power and attempts to draw in even more money (and in fact states that it will) to pay for the existing bureaucracies... "Less the IRS and Compliance costs" is not an excuse for creating a federal oversight into state tax bureaucracy.

They say these tax systems save money, then both  turn around and make the statement that they "will increase tax revenue"!!!


Hello?


This will give an unrestrained flow of arbitrary taxation percentages to government as the economy increases to decide what to do with the money "after" they have it in their hands.

Ever see any real return of your money after they have it in their hands?!!!

The Constitution calls for DIRECT import taxes, or Tarriffs, yet  these FOOL "economists" continue to find ways to expand the federal powers and bureaucracies within our states.

"Departments" are supposed to be limited to the 10 miles square of Washington DC, Yet they invade every state of the union today. Nothing in the Fair Tax or 8% Tax proposes any limits on the size of government.

Allowing the wasteful bureaucracies to remain and continuing to finance them, "then" attempt to reduce them is the same as entering the mouth of a lion and then asking if he is hungry.

Maybe we should limit the federal government to the very limited delegated powers; This is the ONLY way to reduce federal taxes and limit federal invasive powers.

Why not put all your efforts into that. Then the Income Tax and IRS "Would" be gone and their would be no reason to replace it.


Below is a review we sent to a person who wrote a book called "The 8% Solution, please read;

The Founder's quotes were presented in our reply..

This reply recently sent to the author of "The 8% Solution" bares many issues that are in relation to the Fair Tax; With the very same dangers. The difference is the attempt to exchange the words "sales tax" with the "purchase tax. So do not be fooled.

Though some may not be identical in "name", the dangers of arbitrary set percentage taxation, sales taxes that will invade every house hold business, every computer business, any home or private sales;

Anyone selling anything being considered a business and subject to FEDERAL SCRUTINY.

Federal oversight in both systems bare the full resemblance and dangers.

i.e. Buy, Sell or Trade tax under the "guise" and title of "Fair"


It is very important to read and understand these dangers.



---------------------------------

In this letter to Dwayne Moody, Author of the 8% Solution which has many features promoted by the Fair Tax, such as Rebates, combining of federal and state taxes etc. All creating more invasive federal power within the states to tie the federal government with the state as well as open the door to invade the homes of everyone to "make sure they are not "cheating"."

If the federal government stayed within their delegated powers the would be no reason to worry about "cheating" by Americans on federal taxation, as it wouldn't be an issue when the federal government would be limited to imports to tax, as well as being far smaller in size would cost far less. As we present in our Anonymity Tax site, Who presently pays taxes in the way of the income tax form, does not necessarily pay the tax burden; The Tax burden is paid in the greatest percentage now, by those that cannot "right off" taxes attached to the products; this is why the income tax does not work and why taxing the wealthy harder only increases the tax burden upon the poor. Jealousy taxes always fall hardest on the poor who have been sold on those taxes using their emotions to find favor in them. Our freedoms falling prey to them as well.

We have only quoted small bits of the book for our review, "The 8% Solution"; You will have to purchase  the book to review it in it's entirety.



Start of APP Review:

Dear Dwayne:

Thank you for sending your book, which I have read; Below I am presenting my views while also relating to some founders and historical  comparisons (some I have linked), regarding your book entitled "The Eight Percent Solution";

To be quite frank, I believe that the concepts of the 8% Tax differ quite greatly in our views with regard to standpoint, solutions; and in many places are opposing in their purpose and result. Though I see that you have attempted to find the similar end.

I believe that it may come from possibly your not having considered  the limitations of civil government under a limited original compact or other concepts set forth in common law, constitution, definitions of  that constitution in the ratifying conventions that define it, or purpose  of free government.

Overview:

The first obvious difference was that your idea was to combine the federal, state and local taxes and simplify; It is not clear in your plan who would ultimately control where or how the money is spent, how they would be limited, nor what will happen with the excess collected from the arbitrary percentage rate, nor how you might limit the government from raising the percentage or increasing the bureaucracy and dependency in government as it does now; Governments tendency is to present that it needs more to support such greater bureaucracies, which then become increasingly dependent and then more invasive to feed that dependency; With more money in their hands become increasingly more prone to further that bureaucratic growth.

A great DANGER is combining Federal and State taxes; This is a SHOEHORN to involve the federal government with local taxation. Regardless of your intent of states rights, the powers moving the federal government will turn it back upon you. It will turn in the opposite direction; It will switch in the same way you have explained page 73 Par 2 with regard to combining all the taxes, You stated that: "it will be "EASIER" for the federal government to "tap" the bond market."; "EASIER" is what is going to be the way they will sell the switch to the public. And THAT is the greatest danger allowing an avenue for total federal control.

The eight percent solution you propose, still allows for bureaucracies to determine where money is spent after it is collected; And since it is a flat percentage, it would allow what is occurring now to continue, that is, no control over how much is collected under that percentage, nor what it is to be spent for.  

Your Statement: "There are no limits on the amount of tax or minimums either (page 41 Par. 3") Illustrates the largest to smallest article purchased will be under scrutiny by government.

Taxing "all" spending creates a avalanche of avenues for harsh and expensive regulation and controls; The fact that you wish to tax only businesses, does nothing to hold back this inevitability;

 The first problem will occur when defining what or who will be considered a "business";

If a man sells used watches on a street corner, or a farmer sells a chicken to his neighbor, if he wasn't licensed by the state as a business, he could be fined or arrested for operating without a business license; or prosecuted for black market practice and imprisoned for tax evasion. The invasiveness and punishments will be as great, if not greater, than they are now; This is as "all" spending will be taxed; or worse yet, all spending will be "attempted" to be taxed; This would require monitoring all who will be considered a ""business"; which could be anybody or everybody the government will choose. (not just at a place of business, but at their home, and in your plan, even their computer from Internet sales)

The invasiveness of your statements: making sure "no one is cheating the system (P15 Par 1)", and "The success of this system really lies in there being no wiggle room for cheats (page 71 Par. 3) "; aside from being impossible, would require even more invasive regulation;

The 8% Tax is further ultimately a arbitrary unenumerated tax, a undelegated federal power, and thereby unconstitutional.

A 8% business tax is also a ""indirect" tax;

The 8% tax is to be Collected by individuals or from their establishment,  from other individuals for the government (even if automated  to the government from their business or property); (This places all individuals in businesses in the position as tax collectors and abridge as tax informants to the government, just as the income tax collected by businesses today.)

Your purpose is to provide for the maximum amount of tax that can be derived at a set percentage to maintain present government, programs and handouts; You state: "but to know that you would not loose any government handouts you now enjoy (page 13 Par 1)" ; Then wish to "Fix" the tax system first by allowing the government no limits to how much is collected under the percentage under the proposed system (Page 41- Par 2 & Par 3); Before reducing the size of government.

(also same in Fair Tax )


------


Comparison to the Anonymity Tax which we propose, there is great difference.


Our plan in the Anonymity Tax is to divide, define and simplify;  So that it is clear to those that are paying the tax:

 a.) Where the tax money is going and
 b.) Exactly how much for what and
 c.) To allow those taxed ultimate control over how, where,  and how much is spent or not spent.

Further, the Anonymity tax does not care who pays the tax, but will be paid as a result of normal movement and set low to encourage movement. (Based upon Need & Consent - Not upon Jealousy)

Our purpose is to provide maximum amount of control of only that amount of money we wish to give to government for services we consensually wish to grant. and to reduce the government in that way.

The removal of regulations will remove over 50% of the present taxes which are presently the cost of regulation to collect the other 50%. Note that the main part of the Anonymity Tax is Toll taxes, NOT Use taxes; Limited use of Use taxes are for direct purpose and paid for actual services rendered, gas tax for roads, park fees for park maintenance etc. Drawing for other uses than direct purpose would be prohibited. If you do not use a park to camp that has services, you do not have to pay a use tax.

The Anonymity tax is a "direct" tax;

The individual pays directly to the government that serves him for  services the citizen has consensually dictated at the voting booth. The money dispersed into individual ear tagged untouchable sealed accounts  for specific services to await private bids. This limits overspending as the earmarked account voted upon can never be increased and low bids will get the contract; Thereby always being at or under being at the amount held in account for the service to be rendered.

° Import taxes alone pay for federal expenses from Ports Of Call collected by the states.
° Toll taxes from state Highways pay for State Expenses
° Toll taxes from County Highways pay for County Expenses
° Use taxes pay for direct use county or state services.

Note that in Oregon we have no sales tax and we like it that way;

What the taxes are for, are voted on for their continuance at every election cycle; or no money can be collected, will automatically sunset and those services will cease.

Free trade should be truly free. Free trade should also be anonymous as much as possible so people can be "secure in their papers and effects (property);

Through the Anonymity Tax, The government would have no way  to tell who pays the tax, it simply gets paid through normal traffic of commerce.  In the Anonymity Tax, The government regarding tax would have no purpose  to care what your business is, what you sell, how much you sell, what you buy, where you buy it, what you earn or where you live.

The Government and cost of regulation will be reduced immediately with the removal of the IRS, In combination with the States Liberty Bill, All non essential government agencies will be immediately reduced. The removal of government regulations on business and citizens will allow growth in the private sector to provide business opportunities and work for those leaving government.


-----

AUTHORITY

The first thing to consider for in any idea for taxation, is where is the authority.

The Constitution grants NO authority for non enumerated taxation;

The Original Contract (ORIGINAL COMPACT) of government cannot  be modified to allow for "ARROGATED" powers outside the Original;

Ratification by states is NO exception when speaking of limited "delegated" powers; As that would be a means of arrogation outside the "delegated" powers of the Original Compact;  for which if breached dissolves the compact and the authority granted by it altogether; as well as dissolving the government.

 See Below Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788;
John Locke on Civil Government; and
Samuel Adams - Absolute Rights of the Colonists:

a.) Virginia Ratifying  Convention 6-16-1788:  Mr. PENDLETON. "Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT"  give Congress power to impede the operation of ANY PART of the Constitution, >>>(N)or to make >>>"ANY REGULATION" that may >>>affect the interests  of the citizens of the Union >>>"at" "Large"....  

This is crystal clear as to the limitations of the federal government.

".....With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the >>>foregoing powers, and all other powers >>>vested by "THIS" Constitution in the government of the United  States, or in any department or officer  thereof, I understand that clause as NOT going a >>>SINGLE  STEP beyond" the "DELEGATED  powers".

What can it act upon? Some power given by "THIS" Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers",

BUT can by >>>>>>>"NO MEANS" depart from them, (N)OR "ARROGATE"  "ANY NEW" powers; for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the  clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect"  to the "DELEGATED" powers"."


 This "authority" is what defines what and what is not tyranny;

Your statement: "My fear is that if  you have "blue lights and guns" coming after citizens for violations,  or even possible technical glitches, it leaves citizens exposed to tyranny."

The definition of tyranny you have given is not  correct so long as the tax is enumerated, in that states have authority concensually given by the people  themselves; This is how it is to be under the Anonymity Tax system and the ability of the people themselves to correct any abuse at every 2 to 4 year election cycle limits the chances of abuse;

On the other hand, the federal or state government has NO  authority to tax by an unenumerated percentage, which your 8%  Tax System has proposed; And which in fact proposes the real definition of tyranny; -

i.e. Using force "without authority"; Which is always tyranny; and Authority is defined and limited by the "Original Compact" and it's "limited Delegated powers".

 Nor can states tax other states (or the people within them) using undelegated federal powers; As this too would be arrogating federal powers, which again is expressly prohibited.


b.) John Locke on Civil Government 1698:

135. Though the legislative, whether placed in one or more, whether it be always in being or only by intervals, though it be the supreme power in every commonwealth, yet, first, it is not, nor can possibly  be, absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people.

A set percentage tax with no definition of exactly what each dollar is for, or where it is to be spent, and without limit  (Page 41 Par 2), is an arbitrary tax.

136. Secondly, the legislative or supreme authority cannot assume to itself a power to rule by extemporary arbitrary decrees, but is bound to dispense justice  and decide the rights of the subject by promulgated standing laws, 11 (APP Note: See these exact words in the "ABSOLUTE Rights of the Colonists")  and known authorised judges."

An arbitrary tax is an arbitrary decree, and not established  in any standing law, nor is it derived from the limited original  compact which has rightly limited taxes to only those which  have been enumerated.

137. Absolute arbitrary power, or governing  without settled standing laws, can neither  of them consist with the ends of society and government, which men would not quit the freedom of the state of Nature for, and tie themselves up under, were it not to preserve their lives, liberties, and fortunes, and by stated rules of right and property to secure their peace and quiet. It cannot be supposed that they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give any one or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate's hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them; this were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of Nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man or many in combination. Whereas by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him to make a prey of them when he pleases; he being in a much worse condition that is exposed to the arbitrary power of one man who has the command of a hundred thousand than he that is exposed to the arbitrary power of a hundred thousand single men, nobody being secure, that his will who has such a command is better than that of other men, though his force be a hundred thousand times stronger. And, therefore, whatever form the commonwealth is under, the ruling power ought to govern by declared and received laws, and not by extemporary dictates and undetermined resolutions, for then mankind will be in a far worse condition than in the state of Nature if they shall have armed one or a few men with the joint power of a multitude, to force them to obey at pleasure the exorbitant and unlimited decrees of their sudden thoughts, or unrestrained, and till that moment, unknown wills, without having any measures set down which may guide and justify their actions. For all the power the government has, being only for the good of the society, as it ought not to be arbitrary and at pleasure, so it ought to be exercised by established and promulgated laws, that both the people may know their duty, and be safe and secure within the limits of the law, and the rulers, too, kept within their due bounds, and not be tempted by the power they have in their hands to employ it to purposes, and by such measures as they would not have known, and own not willingly.

155. It may be demanded here, what if the executive power, being possessed of  the force of the commonwealth, shall make use of that force to hinder the meeting and acting of the legislative, when the original  constitution or the public exigencies require it?

I say, using "force" upon the people, >>>"without authority", and "contrary to the trust" put in him that does so, >>>is a state of war with the people, who have a right to reinstate their legislative in the exercise  of their power. For having erected a legislative with an intent  they should exercise the power of making laws, either at certain set times,  or when there is need of it, when they are hindered by any force from  what is so necessary to the society, and wherein the safety and preservation  of the people consists, the people have a RIGHT to remove it by FORCE.

In ALL states and CONDITIONS the "true remedy" of force without authority is to >>>oppose force to it.

The use of force "without authority" "ALWAYS" puts him that uses it  into a state of war "as the aggressor", and renders him liable to be "treated  accordingly"."

 Force is not always direct, as the "threat of force" or intimidation, whether it is the threat of incarceration, fine or punishment, on the people for non compliance to tax or other laws created "without authority", is no different than direct use of violent force.

John Locke illustrates this condition of "peace"  between a power without authority and those under it, as the perfect description of slavery.



c.) Samuel Adams - Absolute Rights of the Colonist 1772:

"...When  Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and  they have a right to "demand and insist" upon the performance of such conditions, And >>>"previous limitations" as "form" an equitable >>>"ORIGINAL COMPACT".--

Every natural Right not expressly given up or from the nature of a Social Compact "necessarily" ceded >>>remains.--


".....that the labourer is worthy of his hire" but then the >>>"SAME community" which they SERVE, ought to be assessors  of their pay:

Governors have >>>NO right to seek what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honourable "servants" of the society, they would soon become Absolute masters, Despots, and Tyrants.

Hence as a private man has a right to say, what wages he will give in his private affairs, >>>so has a Community to determine "what they will give and grant of their Substance", for the Administration of "publick affairs". And in both cases more are ready generally to offer their Service at the proposed and stipulated price, than are able and willing to perform their duty.--"...


A set percentage allows governors and legislatures to seek what they please from it, as they do now under the income tax; Our APP States Liberty Bill will limit salaries to the average county salaries "where they serve". Salaries are also dictated by voters as a safeguard to other abuses.


Secondly, The Legislative has NO right to absolute arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people: Nor can mortals assume a prerogative, not only too high for men, but for Angels; and therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone.--

"The Legislative cannot Justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore >>>arbitrary decrees; but it is bound to see that Justice is dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects be decided, by promulgated, standing and "KNOWN" laws, and authorized independent Judges;" that is independent as far as possible of Prince or People.



Note as explained in our Anonymity Tax which is an automated, low increment collected, and voter controlled, Toll tax based on consensual predetermined expenditures;

Where through a simple traffic violation styled infraction of a few dollars and easily corrected, would be nothing compared to the legal, criminal issues and regulatory expense involved in a enforcing a set percentage tax.

The differences between a undefined (where government spends it) 8% Business (generally unseen by public as to total amounts) indirect tax;

And that of a enumerated (defined and consent limited) Anonymous (citizen)  direct toll tax (out in the open, seen totals as tax is collected) are quite obvious.

A set percentage tax as you have proposed is in fact arbitrary. (So is the Fair and Flat Tax)

That being said, below is page by page comments regarding your publication.

----------------

PAGE BY PAGE COMMENTS on "The 8% Solution":

 Cover: We are not "one nation", but 50 states with a limited federal constitutional compact. If we consider ourselves to be a single nation, we will have converted from republic(s) to a mixed  Monarchy." This is not just a "belief" but a fact:

See Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

James Madison: "...That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a ""design" to EXPOUND certain general ""phrases" (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular "enumeration" which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the >>>obvious tendency and >>>inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed >>>"monarchy".

Republics cannot exist where there are Distant Legislatures. See also "Republics and Representation"

The less we use the word "one nation", or "nation" the less we sanctify those who wish to empower the federal government with blind nationalism no where intended by the founders.

The more we present ourselves as independent states, the more we encourage others in what the Founders actually intended.


 Preface Page 7: To your statement "I do not believe all politicians are bad" ;

There is a misconception that politicians are bad only because of control or visible acts; bad can mean not acting at all or not staying within the limitations they have sworn to uphold when stepping into office. This being the case of most politicians, most are in fact bad by historic proof of not staying within the delegated powers and not daily acting to remove undelegated powers.

"Exclusive privileges" being something opposed by the founders (see 6-16-1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention - Greyston, George Mason, James Madison and others)

Greyston: "...Europe, there were exclusive privileges and immunities enjoyed in many places. He thought that this ought to be guarded AGAINST;

for should such exclusive privileges be granted to merchants residing within the ten miles square, it would be highly injurious to the inhabitants of OTHER PLACES."


Corporations (banks are usually corporations); Unions; Tax supported Special interests; undelegated federal and state bureaucracies, and mandated zoning to name a few, are all exclusive state born privileges;

That politicians allow any exclusive privilege, their existence illustrates politicians have no desire to remove them; The mere existence creates a atmosphere of dependency or financial slavery; It does not take a individual to impose slavery on others when the avenue of cartel, monopoly, removal of competition through them, welding those powers of creating mass financial dependency; in combination with others that have exclusive privileges which create a wide spread condition that ultimately accomplish the same end.


 Page 11 Par 2: Your statement "Fair Share"; This is  a "Jealousy" statement. "Consent" removes others opinion of "fairness".


 Page 13 Par 1: Your statement: "...but to know that you would not loose any government handouts that you now enjoy?" is Bad, and inconsistent with plan of lowering taxes, reducing government and spending; It also implies a continuation of wealth distribution. This would allow present wasteful bureaucracies to remain along with their benefits and habits of increasing their own growth, dependency and burdens on citizens. Par 2 Is ill defined without reference to "exclusive privileges" that should not exist. The steps: Step 1: Will be explained why it is both unauthoritive, impractical, against the principles of freedom and dangerous; Step 2: Needs to remedy by first removal of exclusive privileges; Step 3: agreed; Step 4: Term limits were debated at one time by the founders, some favoring but were waved off; We can agree that there needs to be a limit - What the constitution does establish is that they cannot re occupy any position in which they have created OR raised the salary of  (see our main page under APP Constitutional Caffeine) - This simply needs to be enforced and all but a few would have to give up their positions tomorrow; Step 5 (p15). Agreed... However the contents  of the 8% tax plan is "not consistent" with the statement of returning  authority to the states. The allowance of a mutual single tax with the federal government proves this.


 Page 15 Par 1: The statement "...while "knowing" that no "one" is cheating the system" is a regulatory nightmare and again a play on the "jealousy factor" in combination with your statement "fair share".

Par 2 :: Your statement: "People will no longer be doomed to the slavery of debt" ; This is an impossibility so long as people are free to make their  own mistakes and spend far beyond what they earn. Keeping people from  making their own mistakes would be a regulatory nightmare; The statement "plenty of money for loaning" is also something that never can be a sure thing so long as economies can fluctuate. The statement "freedoms guaranteed to us in the contract known as the Constitution of the United States" is a incorrect statement; the Constitution is a "limited compact" limiting the federal government, it does NOT grant or guarantee us freedoms, They acknowledge that Freedoms are a preexisting claim to rights. The Statement should be: We would be less at risk of allowing government to attack our Preexisting Freedoms and inalienable rights, which have been reinforced in the limitations set against the federal government and acknowledged in our Constitutional Compact between free and independent states. Long but correct.

See Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788

 Nicholas: "...But the "COMMON LAW" is "NOT EXCLUDED". There is "NOTHING" in "that paper" (APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered)  to warrant the assertion.

A bill of rights is only an acknowledgment of the "PREEXISTING" claim to rights in the people. They belong to us as much as if they had been inserted in the Constitution.

With or without the Constitution those rights exist. They cannot be lost, only abused without authority under tyranny. They cannot even be given away; They simply "are" essential natural rights. They can always be reestablished without any permission without any regard to they who attempt to cover them up.


 P17 Par 2: Trying to make a "nation" more prosperous without attending first to individual rights, makes the nation nether prosperous or great; Financially great, and natural rights poor places to a false picture of prosperity as much as a rich nation of slaves.

Transferring the power from "federal IRS" to "State  IRS" under watchful eye of a "federal regulation" changes nothing.      (Again the Fair Tax proposes the same thing)

 P18 Par 1: (continued from p17): Shows inconsistency with what the 8% plan attempts to convey; Someone has to regulate and monitor who is paying or not and who is to be considered a business. This will require a social(ist) styled regulatory branch of government which should be opposed; It may change the name to something other than the IRS or how it does it, but not the invasiveness.

 P21 Par 1: Capitalism in the form of "Exclusive  Privileges" is the same as socialism; Private collectives create as much dependency to them as do social government institutions; They can  be more dangerous, as they are not as subject to local legislative or communities and can be as private governments within the boundaries of a legislative government with people dependent upon them and not with consideration  of the needs or freedoms of a local community. Your statement "Our purpose is not to debate capitalism Vs socialism" should be freedom Vs both of these, and it should be defined  least we will fall prey to the other two. The statements in regard  to the Constitution is fine, but needs to be defined with the definitions given in the ratifying conventions, The Constitution is more of a limited compact of federal limitations, defining a limited grant of power; If a power was not delegated, they could in no way arrogate any power outside that which was expressly granted;

This includes prohibiting any type of ratification by states through  the amendment process which is a function only to correct the "delegated"  powers, NOT to arrogate new powers. (Arrogating powers is expressly prohibited in the ratifying conventions.)

See Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square being superseded by the subsequent clause, which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, I understand that clause as Not going a "single step beyond" the "DELEGATED powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by this Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers", but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them,

(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers".

Par 2: Granting a set percentage will increase the power of  the government to "say what ""is" -  "is"; This is as the greater the economy, the more financial power they will derive from it >>>without justifying the amount;

This is why both how much money the government receives, and what taxes are spent on, must be in full control of the people at ALL TIMES.


Page 23 Par 1: Petty officials do not cause loss of freedoms; It is the invasive unauthoritve, undelegated regulations which empower petty officials to avoid respecting rights that cause the loss of freedoms.

Par 2: "sustainable" and "protect everyone" are a misleading  impossibility>>> Regulatory protection - NO; Natural  or Common Law and Rights - Yes. There is a difference. "Complete  protection causes invasive regulation when you add a tax solution  that attempts to make "every one" comply; It would be a regulatory nightmare.

Par 3. Your Statement, "government  should be run in a business like fashion" is Incorrect. Government should be run as a "Servitude".

Par 4: Your statement "Some ...Special  Interest Groups.... are deserving of charity"  This confuses  tax supported special interest groups which are "State born Exclusive Privileges"  (the product of a unconstitutional and unconsensual tax - also as a means of "right off" from that tax that transfers the burden lower to others to support - another reason the income tax does not work) with voluntary charity; No group deserves charity, that takes money without consent and profits even from minimum salary - that is what is termed as theft. The statement "...charity of a successful capitalist society" is only as valid as it is consensual;

A truly free society being greater in goal which would of course "include" the free practice of capitalism without exclusive privileges; Other than simply a "capitalist" society, that can operate with exclusive privileges granted by government even in a communist country as it does today in China and also in the US with it's exclusive privileged corporations,  Unions and Special interests.

Par 5: Consent needs to be implemented ,, immediately even if government is allowed to collect it, such as a individual's  voting option (see Anonymity tax);

 Page 25 Par 1: Correct, but does not present what  really stops employment, and that is regulations such as "zoning"  which controls people, where and how they do business, not growth;  growth occurs naturally and will seek the path of least resistance; This  is why people are jumping into the hands of government employment, because  zoning and business regulations make competing a act of  futility against "exclusive privileges" i.e. corporations, unions, special interest, undelegated federal and state bureaucracies etc. Lift ALL zoning while retaining building codes and practical pollution "standards"; Not environmental hoops; (i.e. build and do business under a set law without having to "get permission first from government);  and see if the economy picks up (see our states liberty bill).

Par 2: Again, it is the invasive regulations that empower petty officials that is the problem, not the petty officials, though they aggravate the problem. The right laws limit abuse and insure harsh retribution upon those officials that stray.

 P27 Par 1: Internal threats only at the request and consent of the state;  "not a hindrance to our national defense" is a misleading statement; The states, each of them, should be fully capable without the federal government interference  to defend against national intrusion as well as internal dangers;

See Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-09 - MARSHALL and others; States have full right to engage in war without  congress when attacked or in imminent danger: See also Marshal: State Militias also have the right to import there own military arms without congress approval, Nor can congress interpose.


Marshall: "...For Continental purposes Congress may call forth the militia, as to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. But the power given to the states by the people is "NOT taken away"; for the >>>Constitution does NOT say so. In the Confederation Congress had this power; but the state legislatures had it "also". The power of legislating given them within the ten miles square is exclusive of the states, because it is expressed to be exclusive. The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it. But there are NO negative words here. It rests, therefore, with the STATES. To me it appears, then, unquestionable that the state governments can call forth the militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the same manner as they could have done before its adoption.  Gentlemen have said that the states cannot defend themselves without an application  to Congress, because Congress can interpose! Does not every man feel a refutation of the argument in his own breast? I will show {420} that there could not be a combination, between those who formed the Constitution, to take away this power. All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article. This power is NOT included in the restrictions in that section. But what excludes every possibility of doubt, is the last part of it that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. "When invaded, they >>>"CAN" engage in war, as also when in "imminent danger". This clearly proves that the states can use the militia when >>>"they" find it necessary.



Par 2: The statement: "threats  can only be handled by a strong military" is misleading, incorrect and avoids "strong militias" which was the founders intent. Militias are defined as: Officered  by men chosen among "themselves", not by any government  - Orchestrated by local governments that share  the MILITIAS sentiment, not the other way around. Allowing militias to  be strong in "power" and "force" at a ratio given by James  Madison as 25 to 1 as against the standing army  i.e. military; so to make attacks or subjugation by a central government  or a military impossible;

James Madison who wrote the Constitution together the Bill of Rights:

"The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth (1/25th) part of the number able to bear arms.

This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

To these (the standing army) would be >>>>opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, >>>"officered by men chosen from "among themselves" (this choice defines the real definition of the word militia and what the founders intended the militia to be, a defense and power ratio in strong individual citizens against a standing army, including our own), fighting for "their" common liberties and united and conducted by government"s" (local) possessing their (militia's) affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a "proportion" of regular troops.

Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of "ambition", more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms.

If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did.

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of >>>arbitrarypower would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."



Without this definition, the statement espouses a nationalism no where intended by the founders. The power is for securing each free and independent  state, NOT combining the states as a single nation which would change us from republic(s) to a monarchy; and yes, the pledge of allegiance "one nation" is incorrect. and should be "independent republics" under God.

See Ratifying conventions and the Virginia and  Kentucky Resolutions by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson: We are not "one" single nation. We are 50 state nations and more if we so choose. (see Constitution on creating new states)

Par 3: Should be: strong states, state militias and individuals as well as a strong limited and defined use standing (army) military.

P29: Par1: Here again the Jealousy card is played "avoid paying a full share"; money or the lack  of it is not a issue in a free country; Consent is. (See Closing statement);  "Fare share" of a wealthy man should be no more than a poor man, if a wealthy man wants more services, let him pay to have the public road paved at his own voluntary donation, you don't drag it out of his fingers through a tax;

"Exclusive Privileges" are different, but they shouldn't even exist. i.e. Corporations, Unions and entities that do not die - NO; Companies owned by individuals - Yes. End of that problem? It doesn't mean that you won't have super wealthy, it simply means there will most likely over a number of years result a natural change do to "natural causes".

 To understand this concept read John Locke on Civil Government with regard to: "when Legislatives are always in being ... there  be a danger still..."

John Locke: 138. Thirdly, the supreme power cannot take from any man "ANY PART of his property without his OWN CONSENT".  (APP Note: See these exact words in the Rights of the Colonists) For the preservation of property being the end of government, and  that for which men enter into society, it necessarily supposes and requires  that the people should have property, without which they must be supposed  to lose that by entering into society which was the end for which they entered  into it; too gross an absurdity for any man to own. Men, therefore,  in society having property, they have such a right to the goods, which by  the law of the community are theirs, that nobody hath a right to take them,  or any part of them, from them without their own consent; without this they  have no property at all. For I have truly no property in that which another  can by right take from me when he pleases against my consent. Hence it is  a mistake to think that the supreme or legislative power of any commonwealth  can do what it will, and dispose of the estates of the subject arbitrarily,  or take any part of them at pleasure. This is not much to be feared in governments  where the legislative consists wholly or in part in assemblies which are variable, whose members upon the dissolution of the assembly are subjects under the common laws of their country, equally with the rest. But in governments where the legislative is in one lasting assembly, always in being, or in one man as in absolute monarchies, there is danger still, that they will think themselves to have a distinct interest from the rest of the community, and so will be apt to increase their own riches and power by taking what they think fit from the people. For a man's property is not at all secure, though there be good and equitable laws to set the bounds of it between him and his fellow-subjects, if he who commands those subject shave power to take from any private man what part he pleases of his property, and use and dispose of it as he thinks good."."




 Par 2-3: Too much emphasis on petty officials, and not enough on removing regulations that empower them to enforce their petty will; The 8% tax plays into empowering those same petty officials who will use the "undefined excesses" (which by the way will increase in a good economy), to both change the percentage and the rules which they will claim by their position in government that they have the "public blessing" to do so. Why worry about petty crooks when we will be financing and empowering national tyrants.

 P31: Par 1: Politicians are in league with not only corporations but all exclusive privileges: Unions, Special interests, undelegated runaway state and federal bureaucracies (all Union labor by the way). Our end of the year 2009 APP news letter will be covering much of this and more.

Par 2: This is why all exclusive privileges must be removed. States and federal.

See Greyston's statement in the Ratifying Convention regarding guarding against "exclusive privileges" quoted earlier and James Madison same debate:

James Madison: "...I cannot comprehend that the power of legislating over a "small district", which CANNOT EXCEED ten miles square, and >>>may not be more than "one mile", will involve the dangers which he apprehends.

If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the "last thing" that would enter into the mind of "any" man to grant "exclusive advantages", in a very circumscribed district, to the prejudice of the community at large.

>>>>One mile kind of limits the intent and extent of "departments",", or legislation, presented in the constitution doesn't it?


Par 3: Is inconsistent; As allowing any government "undefined & unlimited excesses (as the economy will increases those excesses)" will create a calling from the public to begin redistributing that wealth in the form of more programs that will in turn create more dependency; The mis-direction of your comment on Page 13 Par 1: "..but to know that you would not loose any government handouts that you now enjoy?" illustrates just that inconsistency. What you are taxed for must be defined BEFORE you determine the tax or give the tax, then it must be placed into an separate account solely for EACH purpose where it cannot be touched. It must be separated, localized for state and county and visible. The federal government must not have its hand at all in collecting national or state taxes and the states and counties need to collect and dictate separately for state, county and federal from different sources and control how much they are willing to give and define exactly for what.

 P33: Par 2: Thomas Jefferson  said the same thing as Karl Marx said and unless you remove "exclusive privileges" completely, they will both be correct:

 

Thomas Jefferson: The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all  banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."


You won't accomplish this by handing financial powers of the whole of the  states to a single central tax system that already misuses the financial  powers they do have to what you have presented.

You will simply invite the same exclusive privileges to put forward their greatest efforts to lobby control over every dime collected by unenumerated taxes and work feverishly to increase the profits through government corporate and union contracts.



See Patrick Henry's statement against giving the federal government "both sword and purse".

Mr. HENRY. "...If you give up these powers, without a bill of rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw, government that has

>>>abandoned all its powers the powers of >>>direct taxation,  the >>>sword, and the >>>purse.

You have disposed of them to >>>Congress, without a bill of rights

without >>>check, >>>limitation, or >>>control.

And still you have checks and guards; still you keep barriers pointed where? Pointed against your weakened, prostrated, enervated STATE government!    .... >>>This is a real, actual defect. It must strike the mind of every gentleman. When our government was first instituted in Virginia, we declared the "COMMON LAW" of England to be "in FORCE".

>>>That system of law which has been admired, and "has protected us and our ancestors", is excluded by that system. Added to this, we adopted a bill of rights. By this Constitution, some of the best barriers of human rights are "thrown away". Is there not an additional reason to have a bill of rights?"

Which by combining all taxes you will be doing with the 8% Tax. As surely the federal government, Corporate, Union and Special Interest Lobbyists will wrest away anything they are a >>>PART OF or >>>have access to.



 Page 35: All this is fine, but again it is inconsistent with your tax proposal which clearly will increase invasive  regulation. 

 Page 37: Par 1: The first part starts out good, but  falls away with the "Tax on all spending" which again would be a invasive regulatory nightmare, as everything and every one will be labeled >>>"a business".

 Par 2: Here again is a major inconsistency. The attempt to: "tax all finished goods" is a shear impossibility; Which also allows officials the free hand to determine what "finished goods" are; If I was a farmer, and I had a calf and I sold the calf at 3 weeks old, I would be considered a business and the calf would be "finished goods" (it can be eaten as veal); I would not only have to record it as a finished good, but the purchaser who will raise the calf to a yearling before selling it to a feed lot would then be considered a business and the calf again a "finished good" when he sells it to the feed lot; The calf has now been taxed twice, and will then be taxed again from the feed lot, again at the butcher and again at the store; And at every point of sale the government regulators will have to make sure, as your proposed 8% plan establishes, "nobody cheats".

This would be tantamount to an unprecedented invasion of privacy,  and against all definitions of free trade. The extent and cost of regulation  and regulators, officials and prosecutors would be limitless;

Another thing that is not considered here is the COMPLIANCE COSTS; 1994 income tax compliance costs, that is the cost for individuals and businesses to comply with regulations, I believe was estimated at near 600 billion to 1.2 trillion; (Heritage foundation reports)

See Heritage Foundation report at http://www.pacificwestcom.com/patriottax for actual report estimate.

Complying with record keeping of purchases will be no less costly than complying  with income.


 Par 3: More of the same. Better that you simply remove exclusive privileges and let investors invest on a one to one basis and close down the stock market. Break up the corporations into companies owned by actual individuals; not "fictitious individuals"; This is as whole corporations containing the power of thousands of people are labeled a "individual" in present corporate "law".

 P39 Par 1: Here again the jealousy issue is raised. "Fair" is not the issue. Definition of what the tax is for, Consent, and maximizing freedom and being secure in papers and effect is the issue.

The income tax is simply not constitutional as Congress is not allowed to arrogate powers outside the delegated powers granted it; And states cannot use ratification or amendments to accomplish what they have expressly been prohibited from doing, and that is arrogating even by one step outside the delegated powers;

Nor can a 8% unenumerated tax be constitutional for the same reasons.


See Edmund Pendleton - Virginia Ratifying convention  6-16-1788:

"...With respect to the necessity of the ten miles square being superseded by the subsequent clause (the SWEEPING CLAUSE Article VI), which gives them power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof, I understand that clause as NOT going a "single step beyond" the "DELEGATED powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by this Constitution. If they should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers", but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them, (N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers".



Par 2: "Cheating" a unconstitutional  tax law is not the issue; nor is cheating; It is invasive regulation and  taxation without consent, without authority and without definition.

James Madison: "The honorable member asks, Why ask for this power, and if the subsequent clause be not fully competent for the same purpose. If so, what new terrors can arise from this particular clause? It is only a superfluity. If that >>>"latitude" of construction which he contends for were to take place with respect to the "SWEEPING CLAUSE", there "would" be room for those horrors. But it gives NO supplementary power. It only enables them to execute the "delegated powers". "If" the "delegation" of their powers be "safe", no possible inconvenience can arise from this clause. It is at most "but" explanatory.

For when any power is given, its delegation necessarily involves >>>"authority" to make laws to execute it.


Par 3: This has a lot of gray in it; Spending is the same but Spending wealth on an investment is different than buying either a needed staple or a liability; The statement: "Is  this any different from a less wealthy person buying a bicycle, a chair,  or a new pair of shoes?" The answer would be Yes. You are relating a individual with a private collective or exclusive privilege;   Corporations do not die; A man will; thereby the entity has no "time limit" to await for something to accrue; A stock is also investment for being an asset; Or if risk capitol, is a risk; and a bicycle or chair by all average purposes is a liability not an asset unless it actually puts money into your pocket; Or a basic need.

 But that is not the main issue, the issue again is that a collective is a  "state born Exclusive Privilege that should not exist".

You are talking apples and oranges here. Corporations are also "Fictional" "Individuals" in law.



 P41: Par 1: Stating that: "The  government should operate on that portion of spending that comes "after  meeting our basic needs" is not only  something that would be "impossible  to determine", but is the incorrect  perspective.

The perspective should begin with the people's dictation and consent of a defined >>>predetermined expenditure.

Government should "ONLY" meet "OUR" "CONSENSUAL REQUIREMENTS" that "LOCAL CITIZENS DICTATE".

Your statement "government's portion should be as small as possible" does not coincide with your plan. See  Par. 3 on this page where you state "There  are no limits on the amount of tax". This allows the government  to dictate once the money is in their hands, which creates the opposite effect.

Par 2: Your statement "government must focus to remain small" should be "GOVERNMENT MUST BE HELD" to remain small; You do this by only giving them what actual amounts for services you consensually direct them to do.

This in our State Liberty Bill does by limiting the total number of all government to a fixed percentage to the populous without the ability to expand in any way; How they are arranged, will be for the voters to dictate bi annually. FURTHER, to limit them to the confines of only the delegated powers granted in the Original Compact (federal and state original compacts - i.e. constitutions); and only giving them what is necessary for services directed to do.
 
Par 3: Congress does not have the power to "deem poverty level" it is not a delegated power and is a offshoot of the unconstitutional income tax; the  states "may" but how they would apply it to anything other than a statistic  voluntarily given to them would have to be outside their original  compact, as they (nor the federal government) could not invade the security  of a persons papers and effects to find out whether or not someone is above  or below what they consider such a "level". If a minimum wage was set by the state, I imagine this would be a state choice to determine a poverty level by doing a consensual survey.  Your statement of "each adult " receiving $500". before the tax started is wealth distribution and a product of socialism, not freedom; You would have to take it from someone to give it to another. This would also require more invasiveness and more regulation to monitor who has become an adult.

Note: That in a truly free society, you are NOT born a citizen of ANY country and do NOT become one until you willingly and consensually choose to.

SEE JOHN LOCKE Civil Government (>>>COMMON LAW which is a preexisting right of the people - as George Nicholas presents in the Ratifying Conventions - Protected as if it were written in the Constitution):

118. But it is plain governments themselves understand it otherwise; they claim no power over the son because of that they had over the father; nor look on children as being their subjects, by their fathers being so. If a subject of England have a child by an Englishwoman in France, whose subject is he? Not the King of England's; for he must have leave to be admitted to the privileges of it. Nor the King of France's, for how then has his father a liberty to bring him away, and breed him as he pleases; and whoever was judged as a traitor or deserter, if he left, or warred against a country, for being barely born in it of parents that were aliens there? It is plain, then, by the practice of governments themselves, as well as by the law of right reason, that a child is born a subject of no country nor government. He is under his father's tuition and authority till he come to age of discretion, and then he is a free man, "at liberty" what government he will put himself under, what body politic he will unite himself to. For if an Englishman's son born in France be at liberty, and may do so, it is evident there is no tie upon him by his father being a subject of that kingdom, nor is he bound up by any compact of his ancestors; and why then hath not his son, by the same reason, the "same liberty", though he be born anywhere else? Since the power that a father hath naturally over his children is the same wherever they be born, and the ties of natural obligations are not bounded by the positive limits of kingdoms and commonwealths."


Kind of flies in the face of "born a U.S. Citizen" that blind nationalists wish to convey, doesn't it.

And what did George Nicholas say in the Constitutional Ratifying Convention: "...But the "COMMON LAW" is "NOT EXCLUDED". There is >>>"NOTHING" in "that paper" (APP Note: referring to the US Constitution being considered)  to warrant the assertion".

SEE Samuel Adams - Absolute Rights of the Colonists: "All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please: And in case of intolerable Oppression, Civil or Religious, to leave the Society they belong to, and enter into another.--

See the Declaration of Independence which cements this RIGHT of Secession and liberty. Leaving a society, by this definition does not mean leaving the location of your property, but simply refusing one society or rule and choosing another; and in choosing another have a right to insist on the same protections.

Again the Rights of the Colonists: "When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, And "previous limitations" as form an equitable original compact.-- Every natural Right not expressly given up or from the nature of a Social Compact "necessarily" ceded remains.--



Par 4:     Your statement "Married couples would receive 1000." is more of the above; How in the world you could determine if someone would or would not be "taxed on the first 50,000 that they would spend" is beyond comprehension.

Stamp their forehead? give them a "National Identification and Purchase Card???!

Your statement "100. per child up to 2 children" and "Sustaining rate for a population"!!!!

Talk about a Invasive and Regulatory Nightmare!

 (continued p43): Your statement regarding "not rewarding or punishing for having more or less children  than 2"  is not the issue

The regulation nightmare of children born of multiple marriages which might be claimed alone would cause government to invade and know everything  about you, your spouses, your children and your marriages (which should only be a religious ceremony only not state and certainly not federal)

Page 43 Par 1: Same response as previous page.

Par 2: (ALL): Because this tax is a set percentage and not limited to how much is collected, what it is for or how it  is spent, which is like the income tax is today;

 What is to keep government from giving tax breaks to those who donate to special interests ("charity") or government donating your money to special interests once the have it in their hands??? Nothing.

This is what empowers special interests by making giving profitable; The special interests then turn and lobby for yet more tax dollars and lobby for yet more government regulations.


Par 3:   Your statement of "will  lead people to buy shares in companies that they believe in";  Well, your dreaming. The problem is just not that simple; also there are ways to make more money when companies loose money. The problem is the stock markets and corporations which are state born exclusive privileges and collectives  that should not exist.

Companies owned by the actual individuals that work and are liable for that which they produce, and will eventually die and pass it on to others who will work them, Yes.

Corporations that do not die, are state born exclusive privileges of monopoly, cartel, limited liability, exclusive government contracts; NO.

 (continued page 45): Wishful thinking, and gives credibility to exclusive privileges.

See again Greyson  6-16-1788  "Exclusive privileges should be guarded against"

Anything that you have to ask permission or receive rights to do, that another may or may not be able to be granted unless he too asks for the privilege, is an exclusive privilege.

Saying that anyone may also be granted a exclusive privilege, which may be an argument, is no excuse for allowing that which should not exist.


See limits to federal government 6-16-1788 Pendleton, Exclusive privileges granted by the federal government are void and nugatory outside the 10 miles square of Washington DC.

Pendleton: Why oppose this power? Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant >>>"exclusive privileges" to citizens residing within that place; the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says.

It could have no operation without the limits of that district.

Were Congress to make a law granting them an exclusive privilege of trading to the East Indies, it could have NO effect the moment it would go without THAT PLACE; for their exclusive power (supreme power) is confined to that district. Were they to pass such a law, it would be NUGATORY; and >>>EVERY member of the community at large could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district. This exclusive power is limited to THAT place solely, for their own preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary.

Federal government giving rights to oil companies on federal lands; Sorry, it is nugatory. Unauthoritve, and a preference expressly prohibited. ANYONE can drill; EVERY MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.


Page 45: Par 1: (ALL): More Regulations and bureaucracy  to monitor purchase bonds etc. Would allow government to know everything  you buy. Invasive. Attacks the security of papers and effects.
Par 2: Does not remove the invasiveness.
Par 3:  Your goal of attempting to "find a way of Social engineering to maintain our current level of taxation on gasoline".

Two problems with that statement:

1.) "Social engineering" is the first; With regard to what should be a simple gas tax spent only for road upkeep consensually established by the local citizens for local roads;

2.) The second is "Maintaining a current level of gas tax"; Which presently  is not now limited to be simply spent for roads but for other undefined  bureaucracies and services. Thereby maintaining current levels should not be a goal. Only necessary amounts for use only for roads would be.

 (and on p47): Not governments business to establish more ore less consumption by tax; Drilling regulations should be lifted anyway, both on government land where exclusive privileges are granted to corporations or high bids when it should be open to anyone to drill anytime, thereby a true free market economy; as well as freedom to drill on all private property.

See 6-16-1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention which VOIDS ANY exclusive privileges outside the 10 miles square of Washington DC.
 

Pendleton: Why oppose this power? Suppose it was contrary to the sense of their constituents to grant >>>"exclusive privileges" to citizens residing within that place; the effect would be directly in opposition to what he says.

It could have NO OPERATION without the "limits" of "that" district.

Were Congress to make a law granting them an exclusive privilege of trading to the East Indies, it could have NO effect the moment it would go without "THAT PLACE"; for their exclusive power (supreme power) is confined to that district. Were they to pass such a law, it would be NUGATORY; and >>>EVERY member of the community at large could trade to the East Indies as well as the citizens of that district. This exclusive power is limited to THAT place solely, for their own preservation, which all gentlemen allow to be necessary.

Federal government giving rights to oil companies on federal lands; Sorry,  it is nugatory. Unauthoritve, and a preference expressly prohibited. ANYONE can drill; EVERY MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.



Page 47: Par 2: ALL taxes need to be separate; Federal needs not to be within states. Your statement "should  not interfere with markets on the federal level" does not coincide with the tax you propose which allows federal to be part of which will allow them to manage, investigate or regulate (or regulate states) the 8% business tax.

Par. 3: Your statement: " 8% tax on anything ...no loop holds or exceptions" Requires Far Too much regulation to be practical.


You say "state", but on Page 67 you say "federal depository". and on page 73 par 3: "states and local governments cannot "tap" the stocks and "other" trading markets ... as federal government can"; Talk about sweeping federal powers. The Federal government would have to have it's hands all over this tax!!!

Not to mention all over the states! 

 WORSE YET, all over its citizens knowing or having access and power to know everything they purchase.



Page 49: Par 1: Your Statement: "...without  jeopardizing ANY existing social programs" or that you should reduce debt caused by these programs, should NOT be the purpose. The purpose should be to reduce spending greatly and lift regulations to increase PRIVATE BUSINESS. So that the bureaucrats can find jobs or work in PRIVATE BUSINESS. Then the debt will be paid off in short order.

Par 2: It is not "normal" to continue to support thousands of social programs that should be eliminated  completely because of their a.) unconstitutionality, b.) their  forced unconsensual taxation to operate them, c.) the exclusive privileges (corporations, unions, tax supported special interests and undelegated bureaucracies) that operate them, that should not even exist in a free country.

Your statement "not cheating" is again a  JEALOUSY factor statement that attempts to be entrained upon us by government today with the income tax as well as hailed by the two major political parties who, as well as the exclusive privileges that support them, benefit from this same incorrect mind set.

You can never "cheat" a taxation that is given consensually. You will either choose to pay it, our you will not. Government as SERVANTS must deal with what they are given, not what they demand.

Not enough money to employ them? That is what the unemployment lines they (the government bureaucrats) keep sending citizens now into from their poor acts and bills; They have no sympathy with those they shut the doors to industry on with their environmentalist lobbied bills that they pass; What sympathy should we show arrogant and crooked servants? Close the doors, bar the windows and send them away.



 Samuel Adams - Absolute Rights of the Colonists:

"...but then the same community which they serve, ought to be assessors of their pay: Governors have no right to seek what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honourable servants of the society, they would soon become Absolute masters, Despots, and Tyrants.

Hence as a private man has a right to say, what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a Community to determine what they will give and grant of their Substance, for the Administration of publick affairs.

And in both cases more are ready generally to offer their Service at the proposed and stipulated price, than are able and willing to perform their duty.--"



Par 3:  What you have presented may attempt to present a simple percentage, but it has far worse implications in its operation; Your statement "based upon our economy" is more than a little falsely disarming as it takes unlimited amount drawn from that percentage and gives it to government without any stipulations or citizen consensual control to withhold it from them.

Arbitrary unenumerated taxation is fully against the constitution.


> Page 53 through 65 (generally): Establishing  national income, sales or quotas is starting from the wrong end.

Starting from what is only absolutely necessary to operate only that which is necessary, i.e.: adequate military protection federal government (consensually given) which is what is the only meaning for "general welfare" in the constitution; and that which is consensually granted within states.


Page 53 Par 1: Your statement "may not be accurately reported" would not be an issue if the tax was not attempting to tax income as well. Or find use of income to monitor purchases - More invasiveness.

The more you attempt to tax everything, the more black market will increase. The best way to not increase black market is to NOT increase regulations and harsh taxation; But to remove more of the harsh taxation and laws, as well as remove the many "unnecessary and undelegated >>>definitions" of what is considered "black market".

Par 3: But Giving credibility to exclusive privileges and their activities (corporations, stock trading)  by finding ways to tax what they earn is as bad as taxing a thief on the money he has robbed from the citizens (by "exclusive privileged trade" using illegal monopoly and cartel) and supporting "undelegated" social bureaucracies on the money from the tax. Both being criminal.

Page 61: It sounds like the 8% business tax is simply an inverted income tax or sales tax; Continuing to worry about what someone is buying or selling or earning.

Page 65: Your statement "nor or they being over taxed" is a incorrect point of view


It is NOT whether we are over taxed or under taxed; it is whether or not we are consensually taxed.

The numbers are irrelevant to the extent that if we are consensually taxed, we will never be over taxed

If we are taxed without our consent and without authority, we are aways over taxed, even by a penny; And fully under tyranny and despotism.


Page 67: Par 1: With no limits to where taxes are distributed or reduction in bureaucracies spending and growth, nothing will stop bureaucracies from eating up any gains in paying off the the debt, that you attempt to make. Look at Obama, he has cut the value of the dollar in half in under a year simply by starting up the printing of dollars. That alone cut your figures in half....

Par. 2: "Internet taxes" would be more invasiveness and costly regulation. Federal depository for a unenumerated tax is not authorized by the constitution and would also turn any tax evasion into a federal crime, as the federal government will be a party to the agreement and is also not authorized by the the constitution.

Read Thomas Jefferson - Kentucky Resolution #2: Prohibiting the federal government from prosecuting any other crime "WHATSOEVER" than those delegated to it.

More federal regulations:

Your statement "Black Market trading will be treated like tax evasion" will only increase black market and the severity of prosecution of it upon everyone.

Everyone would become "Subject"; See also note on Black market  page 53 Par 1

(Same dangers in the proposed Fair Tax)

Your statement "hopefully with the assumption of innocence rather than guilt" is no laughing matter. Federal prosecutors will make sure of that. And everyone will pay for the prosecutors salaries (benefits and retirement) from the forced taxation to make sure of his sympathies.

George Mason's sarcastic statement to other's same loose statements on federal generosity was this 6-16-1788:

Mr. GEORGE MASON "thought that there were few clauses in the Constitution so dangerous as that which gave Congress "exclusive power of legislation" within "ten miles square". "IMPLICATION",", he observed, was capable of any extension, and would probably be extended to augment the congressional powers. But here there was no need of implication. This clause gave them an unlimited authority, in every possible case, within that district.

This ten miles square,says Mr. Mason, may set at defiance the laws of the surrounding states, and may, like the custom of the superstitious days of our ancestors, become the sanctuary of the blackest crimes. Here the federal courts are to sit.

We have heard a good deal said of justice."


-------


Par 3: More regulations; and is NOT free trade; could very well open the door to dangerous international regulations as well.

(continued page 69): Your statement "fairness" is more jealousy factor. "Fairness" is a socialist word;

You cannot enforce forced government "fairness",  when you have consent and freedom.



Page 69: Par 3: You speak of ill of "socialist spending" but offer no limit as to how much tax is collected from the 8% to give to the government, with statements you have made that such amounts to government to pay for debt and other government programs (socialism) will actually increase.

This is not consistent with your statements which actually advocate continued and more "socialist styled spending"

_____________

Par 4: and continued page 71: Should be about limiting spending, not pacifying it.



 Page 71: Par 1: Your statement "Pre-bates" More wealth distribution and costly bureaucratic trifling. (See the same type proposal in the Fair Tax)

 Par 2: Your presumption of "government  lowering percentage rates "eventually" is a pipe dream;  There is no guarantee; and history shows emphatically that politicians  will simply spend more and create more bureaucracies when given money.

 Par 3: Your statement "The success of this system really lies in there being no wiggle room for cheats" presents  that anyone that does not want to consensually give to a unenumerated  and unconsensual tax, is a cheat; and to make sure they comply, harsh  tax evasion laws will step upon them; A Regulatory  and Invasive Nightmare.

Churches must also comply with governments definition of" providing a good service" or they  too will be considered cheats and tax evaders". And (continued page 73) if they wish to be politically involved, penalized as well?  What difference is it of the now income tax that presents if a church makes  a speech with regard to politics that it looses it's tax exemption? A sure government muzzle upon the church to keep it from being be politically active;  Which is a church and everyone's constitutional right to be;

See  Witherspoon's speech during the Revolution.

John Witherspoon, founding father and signer of the Declaration of Independence:

The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men, Princeton May 17, 1776: "You are all my witnesses that this is the first time of my introducing any political subject into the pulpit. At this season however, it is not only lawful but necessary, and I willingly embrace the opportunity of declaring my opinion without any hesitation that the cause in which America is now in arms is the cause of justice, of liberty, and of human nature. So far as we have hitherto proceeded, I am satisfied that the confederacy of the colonies "has not been the effect of pride", resentment, or sedition, but of a deep and general conviction that our civil and religious"liberties",", and consequently in a great measure the temporal and eternal happiness of us and our posterity, depended on the issue."



Page 73: Par 1:  Your statement "Needed by federal government" is a wrong point of view; Should be: consensually and constitutionally delegated and granted to the federal government. A fact if followed that would cut what is now considered "needed by the federal government" by over two thirds without transferring anything to the states.

Your statement "the smart states will operate easily on the 'provided' taxes" again is not the issue; The issue is what the people see fit to consensually pay for services they consensually want.


Par 2: Here again both credibility given exclusive privileges which  should not exist, followed by granting federal regulation over them by a  federal government that was never delegated the power to do so under the original compact ; Your statement "Vigilance is required" speaks of not only state authority, but undelegated federal authority who will be a party of the tax.

See Kentucky resolutions: "can prosecute, NO other crimes "whatsoever".":

2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish

a.) treason,
b.) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States,
c.) piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and
d.) offenses against the law of nations,

and NO other crimes, "whatsoever";

and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, "therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act entitled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.

The federal government already has stepped far beyond their delegated powers in prosecuting hundreds of crimes beyond these crimes listed here; What would keep them from prosecuting crimes against a tax they are a party to?

Let us review how far they have stepped away from those limitations.

Also 6-16-09 Virginia Ratifying Convention;

James Madison: I cannot comprehend that the power of legislating over a "small district", which CANNOT EXCEED ten miles square, and may not be more than one mile, will involve the dangers which he apprehends.

Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of ANY PART of the Constitution, (N)or to make ANY REGULATION that may affect the interests of the citizens of the Union at large. But it gives them power over the local police of the place, so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the "fair construction of the clause".

Mr. Lee: "...Gentlemen had suggested that the seat of government would become a sanctuary for state villains, and that, in a short time, ten miles square would subjugate a country of eight hundred miles square. This appeared to him a most improbable possibility; nay, he might call it impossibility.

That little 10 miles square has now subjugated the entire 50 states! From sea to shinning sea.

This should illustrate the essential need to keep the taxes separate, least we not only be subjugated by the federal government but by a international government;



Pages 75 through 79: Attempts to rationalize peoples  free thought and markets; Why even try. How about removing exclusive privileges  and then not worry about it, letting a free market be free? It is not the  business of government.


Page 81 Par 1: Your statement that "Consider  that an average family has 10,000 left over for discretionary spending" is both inventive and overly optimistic not to mention something that changes constantly. That they would pay only 5% on 10 million of spending also this illustrates that 50,000 will be paid arbitrarily and unenumerated to government who will be able to spend it for what ever they wish, just from the spending of 1 person if he was able to spend that much.  I would say government bureaucracy would love it.  

 Par 2 and Par 3: Your statement "Spending dollars  that would already be taxed" is correct; Every "Finished product"  from every company that finished the carburetor, or tire, or radio to sell  to the car company would each have a "finished product" purchase price attached;

This is no different than sales or income tax that finds a way to tax  everything multiple times before reaching the consumer.

A purchase tax is simply an inverted income or sales tax.

Par 4: Your statement about being "unfair"; It is not about being "unfair"; It is about CONSENT and ENUMERATION.


Pages 85 through 97 generally: Shows me that you have not  read the ratifying conventions that define the constitution; Nor Common Law basics and have started  history at the general phrases of the Constitution.

Page 85 Par 1: Free trade without exclusive privileges was  the important essential factor in promoting commerce, not banking.  Here again you have also failed to separate individual banking company (which  are today rare) and the Corporate banking which is an exclusive privilege  granted by government. The founders would have been speaking of the private  company bank, not an exclusive privilege privileged bank. If  you are referring to a national bank, then most would be against it.

Par 2 (to page 87): Was referred to as the Sweeping Clause was limited to the DELEGATED POWERS ONLY. Restricting such things as serving  police to only the 10 miles of Washington DC, referred to as "THE PLACE".  The Supremacy was limited to only the delegated powers and also often restricted  to the area within the 10 miles square. Departments other than forts in lands  not yet states where also restricted. When states, the federal government  could not have a fort or anything else without the State's  CONSENT.

See Virginia Ratifying convention 6-16-1788:

Mr. GEORGE MASON: Mr. Chairman, gentlemen say there is no new power given by this clause. Is there any thing in this Constitution which secures to the states the powers which are said to be retained? Will powers remain to the states which are not expressly guarded and reserved? I will suppose a case. Gentlemen may call it an impossible case, and "suppose" that Congress will act with wisdom and integrity. Among the enumerated powers, Congress are to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and to pay the debts, and to provide for the general welfare and common defence; and by that clause (so often called the sweeping clause) they are to make all laws necessary to execute those laws.

Now, suppose oppressions {{442} should arise under ""this" government, and any writer should dare to stand forth, and expose to the community at large the abuses of "those" powers; could not Congress, under the "idea" of providing for the "general welfare", and under their >>>"own" construction, say that this was destroying the "general peace", encouraging sedition, and poisoning the minds of the people? And could they not, in order to provide against this, lay a dangerous restriction On the press? Might they not even bring the trial of this restriction within the ten miles square, when there is no prohibition against it? Might they not thus destroy the trial by jury? Would they not ""extend" their implication?

It appears to me that they MAY and ""WILL". And shall the support of our rights depend on the bounty of men "whose interest it may be to oppress us"? That Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare (APP Note: Defense against "Foreign" aggression) of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to ALL powers which are NOT granted, that they are retained by the states.

Otherwise, the power of providing for the "general welfare" may be "perverted to its destruction"."


Everything George Mason, Patrick Henry, and Greyston has came about by allowing a small limited legislature too much power.

Still want to leave government the size it is for one day or even one undelegated department (which is all departments but for forts consensually granted to be there by the state and fully under management of the state) or employee in your state?; Or to give them an undefined amount of money to do what they wish with it?



Page 87: Par 1: Winning out does not make right or correct, nor should we follow in those footsteps. Discussing history's folly's is no  substitute for common law or constitutional limitations.

Simply a powerful nation does not a great nation make.

Government is for establishing justice between individuals and the protection  their properties;

NOT to engage in granting "exclusive privileges" in banking or other or "promoting commerce". Free trade needs no promotion. It promotes itself  so long as the government stays out of the way. States or federal governments having no delegated power to grant exclusive privileges, would be better employed to the justice of limiting usury, monopolies and cartels, which create privileged trade, not free trade..

Page 89: States should be smaller; the size of counties;  as was the intended size of the first states with regard to republics for Adequate representation of the people within them (see our 2008 APP Newsletter);  This would allow laws to protect against any criminal activities of usury  or other limitations that the states local citizens would wish  to employ; 

The fact the Federal government was never granted powers to limit or punish  anything outside it's delegated powers was made quite clear by

Thomas Jefferson, 1798 in the Kentucky Resolutions, reaffirming that  which was established 10 years prior in the Ratifying Conventions;

 

2. "Resolved, That  the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power  to punish

a.) treason,
b.) counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States,
c.) piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas (APP: ONLY), and
d.) offenses against the law of nations,

and  >>>>>>>NO other crimes, WHATSOEVER;

and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the  Constitution having also declared, that "the powers  not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by  it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,"

therefore the act of Congress, passed on the  14th day of July, 1798, and entitled "An Act in addition to the act entitled an Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the day of June, 1798, entitled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and ALL their OTHER ACTS which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,)

are  >>>>ALTOGETHER VOID, and of NO FORCE;

and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is "reserved",  and, of "RIGHT", appertains "solely" and exclusively to the respective States,  each within its own territory."

Page 89 to 91: So since FDIC, or other regulations and departments  that have no authority to create laws, that they do not have any authority  and cannot with any authority punish; It is simply an undelegated authority  that can be nullified by any state or local judge.

This needs no law, because the law is already there, it simply needs will  and force to oppose it as Edmond Pendleton and others 6-16-1788 as well as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison 1798 has established as the rightful remedy that can be employed by any state or local Judicial, legislature or the people themselves.


Page 93: We can agree in splitting up large Banking institutions;  But They must also be removed from being an exclusive privilege; That means  dispersing their wealth (property) to the stock holders; so they can invest  elsewhere, or together as a similar "company" they will share direct  liability in its operation;

But not into Corporations and other state or federal born Exclusive Privileges that would no longer exist.


Page 95: Smaller sized institutions will arise when exclusive  privileges and government regulations and invasive taxation are removed.

There would need less regulation, if people would be liable for every dime  they invested. It would instill responsibility in the knowledge that would come back upon them as liability if they did not keep track of what was being done with that money; and would in most instances keep an investors attention to only the number of investments that they could keep track of. This would create a more competitive market naturally. Removing exclusive privileges would make this the only option.

Localizing Bank regulations, states being the size of counties, will allow  close public attention naturally.



Page 99 Through 101 : Usury in 1904 was limited in the states between 6% and 7% (Williams and Rogers Series - Commercial Law - Gano) Percentages should reflect these same. The 1/3% for fees and other is reasonable.

Page 101 Par 3 and continued Page 103: Your Statement "they will have to use the supply of money to control inflation  if that becomes a problem" begins again to fall away. That is not the purpose of government.

Government must fall prey to the same pains as all private business  and reduced accordingly.

Justifying it with entirely presumed greater profits by undefined  corporations (Exclusive privileges) that should not even exist, is no certainty and is pure speculation.

If inflation comes from overspending, the regulations necessary to implement and regulate a flat percentage rate tax that "no one can escape";  as well as unlimited unenumerated tax funds that increase to a government  in good financial conditions, who will in turn increase it's spending,  growth and dependency upon those funds, is contrary to the end you are attempting  to establish. It would cause government to overspend and overgrow; Making  it worse when there is a inflation or depression from the dependency it will  have created.

Page 103 Par 1: Your statement: "Our five steps will keep government out of more of our affairs and reduce the harm that they will do";  Is not consistent with the effects of the 8% tax which will most likely increase these terrors through other means such as increased government programs, special interests, national monuments, land grabs for public works and government "make work" projects. Since there is no enumeration and no limits to how much tax under that percentage is collected, there will be no limit as to where or how it will be spent. The financial central power, and those in charge of it, (or in charge of regulating it who will be a party to it) would assume the financial strength of the entire nations wealth; No thank you.

Page 103 Par 3: The reason is also the allowance of "confidence  artistry" i.e. bunko, by banks, businesses and government programs FHA (Farm  Home Administration) as with others that encourage lending beyond a persons  means; And this is why bankruptcy laws are important to have in place to protect  people from lenders who are more than eager to financially milk the unwary  of their hard earned labors or for the purpose of taking their property from default in payment.

Page 105: Par 1: Just close down Wall Street; And yes remove  the safety nets. Should include government. No Union or professional wages for government employees. It is a servitude; Not a business or a profession. They buy their own insurance and pay their own gas.

Par 2. Should include government. No Union or professional wages for  government employees.

Par 3. Your statement "capitalism verses  socialism "When exclusive privileges exist in capitalist structure, .i.e. corporation, there is no difference between the two. A collective is a collective. Collectivism is socialism, private or governmental.

Your statement "Capitalism led to monopoly", is from capitalism being granted exclusive privileges to become a monopoly or cartel.

As earlier stated, corporations (exclusive privileges) need to be dissolved,  and companies then to be held under local county (or smaller states, if reduced  to the size of counties - see app 2008 news letter) monopoly laws.

Page 107: Par 1: Your statement "avoiding letting individual  businesses get too big" starts from removing state and federal powers of exclusive privileges and empowering local monopoly laws.

Your statement "don't punish the entire industry", starts with removing blanket environmental and zoning regulations that keep businesses from even starting, make the costs too much to start or make operations too heavily regulated.

 Par 2: Your statement "set industry free" follows this; But "helping the  oil industry" should not be construed as helping the oil corporations. Oil  corporations buy protectionism by increasing regulations that limit competition;

The Attempted CARA bill (followed by the "get out and go" act) a few years  back establishes this. Where Oil companies attempted to buy exclusive rights  to drill in Alaska; The huge amount paid to be given to environmental groups  to condemn and purchase private land in the lower 48 states and be turned  into wildlife reserves (which of course could be later drilled under a privileged  agreement by the oil corporation later); The last thing Oil companies want  are "wildcats" or independent one man drillers that would actually create  true free market oil prices.

So if helping the out "corporations", No.

Simply not preventing anyone anywhere to drill on federal land (which should really be state or county land) or on their own private land, yes.

And that doesn't take any helping or cost, that simply takes government getting out of the individuals way and local monopoly laws enforced to keep big companies from keeping individuals from being stopped in courts by large companies and courts.

 Par 3: Enforcing the laws and rights we now have would negate the misuses.

Empowering government with unenumerated tax money would however increase  the likelihood of that money ending up in the hands of people like Al Gore,  special interests and more regulations they will lobby to enforce  upon us.

Page 109: Your statement "oil companies  have proven that they can drill and deliver oil in an environmentally friendly  way, let them"; No. Let EVERYONE who owns property or wants  to drill anywhere, drill.

Bringing the word "Environmental" in simply invites undelegated, national and international regulations and buys protectionism for corporations to have exclusive privileged rights  to drill.

Page 111 through 117: We can generally agree on term limits.  There is another way that limits are set by the constitution:


Constitutional  Debates - June 14, 1788 - Virginia Ratifying Convention:

James Madison: "...The Constitution has taken a medium between  the two extremes, and perhaps with more wisdom than either the British  or the state governments, with respect to their "ELIGIBILITY" to office. They can "FILL" "NO" new "offices" created by themselves, <><><> "NOR" <><><>  <><><> "OLD ONES" <><><> of which they "INCREASED  THE SALARIES"." 

This would keep LEGISLATORS from being reelected "back" into  their office... if they had RAISED THEIR  SALARIES IN THE PREVIOUS TERM.
 

Madison  Continued:"... After having heard a variety of principles developed, I thought that on which  it is established the least exceptionable, and it appears to me "sufficiently well guarded".

(See Rights of the Colonists that establish that governors have "NO RIGHT" to "seek what they please" in salaries, as it makes way for them to become DESPOTS.)

Mr. GRAYSON: Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge that the honorable gentleman has "REPRESENTED THE CLAUSE RIGHTLY" as to their exclusion from new offices;

This  establishes James Madison's intent was correct and that "NEW OFFICES" also means, by the definitions given here "NOR Filling  Old Ones", as reelection to the same  office for a "NEW TERM" of Office for which the salaries  were increased by the person seeking reelection to it.

This would remove most of the present legislature at the next election  cycle. IF we obeyed the constitution and the underlying principles  of civil government as it was intended.

Page 119: Par 3 (and continued on page: 121): Your statement "Today we need to look at what should the federal government really be responsible for" leaves the incorrect perception. A perception that implies that we can now grant the federal government  a new set of rules; This is incorrect as it is without a given authority.

It should read the constitution and the original definitions and intents have not changed,  The laws of this country have not changed; The federal  government cannot any arrogate new powers, so the federal government  is under the same limitations under the Original Compact.

An Original Compact which defines the purpose for which a government by the people is created cannot be changed; The only allowable changes are those  that were allowed to be changed in the original compact. Those  were limited to the delegated powers.

Your list a.) "defense" should  also read: only against foreign aggression or upon the application of a state  in defense against another state which attacks it. Thereby securing a republican  form of government. b.) "Border  security", no. That is a states responsibility unless actually attacked. And still a states right to engage in war without application to congress when attacked or in eminent danger. By charging a crossing fee (use tax) they can finance and "secure" their own borders tomorrow. c.) collection from interstate markets, no; d.) Regulating  banking and financial institutions, no; e.) Transportation, no; and f.) roads  that cross borders, no. Most of these are state responsibilities;

Example, The federal government can set a standard of weights and measures; but it cannot prosecute crimes against them, as it was never  delegated the power to do so.

See again ratifying conventions and Virginia and Kentucky resolutions i.e.: "no other crimes what so ever" Note, free trade under common law (which as stated in the ratifying convention 6-16-1788 is  not effected by the constitution) is open borders, see also the Magna Carta describing the right of trade to come and go as they please;

Magna Carta 1215: #41. All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs. This, however, does not apply in time of war to merchants from a country that is at war with us. Any such merchants found in our country at the outbreak of war shall be detained without injury to their persons or property, until we or our chief justice have discovered how our own merchants are being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be safe too."

Earlier presented: The Absolute Rights of the Colonists allow that it is a right to leave one society and inter into another; The Declaration of Independence establishes the right to cease relationship with one society and create a new society under a new compact without moving and inch.

So what does that say about the nationalistic view in regard to a secure  border by a federal government? See again the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions  with regards to the alien and sedition act passed by congress. The states  simply NULLIFIED and VOIDED it.

Kentucky Resolutions - Thomas Jefferson - 1798:

4. Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that NO power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether VOID and of NO FORCE.

5. Resolved. That in addition to the general principle, as well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are reserved, another and more special provision, inserted in the Constitution from abundant caution, has declared that "the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808" that this commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends, described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens: that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory: that to remove them when migrated, is equivalent to a prohibition of their migration, and is, therefore, CONTRARY to the said provision of the Constitution, and VOID

Par 1: Your statement "no special interest groups";  Agreed.

Par 2 Your statement "honor the rights of the states  to enact their own laws" Agreed.

Your abortion statement on "being sure" that  the practices of one state to citizens of another are not conspiring is still a state issue; not a federal one; states have the capacity to agree  on some type of a standard, but I see that a major grey area until states are smaller for more direct representation of the local peoples will; People  are ultimately responsible for their own actions, it would be impossible to stop all people from injuring themselves and there are so many other issues here. Our stand is posted on our web site.

Marriage is a religious ceremony only between man and woman; Civil union or otherwise;

Same sex is not a marriage, nor a union that can be defined as one by the state; This deals with the relinquishment of essential natural rights that no individual can give up to another (voluntary slavery), and no individual  can accept them (slavery). Giving up any essential natural right is considered  voluntary slavery; Samuel Adams, in the Absolute Rights of the Colonists, (which is actually  a one page summary of John Locke's Civil Government), states this very clearly. Slavery of any kind is prohibited in all states of the union by the Constitution; There is a reason the Constitution defines  "neither slavery NOR involuntary servitude; because they can be different. See also our 2008 news letter for quotes, references  etc.

Rights of the Colonists: "If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the [Volume 5, Page 396] right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave--"

Par 3 continued Page 123: Agreed.

Page 123: Par 1: Agreed.

Par 2:  Agreed.

Par 3: See our States Liberty Bill general info on our front  web page speaking of health care; generally agreed need of reform. Private insurance  is a private collective and equally a social type system.

Par 4 and continued on Page 125: House and Senate Should focus on International concerns; There is really very little national delegated powers under the original compact, and agreed, almost nil state concerns. In reality, If they stuck to the limited delegated powers, what much would they have to do but wait for a war. Or read their local state papers on who to vote for governor, and state legislatives, where the real power should reside after they re-arm the independent state militias as was a requirement that they do in the ratifying conventions - 6-16-1788.

See same response to page 119 Par 3, in regard to "your list"

Page 125 Par 1:

Actually the states are doing this already;  Simply declare it as did Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions and arm themselves to the teeth and be willing to to back it up.

To your statement "27% of the tax to the federal  government"; Again, a flat percentage to any government is a arbitrary  unenumerated tax and therefor unconstitutional.

As in George Mason's statement 6-16-1788 as to what he would give the federal  government:

Mr. MASON then observed that he would willingly give them exclusive  power (i.e. supreme power), as far as respected  the police and good government of "THE PLACE" (the 10 miles square of Washington DC); but  he would give them NO MORE, because he thought it unnecessary. He was very  willing to give them, in this as well as in all other cases, those powers which he thought indispensably necessary."

This is the same answer I give in this case in relation to taxes, let them  present to the states what they feel is absolutely necessary within the confines of the DELEGATED POWERS, and let the states decide whether  or not they think it delegated or necessary, then measure it to the last penny and no more..


Par. 2: As on our web site, I think that we should pack our bags and walk  out. Why even patronize them? If they want the same freedoms and prosperity,  they should give it to themselves. It is all under common law and free for the taking.

Use the saved money to pay off our debts.

See John Locke on the dissolution of government, when a government even attempts to hand decisions to another power.


See John Lock "134. THE great end of men's entering into society being the enjoyment of their properties in peace and safety, and the great instrument and means of that being the laws established in that society, the first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of the legislative power, as the first and fundamental natural law which is to govern even the legislative. Itself is the preservation of the society and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it. This legislative is not only the supreme power of the commonwealth, but sacred and unalterable in the hands where the community have once placed it. Nor can any edict of anybody else, in what form soever conceived, or by what power soever backed, have the force and obligation of a law which  has not its sanction from that legislative which the public has chosen and  appointed; for without this the law could not have that which is absolutely necessary to its being a law, the consent of the society, over whom nobody can have a power to make laws9 but by their own consent and by authority received from them; and therefore all the obedience, which by the most solemn ties any one can be obliged to pay, ultimately terminates in this supreme power, and is directed by those laws which it enacts. >>>Nor can any oaths to any foreign power whatsoever, or any domestic subordinate power, discharge any member of the society from his obedience to the legislative, acting pursuant to their trust, nor oblige him to any obedience contrary to the laws so enacted or farther than they do allow, it being ridiculous to imagine one can be tied ultimately to obey any power in the society which is not the supreme.

Chapter 19: Of the Dissolution of Government

211. HE that will, with any clearness, speak of the dissolution of government, ought in the first place to distinguish between the dissolution of the society and the dissolution of the government.

217. Fourthly, the delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince or by the legislative, is certainly a change of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government. For the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one entire, free, independent society to be governed by its own laws, this is lost whenever they are given up into the power of another.

Understanding that the Constitution is a limited compact is important here and that the State Constitutions are the Supreme in all things not expressly delegated to the federal government, The STATES retaining the power of dissolving the federal government and US Constitution at will.

James Madison 6-16-1788: "...An observation fell from a gentleman, on the "same side with myself", which deserves to be attended to. *** If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we "should >>>CHOOSE to renounce {415} it", "this is an >>>additional safeguard to our >>>defence".


Page 127 Par. 1:  Your statement "form a coalition of democracies" ; First democracies are bad, that is why the founders never wrote about democracies, Total democracies are total socialisms. Republics are good. And a Republic based on Common Law is the best.

 Again why form any coalition? They have Google; Let other countries Google "republics" then let them decide.

 Par 2: Agreed in most part; Water and farm I see asking the citizens to voluntarily give when there is a chance that a countries citizens starts dropping like flies; States and citizens should be as active in the international affairs as the federal government so that informed decisions can be made on any issue, foreign or domestic.

 Par. 3. Agreed generally, I think it is safe to say anyone starving that is given food will be appreciative; Governments and citizens need to understand the "right of title to property", Citizens need to be allowed to obtain that title and have the ability to farm and develop it as their own; Education to rights is important. Governments usually allow us to aid but then continue to subjugate the people. Disappointment is probably a better description to someone who is saved from starvation only to return into slavery and subjugation that caused the starvation in the first place.


 Par. 4. This is covered in our Summary of the States Liberty Bill. Freeze  on government employment, Lift zoning and regulations so that free enterprise can grow for bureaucrats can find private sector work.

Again however, there is a conflict with your statement "private sector, that is where the real growth will be"   under the proposed 8% tax, you have stated that government will have a increased  flow of funds; This will have a tendency to increase government growth along  with private sector growth. People will tend to choose a desk and chair in  government, than a shovel in private sector; This is why a tax must only allow  for enumerated growth and consensual fund dispersal; Not a undefined set percentage.


 Page 131 Par 1:

 Par. 2: This takes separating the way tax is collected, not grouping.

 Par 3: You Statement  "without the possibility of monopoly" Needs Corporations  (exclusive privileges) to be dissolved as they invariably and inevitably create  the condition of monopoly and cartel.


 Page 133: In response to your list:

1.) No, as presented, is unenumerated and arbitrary.
2.) Remove exclusive privileges and localize
3.) Acceptable percentages
4.) Plus limits on income and prohibit governments from raising  their own salaries, if they do, they loose any further terms of office.
5.) States Rights and powers as defined in the ratifying conventions  that define those rights and powers.

I find however that the written plan does not coincide with these goals. Nor to many of the founders quoted with regard to actual operation of the tax.

Simple is good, but  "no substitute" for Consensual enumeration of tax .

A flat interest rate is dangerous with no definition of exactly how and where it is to spent and is something no one will ever understand; This is because it plays into the hands of the politicians, or others who can lobby the politicians to have them spend it to profit them.... No different from now.

Also, in reading the book, I find the 8% tax plan is "not consistent" with what it attempts to convey. (Nor is the Flat or Fair tax plans.) The founders would never had agreed to such a proposal(s), nor does it support states rights; It subjugates people at every turn to be under the watchful eye of the federal government (or from them through state governments) or state governments so that, as your book states: nobody cheats ; This has nothing to do with freedom. This has to do with stamping foreheads with numbers.

Federal central taxation can never be combined with States and local taxation; and then be compatible with, rights, security in ones papers & property and Local consent.

Never.



Closing with regard to the 8% Tax (Equally the Fair Tax):

 1.) Federal Government has no Constitutional authority and cannot arrogate such authority, nor can it be states ratified; as that would be a form of arrogation; The income tax is no different, so it is not impossible, just unauthoritive and therefor tyrannical, unathoritive and Void.
 2.) Is combining local taxes with a distant legislature (large states also create distant legislatures - See Rights of the Colonists indicating distant legislatures can have no feelings for people but only to bribe them)
 3.) Removes the ability to be secure in our person, papers and effects.
 4.) Will always use it against us and to monitor our every purchase. So much for privacy.
 5.) Everything we sell (or buy) will label every individual as a business or a business transaction which can be monitored by the federal government.
6.) Every stage of manufacture would be considered a "finished product" to someone. So taxation will occur at multiple levels or there would have to be a even greater bureaucracy to define what are and what are not to be considered a finished product; and who and who would not have to pay a tax on what products......
7.) History shows without break that the federal government will grab power whenever it has a chance to support it's Union (trade unions) backed labor force.
8.) The federalists made the mistake of giving a little power to a central government;
9.) will increase and empower bureaucracy as well as those interests that could lobby and profit from the increase excesses brought about by a unenumerated set percentage rate tax when the economy increases.
10.) Give them an opportunity to grab all the purse strings, and you will only dig the hole already dug so deep, it will bury us or loose a generation removing them.

------------------------------ end -------------------------------

One of our Chairs recently asked our stand on the Fair Tax  (set percentage of sales);

Below was my reply that you may be able to draw from.

---------------


....As to the Fair tax or Flat tax, we generally have not supported these, or any tax that allows the IRS, or any form of income tax; or tax such as the Fair Sales tax, that requires such federal government oversight, to exist; That is because the regulations themselves  (not even including compliance costs, arrest, prosecution, litigation, court and incarceration costs) cost half or more of the direct tax collected, and create all the corruption that is caused by taxation without enumeration;

This allows government to spend past what is consensual, and  empowers exclusive privileges i.e. = corporations; unions; tax supported  special interests; undelegated federal and state bureaucracies; along  with mandates (including zoning and environmental) on states, to enact  greater dependent government and related bureaucracies;

Some of this is covered on our Anonymity Tax site.

We favor removing all forms of taxation on income or sales  for these and other reasons listed on that site.

Note that Ron Paul also favors removal of the income tax stating  there is really no need for it; as it is the spending that is causing the problems, not the need for more taxation.

Income taxes, as with other failed forms of taxation or taxation such as the Flat Tax  and Fair Tax are  based upon jealousy, They collect taxes to cover what the "government  employees" want - then establish a percentage rate to take that amount plus whatever the excess brings in;

And NOT simply what the local communities should have control over  i.e. = what they wish to grant for needful things the people of local communities direct to have done based on exactly what it will cost  FIRST ....THEN tax accordingly on the consent and actual cost; nothing more;

Presently the system is backwards, taking money, then deciding  what to spend it on.

Set percentage taxes (sales, income and others) create a unlimited  flow of money to the government, giving it far too much power and  manipulative options; Also it sets creates an atmosphere of unlimited  government growth and government dependency which feeds upon those arbitrary set percentages.

-----------------------

The combining of Federal oversight powers into our states tax systems is the greatest mistake this country can ever make. It is the product of deceit and tyranny.

The separation of taxation between federal and state is imperative to maintaining our freedoms and state sovereignty.

Consider carefully this very real dangers with the Fair Tax, Flat Tax and 8% Tax.


Sincerely,

Richard Taylor
Chair
American Patriot Party.CC
American Patriot Party of Oregon
 

(wide page - See more at right>)

Tax Plan Similarities and Dangers

The FairTax (also Flat Tax) 1.) A jealousy tax; that uses the terms "fairness" and "cheating" to sell their plan often used to sell communist and socialist government programs. 2.) Fails to mention "Consent", "privacy of papers and effects, Limited delegated powers, or any plans to reduce undelegated federal bureaucracies aside from the IRS and Compliance costs; 3.) Replaces these with a even greater invasive tax with a new federal oversight bureaucracy. To stop "so called"  cheaters; Retains all other bureaucracies. 4.) Uses the "excuse" of the tax to lower taxation, then proclaims it will "increase revenue" to the government. 5.) Combines many taxes into one tax. 6.) Allows the federal government the power of determining what is or what is not "a business". 7.) Opens the door to federal oversight and taxation to Internet sales; Including home Internet sales, yard sales; All home based buying, selling or trading will open to federal and state scrutiny. 8.) This Tax  will bring whatever you BUY, SELL or TRADE under federal and state scrutiny and power. 9.) Though not "taxing" income, they are able to scrutinize income for    proving sales, being considered a "business" and to a persons eligibility or ineligibility  for Prebates; 10.) Brings SALES and INCOME under their AUDITING POWERS. 11.) Offers Prebates 12.) Increases Tax Revenues by a set percentage arbitrary tax without consensual determination as to need first. Thereby increasing government income with the increase of the economy with no oversight. 13.) Empowers government by granting a unrestrained flow of income. 14.) Will increase Federal and State government regulatory invasiveness.   The 8% Solution Tax 1.) A jealousy tax; that uses the terms "fairness" and "cheating" to sell their plan often used to sell communist and socialist government programs. 2.) Fails to mention "Consent", "privacy of papers and effects, Limited delegated powers, or any plans to reduce undelegated federal bureaucracies aside from the IRS and Compliance costs; 3.) Replaces these with a even greater invasive tax with a new federal oversight bureaucracy. To stop "so called"  cheaters; Retains all other bureaucracies. 4.) Uses the "excuse" of the tax to lower taxation, then proclaims it will "increase revenue" to the government. 5.) Combines many taxes into one tax. 6.) Allows the federal government the power of determining what is or what is not "a business". 7.) Opens the door to federal oversight and taxation to Internet sales; Including home Internet sales, yard sales; All home based buying, selling or trading will open to federal and state scrutiny. 8.) This Tax  will bring whatever you BUY, SELL or TRADE under federal and state scrutiny and power. 9.) Though not "taxing" income, they are able to scrutinize income for    proving sales, being considered a "business" and to a persons eligibility or ineligibility  for Prebates; 10.) Brings SALES and INCOME under their AUDITING POWERS. 11.) Offers Prebates 12.) Increases Tax Revenues by a set percentage arbitrary tax without consensual determination as to need first. Thereby increasing government income with the increase of the economy with no oversight. 13.) Empowers government by granting a unrestrained flow of income. 14.) Will increase Federal and State government regulatory invasiveness.

 

From the Fair Tax Web Site, Their own Summary:


"What is the Fair Tax plan?

The Fair Tax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax,

APP: This is an Undelegated, Arbitrary,  Set Percentage, indirect Tax, that increases money to government without limitation. It is a Unconstitutional Undelegated power.


a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

APP: A Regulatory Bureaucratic Nightmare as to who will be considered "eligible".

"The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 296) is nonpartisan legislation.

It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax  administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities."

APP: Simply combining taxes does not get rid of the problem of undeligated taxation and dependent bureaucracies.

"The Fair Tax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a "fair", efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

APP: This presents a false impression as "Choice" does not take into consideration those items that "must" be bought. The federal government will be a share holder in the "Company Store" of the entire United States.

APP: Fairness is a Jealousy ploy; read the APP review on the 8% tax at left which attempts to sell that tax with the term "Fairness"; The answers apply to the Fair Tax.

"The FairTax:

    * Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
    * Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
    * Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
    * Allows American products to compete fairly
    * Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
    * Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
    * Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
    * Abolishes the IRS"  (APP: But creates a NEW even MORE INVASIVE SALES TAX and OVERSIGHT DEPARTMENT IN IT'S PLACE! A DEPARTMENT THAT WILL CONTROL YOUR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT! and define what is and is not a business - a invitation to government into your own house, business and papers)



APP: "Fairness" equals socialism, as it has nothing to do with consensual taxation which is of Freedom.

A "Fairness" determined by who, government?!!

This tax only transfers the form of taxation, it does not remove the undelegated federal dependent bureaucracies, nor does it remove the amount collected.

>>>In fact, the creators of this bill state that tax revenues will INCREASE!!!

That is because it is a UNENUMERATED FLAT TAX THAT WILL INCREASE MONEY TO THE GOVERNMENT WITHOUT OVERSIGHT, AS THE MONEY TO PRIVATE INDUSTRY INCREASES!!!

And then what, government is going to give back the excess?!!

OR will it increase the size of the dependent bureaucracy as it does now, to spend it on!!!

Which history proves the case.

A unenumerated tax is NOT authorized by the constitution;

DANGER!

 THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL DECIDE WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT A BUSINESS!!!:

Further, Every one and every thing will be considered "a business" subject ultimately to federal scrutiny; and would also turn any business, Buying, Selling or Trading as possible tax evasion and into a federal crime, as the federal government will be a party to the agreement.

See the "A" Anonymity Tax that show the regulatory cost of  tax evasion and criminal prosecution and detention which will increase under this tax plan as government squeezes more control to pay for it's increasing dependency and bureaucracy

They will have the power to enter your home to "determine if you are selling anything".

Internet Sales will be subject to federal review to "determine the threshold or evasion"..

This is Very dangerous.

Oregon has no sales tax and we like it that way!

Keep the government OUT OF YOUR BUSINESS!



Read Thomas Jefferson - Kentucky Resolution #2: Prohibiting the federal government from prosecuting ANY other crime "WHATSOEVER" than those delegated to it.

Don't let them control your states to do their unconstitutional bidding.

**************

And the Warning from Patrick Henry, 
Virginia Ratifying Convention, 6-16-09:

 

"The officers of Congress may come upon you now, fortified with all the terrors of

"paramount FEDERAL authority".

Excisemen may come in multitudes; for the limitation of their numbers no man knows.

They may, unless the general government be restrained by a bill of rights, or some similar restriction, go into your cellars and rooms, and search, ransack, and {449} measure, every thing you eat, drink, and wear.

They ought to be restrained Within proper bounds.

With respect to the freedom of the press, I need say nothing; for it is hoped that the gentlemen who shall compose Congress will take care to infringe as "little as possible" the rights of human nature. This will result from their ""integrity".

They should, from prudence, abstain from violating the rights of their constituents. They are not, however, "expressly" restrained.  But whether they will intermeddle with that palladium of our liberties or not,

 I leave you to determine."