[jdl1962]

Excellent

[jdl1962]

Sounds great but what do we do with the Information??

[jdl1962]

Sonik Speed wrote on Oct 2 2005, 07:19 PM:

Personally, I choose to go at it a different way. What is the other way? The First Amendment. We, as citizens have a right to petition for grievances we might have and more importantly we have a right to associate with whomever we please. If we do not wish to associate with government, then we need not.

Congress has a right to create a Social Security scheme within the realm of the the “general welfare” clause. However, the question is: If Congress legislated a “general welfare” scheme for citizens of this country and called it Social Security, then do they have a right to ENFORCE that scheme? It is fair to say it has NO RIGHT to enforce, because the Constitution does not contradict itself. If there is a power to CREATE a scheme under the “general welfare”, then it cannot abridgate your right to association under the First Amendment. As an example of what I am try to explain, we can point to the supreme Court case in Brushaber vs Union Pacific Railroad [240 US 1],. The following paragraph shows that the Constitution cannot contradict itself:

Quote:

But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned… This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.

If the Constitution wanted to DELETE the association clause under the First Amendment, all it needed to do is SAY SO in the Constitution. [See 18th Amendment and the 21st Amendment] Based on these readings and my analysis in the study of the reasonings, writing letters of 'resignations' are futile, because it sort of gives the sense that you already accepted it voluntarily and now you no longer wish to accept it. The word 'resignation' as used in Black's 7th Edition is defined as follows:

Quote:

“The act or an instance of surrendering or relinquishing an office, right or claim.”

Humbly I say that I can be off on my reasoning and I welcome criticism – however, based on this definition it seems as though people give the impression that they ONCE accepted it and now they no longer wish to participate in a system, which ultimately results in one to “resignate” the scheme. Instead of going through the “resignation letter” tactic, I am of opinion that the questions we need to be posing to our politicans and the boys and girls at the Social Security Administration are the following questions:

a ) Is the partication within the Social Security System [NOTICE HOW I DID NOT SAY THE TAX] – mandatory or voluntary? Paying Social Security Tax is the effect. Participation is the cause. The effect is incomplete without the cause. Therefore, without participating, there can be no tax.

b ) If mandatory – where does it say in Social Security Act that compels me to participate?

The Social Security System is perfectly constitutional. It is however unconstitutional to recite the phrase: Social Security TAX. See United States vs Butler [290 US 1]. Finally, perhaps one of the most FASCINATING opinions EVER to be written on this “retirement scheme” subject is the 1935 case in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co. [295 U.S. 330]

Quote:

The catalog of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance, nursing, clothing, food, housing, and education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety by proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefor remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power.“

The commerce clause and the general welfare clauses are the powers that are relevent to the topic of a social programs with respect to effecting the several states. It appears the supreme Court said: You boys have no power under the commerce clause, because the statements above clearly states that it is NOT within the power of Congress to regulate or to legislate for free medical attendance, nursing, clothing, food, housing, and education of children, and a hundred other social matters, under the commerce clause.. As far as the latter power, the supreme Court was suspiciously silent on the issue [See Helvering vs Davis], as they have said in the opinion that they “leave the question open” .

Complex subject – complex post. Criticism is always welcomed!

Sonik Speed

[post=”1825″][/post]

I do not think I am alone when I say ” I was compelled by my parents to get the “card” at age fourteen so I could get a job”. Only did I discover years later I probably could have refused, but at age fourteen whats a fellow to do? Now I know it is voluntary and I want out so for me this is the only way I have ever found. The SSA will only tell you, you cannot get out that it is the law that you must have the number and pay. Anyway October 14th is the deadline, I anxiously await their respone or lack of.

JDL

[jdl1962]

Sonik Speed wrote on Oct 2 2005, 07:19 PM:

Personally, I choose to go at it a different way. What is the other way? The First Amendment. We, as citizens have a right to petition for grievances we might have and more importantly we have a right to associate with whomever we please. If we do not wish to associate with government, then we need not.

Congress has a right to create a Social Security scheme within the realm of the the “general welfare” clause. However, the question is: If Congress legislated a “general welfare” scheme for citizens of this country and called it Social Security, then do they have a right to ENFORCE that scheme? It is fair to say it has NO RIGHT to enforce, because the Constitution does not contradict itself. If there is a power to CREATE a scheme under the “general welfare”, then it cannot abridgate your right to association under the First Amendment. As an example of what I am try to explain, we can point to the supreme Court case in Brushaber vs Union Pacific Railroad [240 US 1],. The following paragraph shows that the Constitution cannot contradict itself:

Quote:

But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned… This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.

If the Constitution wanted to DELETE the association clause under the First Amendment, all it needed to do is SAY SO in the Constitution. [See 18th Amendment and the 21st Amendment] Based on these readings and my analysis in the study of the reasonings, writing letters of 'resignations' are futile, because it sort of gives the sense that you already accepted it voluntarily and now you no longer wish to accept it. The word 'resignation' as used in Black's 7th Edition is defined as follows:

Quote:

“The act or an instance of surrendering or relinquishing an office, right or claim.”

Humbly I say that I can be off on my reasoning and I welcome criticism – however, based on this definition it seems as though people give the impression that they ONCE accepted it and now they no longer wish to participate in a system, which ultimately results in one to “resignate” the scheme. Instead of going through the “resignation letter” tactic, I am of opinion that the questions we need to be posing to our politicans and the boys and girls at the Social Security Administration are the following questions:

a ) Is the partication within the Social Security System [NOTICE HOW I DID NOT SAY THE TAX] – mandatory or voluntary? Paying Social Security Tax is the effect. Participation is the cause. The effect is incomplete without the cause. Therefore, without participating, there can be no tax.

b ) If mandatory – where does it say in Social Security Act that compels me to participate?

The Social Security System is perfectly constitutional. It is however unconstitutional to recite the phrase: Social Security TAX. See United States vs Butler [290 US 1]. Finally, perhaps one of the most FASCINATING opinions EVER to be written on this “retirement scheme” subject is the 1935 case in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co. [295 U.S. 330]

Quote:

The catalog of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance, nursing, clothing, food, housing, and education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety by proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? Is it not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefor remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power.“

The commerce clause and the general welfare clauses are the powers that are relevent to the topic of a social programs with respect to effecting the several states. It appears the supreme Court said: You boys have no power under the commerce clause, because the statements above clearly states that it is NOT within the power of Congress to regulate or to legislate for free medical attendance, nursing, clothing, food, housing, and education of children, and a hundred other social matters, under the commerce clause.. As far as the latter power, the supreme Court was suspiciously silent on the issue [See Helvering vs Davis], as they have said in the opinion that they “leave the question open” .

Complex subject – complex post. Criticism is always welcomed!

Sonik Speed

[post=”1825″][/post]