"As to the 24th Amendment, every voter should have skin in the game. Regardless whether a poll tax should be prohibited, property ownership or proof of tax payments should be required. Anyone using a plebiscite to pick other people’s pockets should bring something to the party that he’d prefer not be pilfered."
I could not agree more. This bit resonated with me than all the other brilliant points you made. Thank you.
Sad assessment of a venerable document that is frequently invoked by name but followed by exception.
Re: Voting. To get people to the polling booths, I have long suggested that the vote occur on one day; all who appear -- foreign visitors, children -- can vote; and the event made festive, cheery, welcoming.
And men and women in uniform of any organization composed of First Responders can vote twice
However, for one's single vote to be recorded, a final step will be to produce evidence that a tax payment had been rendered to whichever government -- Federal, state or local -- is hosting the election.
Briefly, if a voter cannot produce proof of having helped pay, however modestly, for the services of the government hosting the election, then they can only enjoy the music and the light snacks
I'm also keen on allowing high-taxpaying living individuals to be granted an extra vote for every $250K tax they remit to the Feds; $100K to the state and $50K to local governments.
The CONstitution was a coup-d'etat. The country was established as a confederation, as codified in the first and real constitution, The Articles of Confederation. The CONstitution was and is illegitimate, as it was adopted in secret by traitors against explicit instructions from those who believed that the CONstitutional Convention's attendees were representatives of these united States. As it turned out, they represented the crown, Eurobankster cartel, Masons and other secret societies, and not the citizens of the new country. This is not opinion, but established historical fact:
To argue for either CONstitutional reform, or a return to adherence to its earliest iteration, is a falsely-framed argument, akin to the pointless exercise of rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. Even if the illegitimate document had been legitimate, then:
“And yet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract—the Constitution—made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind us, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions that are to come; but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons, compared with the whole number that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see.” ― Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2095916-no-treason-the-constitution-of-no-authority “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” ~ Ibid
Within a context of accepting the basic, starter-kit iteration of the false document as legitimate, here's Judge Andrew Napolitano discussing its continual erosion and vitiation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sNWbiAMf80
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” ― Frederic Bastiat, The Law https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/89275.Fr_d_ric_Bastiat “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” ~ Ibid
"As to the 24th Amendment, every voter should have skin in the game. Regardless whether a poll tax should be prohibited, property ownership or proof of tax payments should be required. Anyone using a plebiscite to pick other people’s pockets should bring something to the party that he’d prefer not be pilfered."
I could not agree more. This bit resonated with me than all the other brilliant points you made. Thank you.
Sad assessment of a venerable document that is frequently invoked by name but followed by exception.
Re: Voting. To get people to the polling booths, I have long suggested that the vote occur on one day; all who appear -- foreign visitors, children -- can vote; and the event made festive, cheery, welcoming.
And men and women in uniform of any organization composed of First Responders can vote twice
However, for one's single vote to be recorded, a final step will be to produce evidence that a tax payment had been rendered to whichever government -- Federal, state or local -- is hosting the election.
Briefly, if a voter cannot produce proof of having helped pay, however modestly, for the services of the government hosting the election, then they can only enjoy the music and the light snacks
I'm also keen on allowing high-taxpaying living individuals to be granted an extra vote for every $250K tax they remit to the Feds; $100K to the state and $50K to local governments.
Thanks for tour today's post depicting the status quo.
One former political big-wig said: "... IF you can keep it ..."
Current populace can't and the entire mess is beyond repair.
Good luck !!!
The CONstitution was a coup-d'etat. The country was established as a confederation, as codified in the first and real constitution, The Articles of Confederation. The CONstitution was and is illegitimate, as it was adopted in secret by traitors against explicit instructions from those who believed that the CONstitutional Convention's attendees were representatives of these united States. As it turned out, they represented the crown, Eurobankster cartel, Masons and other secret societies, and not the citizens of the new country. This is not opinion, but established historical fact:
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/18135874-conspiracy-in-philadelphia
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/08/gary-north/conspiracy-in-philadelphia/
https://www.garynorth.com/philadelphia.pdf
To argue for either CONstitutional reform, or a return to adherence to its earliest iteration, is a falsely-framed argument, akin to the pointless exercise of rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. Even if the illegitimate document had been legitimate, then:
“And yet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract—the Constitution—made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind us, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions that are to come; but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons, compared with the whole number that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see.” ― Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2095916-no-treason-the-constitution-of-no-authority “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” ~ Ibid
Within a context of accepting the basic, starter-kit iteration of the false document as legitimate, here's Judge Andrew Napolitano discussing its continual erosion and vitiation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sNWbiAMf80
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” ― Frederic Bastiat, The Law https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/89275.Fr_d_ric_Bastiat “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” ~ Ibid