HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Can we toss around the id...

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:26 PM

Can we toss around the idea that Congress has broken its oath by not collecting the people's revenue

as that is their primary job? And, given the results of this dereliction of duty, why wouldn't this negligence be considered treasonous against the interest of the American people? And also, given that borrowing money with interest is not in the best interest when revenue can be collected by liens against property and cash, wouldn't it be prudent to discern if the members who brought this action to create debt instead of collect revenue, aren't actually shareholders of the Federal Reserve Board, collecting 6% income on our debt? Is anyone paying attention to these particular details? And can we not make a case and prosecute? And isn't death a likely sentence of treasonous acts against the best interest of the public? Where am I going wrong in this logic, if at all?

21 replies, 3884 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Can we toss around the idea that Congress has broken its oath by not collecting the people's revenue (Original post)
earcandle Jan 2012 OP
earcandle Jan 2012 #1
frazzled Jan 2012 #2
earcandle Jan 2012 #3
sofa king Jan 2012 #7
earcandle Jan 2012 #8
earcandle Jan 2012 #4
earcandle Jan 2012 #5
onenote Jan 2012 #6
earcandle Jan 2012 #9
onenote Jan 2012 #18
earcandle Jan 2012 #10
onenote Jan 2012 #12
earcandle Jan 2012 #13
earcandle Jan 2012 #14
onenote Jan 2012 #19
earcandle Jan 2012 #11
earcandle Jan 2012 #15
onenote Jan 2012 #20
earcandle Jan 2012 #21
earcandle Jan 2012 #16
earcandle Jan 2012 #17

Response to earcandle (Original post)

Sat Jan 14, 2012, 10:55 PM

1. don't be shy.. be American.. use those free speech skills... communicate while you still can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earcandle (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 12:24 AM

2. Here's their oath

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.


It doesn't say anything about collecting revenues, much less that this is their primary duty. So no, I don't think you have a legal case there for abrogation of duty. Plus, they all have a different view of how much revenue needs to be collected (vs. how much is spent): that's the argument we've been living with for the last 35 years, at least.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 01:54 AM

3. Of course collecting revenue is their primary duty, or there is no government funded and staffed

in which to discharge all of the duties of the office, faithfully. They are the collectors of our money. Do you have a list of their duties? To bear true faith is to acknowledge the law,and within that law lives a tax code that gives them the power to levy and place liens. That is a powerful law only Congress has. Congress is to collect and protect the purse... "to levy compulsory tax without favor". That quote comes right out of my Maxmillian Press Government Accounting textbook that I paid big bucks for at University.

This is not a political decision, the job is to collect our money. This is a main requirement of the job of a Congressional officer, and don't believe any rhetoric for a minute to the contrary. This is the rule of law that we teach our MBA students in accounting to expect because this is how we carry out the people's business.

Those in Congress who think that arguing about the nature of favors is the job, or using debt instruments to run our government in place of revenue collection, these folks are actually derelict in their duties, period. There are no kings in a Democracy. This is a Democracy. I dare anyone to say this is not a Democracy, and if not, why not?

When did we lose it, or when did we get duped into paying taxes for it? And that is why no one wants to pay taxes? What is the scoop? Why are people letting this happen here? We have extractors, and detractors. Why? Is this about labor rights and wages going down? This is the likes of the Ron Paul and the Romney crowd... Unions hold legal wages intact for the public record.


You say:

"It doesn't say anything about collecting revenues, much less that this is their primary duty. So no, I don't think you have a legal case there for abrogation of duty. Plus, they all have a different view of how much revenue needs to be collected (vs. how much is spent): that's the argument we've been living with for the last 35 years, at least."

I say:

It wasn't long ago that everyone said "There are only two things you HAVE to do in this country, and that is die and pay taxes" Remember that? When did that change? I say, the missing of this task is treasonous. Just look at the affects this negligence and fraud is having on our well being as a nation.

Part of this distortion has been the work of Murdoch News Corp.. No Fairness Doctrine, no money to tell the people the truth alongside the ridiculous lies. Sucks.. grab it back. Make them pay for treason and get people in there who will do their job and levy compulsory tax without favor according to the rule of law. OUR LAW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earcandle (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:48 AM

7. In a theoretical sense many would agree with you.

There is an entire school of thought--endorsed by Jared Diamond, among others--that all governments are kleptocracies; that they all have as their primary mission the removal of wealth from parts of the population and its redistribution elsewhere (usually in the direction of the people with the weapons and those who control them).

But in the particulars, governments can and have limited their ability to collect revenue--see the Articles of Confederation, for example. They also face mathematical and sociological limits on how much they can collect and for how long they can get away with it.

The underlying objective of a government is so ruthless and unfair that it is rarely, if ever, explicitly codified in governing documents or stated principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sofa king (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 07:58 PM

8. This isn't about removing anyone's wealth. It is an agreement to pool resources to build a great

country. This is not about theft, this is about sharing responsibilities.

This also isn't about the Articles of Confederation, they are outdated and belong to a less centralized form of government. This gave state total automony. We are not going backwards... sorry. You can't have your way. We evolved already.

In our constitution taxes are established by a tax code, and everyone has to pay their fair share and it is the job of congress to make sure they do so. That is why they have the most powerful of intrusive laws, to invade a persons bank and put liens on property and cash to make them pay.


Furthermore it is not the underlying objective of government to be ruthless and unfair, and all of its rules and regulations have been codified. They have been understaffed and underfunded by people with your point of view, and I am stating that this is criminal and treasonous to just advance our rules into a backward state, and try to drown our government in the bathtub.

Congress members have been derelict in this duty and they should have their own banks be invaded for the losses to revenue as long as their names have appeared on bills, or correspondence that indicts them for heading us in this direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 01:58 AM

4. Every business, government, non profit, education institution raises revenue to operate.

Grants, Programs and Taxes, or Fees, Penalties, and Assessments and Fines.
We either all share the cost regularly as a matter of management or we are
at the affect of fraud and treason because we know how to make it work.
Politics doesn't get to play with tearing it apart, that is treasonous as well.
Parties don't get to choose whether they want to pay or play or pay to play either.
That is bribery and a crime in our law books. Who is in charge? We are not
honoring our constitution or rule of law. The kids want it back Give it back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earcandle (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 03:02 AM

5. This fight is important. I don't mean to offend. Debate is good. Conversation is better, I think.

I don't know the answers, but I know what worked before.
Any one remember?
Can we stop and reminisce for a moment?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earcandle (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:01 AM

6. among the many many flaws in your logic is your complete misunderstanding of treason

under the United States Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 08:00 PM

9. Please, if you are pointing out flaws in my logic, lets have some back up.

Last edited Sun Jan 15, 2012, 08:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earcandle (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 11:02 PM

18. To start with, you should look at the definition of treason in the US Constitution

which i've quoted in full in a separate post. Another problem with your theory that collecting revenues is Congress' "primary job" is that there is nothing in the Constitution that comes close to singling out the collection of revenues through taxes as the "primary" job of Congress. The Constitution enumerates a list of powers conferred on legislative branch. Powers, not duties. The founding fathers left it to the members of Congress to decide, in the exercise of the democratic process, whether and how to exercise those powers. And, by the way, the power to "Borrow money on the credit of the United States" is an enumerated power that stands on an equal footing with the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. You may not realize that when the Constitution was written, income taxes weren't permitted. It took an amendment to the constitution to create that power. And, one other thing, deficits are not unusual in US history. Indeed, since 1930, the US has run a deficit far far more often than its run a surplus. Does that mean that those who supported deficit spending are "traitors" and that those who supported a balanced budget should have sought prosecutions against those who opposed that approach?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 08:57 PM

10. Treason fits quite well with my meaning...

[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason|

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife. Treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petty treason. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, team, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor.

At times, the term "traitor" has been levelled as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to be traitors. Likewise the term "traitor" is used in heated political discussion – typically as a slur against political dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as failing to act in the best interest of their constituents. In certain cases, as with the German Dolchstoßlegende, the accusation of treason towards a large group of people can be a unifying political message.

In English law, high treason was punishable by being hanged, drawn and quartered (men) or burnt at the stake (women), or beheading (royalty and nobility). Treason was the only crime which attracted those penalties (until they were abolished in 1814, 1790 and 1973 respectively).[1] The penalty was used by later monarchs against people who could reasonably be called traitors, although most modern jurists would call it excessive. Many of them would now just be considered dissidents...." more at link.

But, as you can see, if we are going backwards to days where treason is a fact, then we must again revisit the penalties for such backward behavior. Decimating our treasure, through the denial of an oath to collect our revenue and pay for our goods and services, is an act of treason. The devastating effects will soon cause mass genocide, which is injurious and criminal. Putting 42 million people on unemployment, and threatening to dump them is criminal and negligent, when the collection of the people's revenue would, could and should restore order and save the republic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earcandle (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 09:51 PM

12. All fascinating. But you forgot the one source that matters in the US

The United States Constitution, which intentionally defined treason much more narrowly than it had been understood in the old world. Specifically, Article Three, Section 3 of the Constitution defines treason as follows:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

The word "only" is in there for a reason. The founding fathers were aware of how treason had been used to suppress dissent and they had a different vision in mind for the United States, a vision of a country in which the proper course for the country would be determined through the rough and tumble of political debate, and where the advocacy of different visions would not be suppressed by the threat of "treason."

Sorry, you (and I, and others here) may not like the decisions elected officials make, but they've never been thought of as treason and your suggesting they has no basis in constitutional law or history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:18 PM

13. Thank you for this information...

So by supporting foreign lands with our treasure, and not supporting America, are our Congress being treasonous? If our enemies want our economy to collapse, and our congress enables that to happen, is that treason? Are we not giving "Aid and Comfort" to those countries we claim harbor our enemies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earcandle (Reply #13)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:19 PM

14. And if only Congress is charged with declaration of treason, and they are treasonous, who steps in?

when they are the source of guilt? Are there checks on their powers in this respect?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earcandle (Reply #13)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 11:02 PM

19. Short answer to all of your questions: no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earcandle (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 08:59 PM

11. Can we have some input from the left here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earcandle (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:43 PM

15. But what about this other issue? Anyone see if Congress critters are shareholders of the FRB?

"And also, given that borrowing money with interest is not in the best interest when revenue can be collected by liens against property and cash, wouldn't it be prudent to discern if the members who brought this action to create debt instead of collect revenue, aren't actually shareholders of the Federal Reserve Board, collecting 6% income on our debt? Is anyone paying attention to these particular details? "

Anyone have information about this item? Are any congressmembers shareholders of The Federal Reserve Bank, which I just heard Greensleeeeeevvevesssessesesses say is above the law, has no concerns of any other authority above themselves... ah hem. the arrogance of deceit.. . huh? HUH?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earcandle (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 11:15 PM

20. The "shareholders" of the Fed are other banks,not individuals

By law, all national banks are required to subscribe to stock of one of the 12 district banks and the amount of stock in the Fed that a member bank is required to hold is set by law and the Board of Governors; shares are not transferable by sale or even by gift. Individual citizens, non-banking corporations, or others can't own the stock.

Could a member of Congress own shares in a bank that itself owns stock in the Fed? Sure. So could you or me or anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 11:39 PM

21. Thank you... I am learning a lot. So essentially we have no control over the dismantling of our

treasury by bankers or owners of bankers, or shareholders of banks owned by the bankers who control our treasure.

Is this method of operation working for us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earcandle (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:51 PM

16. Hey All my comrades in the turning of the words .. can we just discuss instead of debate? teach me

I want to learn.. we all want to learn, and DU is made up of folks who are so resourceful.

thanks for answering the questions directly.. how about some conversation?

hope my young friends on twitter are following this conversation
and would join in.. hope is also hopeless. .. it relies on things outside itself.

faith is a better turn of the word... faith generates intention and expectation
imnsho... i am an independent in spirit and follow my own sense-mind-body patterning,
how about you?

listening to "Stop The Violence" by Boogie Down Productions
great set of lyrics and noise-hop....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earcandle (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 15, 2012, 10:53 PM

17. Does anyone hold the Congressional Body, as a whole, responsible for the state of the economy?

The have control over the purse and all that occurs within it and without it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread