Giving teeth to the State Sovereignty movement

[USAF Vet Dan]

The movement to pass State Sovereignty Resolutions is a great first step in turning the tide. However, it is important to understand that resolutions carry no force of law... they are merely statements of positions. For example, Oregon House Joint Memorial 17 states,

"Be It Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon:
(1) The Congress of the United States of America is requested to direct the federal government to immediately cease and desist imposing mandates that are beyond the scope of those powers expressly delegated by the Constitution of the United States to the federal government..."​

So what happens when the federal government igores these "requests"?

The State Sovereignty movement needs teeth... a State Sovereignty Act - which does carry the force of law. What material action would be implemented? Read "Giving teeth to the State Sovereignty movement" http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=13445

 

[hillbilly123069]

Martila law and see what the active US ground forces do when they are ordered to disarm us.

 

[USAF Vet Dan]

Well, with Komandant Obama pushing for vets to pay for medical treatment of their service-related injuries, they may just tell him to go stuff it!!! I hope they remember their oath. Remember, Ron Paul got more donations from active duty military than all the other candidates combined!!

 

[Mesogen]

The only way for States to really claim their sovereignty is to circumvent the Federal income tax and FICA.

They can't just nullify it since the power to tax has been delegated to the federal government.

So what they could do is press upon their senators and congressmen to earmark funds to return every single dollar that has been taken from their residents. They need to earmark it for a "welfare project" that would have offices that would determine what each resident paid in federal taxes and return that money to each person. The states seeking "sovereignty" need to team up on this so that there is a coalition in Congress. Maybe there could even be a "Sovereignty Caucus."

Or they can try to get other states involved and press to have the 16th amendment repealed.

Or they can line their border with militia and nullify.

 

[Mesogen]

Well, with Komandant Obama pushing for vets to pay for medical treatment of their service-related injuries, they may just tell him to go stuff it!!! I hope they remember their oath. Remember, Ron Paul got more donations from active duty military than all the other candidates combined!!

I know. I mean that is completely fucked up.

 

[USAF Vet Dan]

The only way for States to really claim their sovereignty is to circumvent the Federal income tax and FICA.

They can't just nullify it since the power to tax has been delegated to the federal government.

The State Sovereignty Act doesn't attempt to nullify it, it merely makes the States an intermediate component of the collection process. It employs the modern-day Golden Rule - "He who has the gold, rules". Please re-read the article.

So what they could do is press upon their senators and congressmen to earmark funds

That would be great if it weren't for the 17th Amendment which stripped the States power / representation. Again, please re-read the article as this is addressed therein.

Thanks for your comment

 

[Mesogen]

The State Sovereignty Act doesn't attempt to nullify it, it merely makes the States an intermediate component of the collection process. It employs the modern-day Golden Rule - "He who has the gold, rules". Please re-read the article.



That would be great if it weren't for the 17th Amendment which stripped the States power / representation. Again, please re-read the article as this is addressed therein.

Thanks for your comment

The states can still press their Senators and Representatives. It doesn't carry as much weight as it used to, but they can still raise hell.

And I'm not saying they should nullify anything. That won't work. The only way that I can see to work in the system is to form a coalition in the Congress and start fighting to redirect money (via earmarks) taken by the IRS back to the people it came from.

The article is thinking about things all wrong.

FTFA:

The Act is simple. Each state creates a federal tax escrow account and makes it illegal for its citizens, corporations, and trusts to pay their federal tax dollars directly to the feds. Instead, state law requires that they pay their federal taxes directly to the state-controlled escrow accounts. What is created is legalized (mandatory) tax protesting. The states then dole the money to the federal government with THEIR restrictions.

This is unconstitutional.

The 16th amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This gives the Congress a direct line to the incomes of the people. The state governments don't matter. They can't legally interfere with Congress's power to collect taxes on incomes without repealing this amendment.

FTFA:

Some assert that the Act would violate the 16th Amendment (the lawful ratification of which is questionable) in that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes..." But therein is no mention of "who" they will collect the taxes from.

But they SHALL have the power collect them. If you interfere with the collection process, as defined by law, then you have violated this amendment.

You need to modify the Internal Revenue Code through Congress to be able to do any of this. If the "State Sovereignty Act" modifies the IRS code then it would be legal. Good luck with that in Congress. It'll never pass.

But at the end of the day, after all this has been fought for (and it was damned near impossible), you are still paying the tax and not getting anything for it.

If the Senators and Representatives can't somehow steer the income tax money back into the pockets of the people, then what's the point?

 

[USAF Vet Dan]

The only way that I can see to work in the system is to form a coalition in the Congress...

Sadly, there is a "coalition in Congress"... but they don't work for We, the People.

This is unconstitutional.

The 16th amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This gives the Congress a direct line to the incomes of the people. The state governments don't matter. They can't legally interfere with Congress's power to collect taxes on incomes without repealing this amendment.

From the article:

Some assert that the Act would violate the 16th Amendment (the lawful ratification of which is questionable) in that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes..." But therein is no mention of "who" they will collect the taxes from. Given that the 10th Amendment grants the States "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States..." the States have the power to direct their People to pay their federal taxes into the state-controlled escrow account from which the feds will "collect taxes on incomes"... only now such collections will be made from the states and only if the feds start to honor the "contract".

If you disagree with this Constitutional argument, then I submit the moral argument. In view of how far the federal government has violated and ignored the Constitution, should we be so concerned about a questionable, comparatively minor Constitutional infraction by the States? Also, the founders of our nation gave us the 2nd Amendment as a means of defense from a despotic government. But they did not enumerate such use in the Constitution. Shouldn't the 10th Amendment be viewed in the same light???
​

If the Senators and Representatives can't somehow steer the income tax money back into the pockets of the people, then what's the point?

The federal government has been taking our tax money and using it to bully the states (i.e., unfunded mandates). Intervention by the states gives them the ability to reverse this power... to use it to force the federal government monster back into its Constitutional cage. The tax dollars are held hostage by the Master (the states) to regain control over its servant (the federal government).

 

[Mesogen]

Sadly, there is a "coalition in Congress"... but they don't work for We, the People.



From the article:

Some assert that the Act would violate the 16th Amendment (the lawful ratification of which is questionable) in that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes..." But therein is no mention of "who" they will collect the taxes from. Given that the 10th Amendment grants the States "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States..." the States have the power to direct their People to pay their federal taxes into the state-controlled escrow account from which the feds will "collect taxes on incomes"... only now such collections will be made from the states and only if the feds start to honor the "contract".

If you disagree with this Constitutional argument, then I submit the moral argument. In view of how far the federal government has violated and ignored the Constitution, should we be so concerned about a questionable, comparatively minor Constitutional infraction by the States? Also, the founders of our nation gave us the 2nd Amendment as a means of defense from a despotic government. But they did not enumerate such use in the Constitution. Shouldn't the 10th Amendment be viewed in the same light???
​

I quoted this.

And said that it's wrong.

 

[USAF Vet Dan]

I quoted this.

And said that it's wrong.

So you think both the Constitutional AND moral arguments are wrong? OK, I respect your opinion but I disagree with it.

What is the alternative to my suggestion? Attempting to "build a coalition" in Congress attempts to convince the People's enemies (their sold-out elected public servants) to magically abandon their allegiance to those who have coerced them to violate their oath of office. How do we accomplish that? ...send them letters? ...phone calls??? I mean no disrespect but THEY DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT US OR WHAT WE WANT!!!

As I said in the article, tough times demand tough solutions. But I don't profess to be the keeper of all the answers. What strategy do you feel would be more effective and completely Constitutionally compliant???

 

[Mesogen]

So you think both the Constitutional AND moral arguments are wrong? OK, I respect your opinion but I disagree with it.

Well, I was really disagreeing with the constitutional argument.

If the states want to violate the constitution to prove a point and attempt to rein in the Federal Govt, then they should just do it. Nullify. Why screw around with some escrow service?

What is the alternative to my suggestion? Attempting to "build a coalition" in Congress attempts to convince the People's enemies (their sold-out elected public servants) to magically abandon their allegiance to those who have coerced them to violate their oath of office. How do we accomplish that? ...send them letters? ...phone calls??? I mean no disrespect but THEY DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT US OR WHAT WE WANT!!!

Passing an Act in Congress requires all of this as well.

My thing doesn't require a coalition, to get money back, but for the rest of the Fed Govt to listen, it would require teamwork.

As I said in the article, tough times demand tough solutions. But I don't profess to be the keeper of all the answers. What strategy do you feel would be more effective and completely Constitutionally compliant???

Like I said, you could convince your congressman to start earmarking money and make those earmarks total the amount that his constituents paid. This is very tough. It's also very tough to get them to vote for or sponsor legislation that would take most of their power away, such as the State Sovereignty Act would do.

It's like asking them to reapportion Congress and admit hundreds of new members. They're not going to go for that.

Look, any idea like this is going to be a pipedream. That doesn't mean that something shouldn't be tried, but we shouldn't expect much from Congress.

 

[USAF Vet Dan]

If the states want to violate the constitution to prove a point and attempt to rein in the Federal Govt, then they should just do it. Nullify. Why screw around with some escrow service?

Success consists of two main ingredients - effectiveness and viability. One doesn't work without the other. While both nullification and seizure of federal tax payments are effective, the former is not viable. If we had a magic wand, we wouldn't have to worry about reasserting state and individual sovereignty... we'd have the Marxists enduring the detriments of their hellish plan and we'd all be enjoying the fruits of freedom and liberty. I think it will be hard enough to get sufficient support to get the states to escrow federal tax payments. IMHO, it will be impossible to get the states to nullify the income tax. "How will they fund government without the IRS?" will be the idiotic wall we'll all hit.

Passing an Act in Congress requires all of this as well.

If I understand you correctly, you have missed the whole point. The Act isn't a federal act, it is a state act.... the states' legislatures would pass it.

Like I said, you could convince your congressman to start earmarking money and make those earmarks total the amount that his constituents paid. This is very tough. It's also very tough to get them to vote for or sponsor legislation that would take most of their power away, such as the State Sovereignty Act would do.

Now I'm sure of it... you have missed the whole point. The State Sovereignty Act is STATE legislation - the STATES asserting THEIR sovereignty by intercepting their people's federal tax payments and holding the money over the FEDS head... a reverse of what the feds do to the states.

Please re-read the article.

 

[USAF Vet Dan]

Mesogen,

I hope I didn't offend you... If for some reason I am confused about the way you perceived the article, my apology.