|
|
I don't think it will affect me directly in the UK but it might if I do a contract for a US based company. While from a US perspective US law is universal and simply applies everywhere and to everyone by default as it doesn't have, as I understand it, a codified 'limit of jurisdiction'; outside the US the rest of the world doesn't consider US law to matter a jot or effectively to exist at all ontheir territory.
This leads to interesting situations where US companies operating in the UK have to do things here because the US government says they must and will apply the law to them at home if they don't. At the same time potentially the UK government could say they're not allowed to do that here. Now which law do they obey?
In practice as most of both countries laws are cooked up by the same private foundations and international think-tanks anyway so this seldom happens but its an issue for US companies doing business everyewhere else as well.
I've ofen wondered if the simple failure of the founding fathers to mention that US fedaral law only applies within the territorial control of the United States isn't a root cause of a lot of the 'fist fights' the USA ends up in with other governments around the world. Perhaps members more informed about the way things look from the other side of the Atlantic will confirm or deny?
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage."
Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
|
|
|
|
|
Executive orders are unconstitutional and thus against the law. However, as it turns out, the police and courts still enforce them... 
Creating laws is explicitly a power of the legislative (congress) branch.
|
|
|
|
|
Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 and II.3.5 do grant POTUS the ability to pass executive orders. Every POTUS has passed voluminous Executive Orders, and that won't change anytime soon w/o an amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting but then every dollar bill in circulation is also not legal tender and is officially worthless. It hasn't stopped anyone spending them yet. Conversely there is no law requiring the payment of Federal income tax but it doesn't stop the IRS coming after you if you don't pay.
So there's the written law and the effective law and the two are not the same.
The situation is just as bad in the UK where the entire parliament has been in flagrant breach of their own oaths and constitution for years, the monarch has exceeded her constitutional authority which equates to automatic abdication and several Prime Ministers have committed acts of treason for which they could and should recieve the death penalty under the written law. Most of the tens of thousands of new laws passed in the past 25 years here were written by foreign bureaucrats in another country and not read by more than half a dozen people in our parliament before being rubber stamped with no debate. This is of course illegal and unconstitutional as well.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage."
Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Faithfull wrote: Interesting but then every dollar bill in circulation is also not legal tender and is officially worthless. It hasn't stopped anyone spending them yet. Conversely there is no law requiring the payment of Federal income tax but it doesn't stop the IRS coming after you if you don't pay.
Conspiracy nonsense. Which is promoted by scam artists and those with little or no understanding of the actual legal system.
|
|
|
|
|
Conspiracy possibly but the lack of a law requiring the payment of Federal income tax is well attested. Even the head of the IRS can produce no reference to any such law because their isn't one. Any such law would be unconstituional if it existed according to the Supreme Court's own definition of an unapportioned income tax.
In the matter of 'dollars' or more properly Federal Reserve Notes these were adjudged as not being legal tender back in the 1960s, the judge was terminated by poisoning and his judgement ( which for reasons beyond my knowledge could not be appealed any further so there was no opportunity to overturn it ) was classified. It didn't even leak out until 1998. I could dig for all the references and post you a page of links to videos, documentaries, afidavits and the rest but the chances are you would no more believe them than me. I have no more proof than the evidence I have seen which is also available to you and how could I have more. So if you dare to find out and dare to treat the evidence for what it is then go and look for yourself or don't and stay asleep. Either way you make a choice and pay a price.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage."
Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Faithfull wrote: Conspiracy possibly but the lack of a law requiring the payment of Federal income tax is well attested.
By nut jobs who do not understand the legal system.
Matthew Faithfull wrote: Even the head of the IRS can pro ...
Conspiracy nonsense. Substitute Area 51, ghosts, spiritual healing, moon landing and any number of other topics which there is a great deal of 'research' proving a point because it is based on ignorance.
Matthew Faithfull wrote: the judge was terminated by poisoning and his judgement ( which for reasons beyond my knowledge could not be appealed any further so there was no opportunity to overturn it ) was classified.
Absolute and complete nonsense. I suggest that you search for one of the many videos that show actual extraterrestrials (not just UFOs but the living beings) because I am sure you will find those equally compelling.
Matthew Faithfull wrote: I could dig for all the references and post you a page of links to videos, documentaries, afidavits and the rest
Which completely ignores the fact that I have in fact researched this myself in the past. I don't need your links to misguided sites because I spent enough time looking into both sides of the topic to understand it. (Note to mention that I feel that I have a very good grasp of legal niceties for an amateur versus some of the complete nonsense that I found when I looked into it.)
Matthew Faithfull wrote: <layer>you would no more believe them than me.
And I doubt that you will spend any time actually researching and reading the refutation of those "references" that you already have.
Matthew Faithfull wrote: Either way you make a choice and pay a price.
Ignorance is not the price that I will be paying.
|
|
|
|
|
You are welcome to direct me to anything you have found convincing that contradicts what I've posted. If I am as gullible as you seem to think I am then why would I not believe it?
I'm glad you've done a lot a research. There is indeed a lot of nonsense out there and it takes a lot of discernment and effort to sift out what is real.
If you were to assume of course that anything labelled as a conspiracy or anything that you can find a nut-job promoting is automatically not true then it would be very easy but you'd also end up dismissing everything as nonsense up to and including your own existence before very long.
Conflation is another common mistake. It's very easy to assume I'm a nut-job because somewhere there's a nut-job who agrees with something I said ergo I must believe in aliens and further anything I say can therefore be dismissed. This line of reasoning is of course insane even if I did believe in aliens which I don't but its staggering the proportion of people who will fall into it and think they're being clever as they do it.
I'm confident you wont fall into these traps and wish you luck in your search for the truth. He is not far from any one of us.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage."
Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Faithfull wrote: If you were to assume of course that anything labelled as a conspiracy or anything that you can find a nut-job promoting is automatically not true then it would be very easy but you'd also end up dismissing everything as nonsense up to and including your own existence before very long.
Which would be relevant if I didn't already point out that I researched this very topic. But since I did, the comment is nothing but inflammatory.
As to your last point I am well versed in philosophy and thus I not only understand what you are attempting to suggest but also understand how pointless that particular philosophical view is. And it has nothing to do with this specific discussion.
Matthew Faithfull wrote: Conflation is another common mistake. It's very easy to assume I'm a nut-job because somewhere there's a nut-job who agrees with something I said
Except that you are backing your opinion with the suggestion of links by others. And all of your statements have suggested that you are basing your view on what others have said rather than actually researching the topic yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: all of your statements have suggested that you are basing your view on what
others have said rather than actually researching the topic yourself.
I wonder just what kind of research, that doesn't involve time travel, you would suggest which discovers something more pertinent than what 'others have said'. Reading a law dictionary is reading 'what others have said'. Reading a case file or a judgement or an afadavit, a trial transcript or an appendix to the treaty of Versaille is 'reading what others have said', just as is watching YouTube or the Discovery Channel. How much authority you invest in what you read is a matter of judgement. You question mine on the basis that you don't like my conclusions. I don't like my conclusions either but I don't pretend, as so many do, that they are otherwise because life would be easier that way. I have researched many topics over a long period of time and reached my own conclusions just as you have. We've reached different conclusions most likely because we started out with different assumptions and invested different degrees of authority in what we read. Time will tell who was closer to the mark but I can honestly say that my world view is consistent with my experience and with all that I have read. If it offends or angers you that I should have such 'ignorant' views then feel as free to 'correct' them as I do to justify them.
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage."
Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Faithfull wrote: I wonder just what kind of research, that doesn't involve time travel, you would
suggest which discovers something more pertinent than what 'others have said'.
If you want to research the topic, as I have done, then you will need to look to the following
- Read the constitution.
- Read dissenting opinions
- Read Supreme Court decisions
- Read Federal court decision
- Learn how to read legal documents.
- Learn how the legal system works.
That is research.
Matthew Faithfull wrote: ...question mine on the basis that you don't like my conclusions.
Wrong. I already told you that I reached my OWN conclusions on claims like these years ago. After I researched them.
Matthew Faithfull wrote: Time will tell who was closer to the mark
Time has already told that my view is correct. If you research it you will find that any number of people spanning many years have made various claims about why they didn't need to pay taxes based on arguments about legality (versus outright fraud or attempts to circumvent normal income accounting.) All such cases have lost.
Matthew Faithfull wrote: them as I do to justify them.
Feel free to stop paying taxes then.
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't the 16th amendment[^] to the constitution give the federal government the right to impose income tax?
Strange that lots of people will fight to the death to defend the 2nd amendment, but hate the 16th!
It's well known that if all the cat videos and porn disappeared from the internet there would be only one site left and it would be called whereareallthecatvideosandporn.com
|
|
|
|
|
I'm certainly no expert on the legal intricacies but my understanding is that there's a ruling from the 1950's from the Supreme Court that the original ban on an 'unapportioned income tax' stands. The Fed might be able to levy an income tax ( although there's no crime committed by not paying it ) but they would have to give it straight back to every tax payer with everyone getting an equal numerical ammount.
There are a lot of reasons to be less than enthusiastic about the 16th amendment, it's passing was an inquorate stitch up that wouldn't pass the criteria of a valid bill in your average banana republic. Never mind the involvement of Colonel Mandel House which is a long sad tale in itself.
One interesting side note: In the early eighties the Reagan administration passed a paperwork reduction bill with some long worthy sounding title that meant that every federal government form that's to be filled in by citizens must be registered and must meet some criteria of justification. The Federal Income Tax return form 1040? was never registered and the registration number on every form is a forgery, making it a crime every time they print one. 
"The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage."
Thucydides (B.C. 460-400)
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Faithfull wrote: was never registered and the registration number on every form is a forgery, making it a crime every time they print one.
I can only hope that the smiley means that you actually understand that the previous opinion is legal nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
Quite possibly it will have some potential effect on me, since I work for a power company that depends on a US government agency for much of our power. Any breach that impacts the generation or transmission facilities we depend on should trigger some kind of notice to us, though our own systems are pretty bulletproof. For one thing, our SCADA systems are physically and logically separate from the Internet - that's the ultimate security. But our suppliers are all tied into the network, and therefore vulnerable. In a crisis, we have access to alternate sources of electricity that can be manually controlled with minimal effort, so we'll actually fare better than many much larger utilities.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
So, you think you'll meet all of the security mandates to be proposed next year?
My worry is the amount that it will cost for every single infrastructure company to get up to speed and meet the, as of yet, unknown requirements.
I smell a load of moolah to be made in security consulting next year. I'll rewatch the movies Sneakers, Hackers, and The Net and update my resume.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't really see a burden for us, as this order is directed to government agencies who provide services to users. In this situation, we're the users. Besides, there's few regulations that can be enforced against an Indian tribe without a major court battle. I don't see that happening.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
All of the FEDS mandates, contract rates in Washington, D.C. are abysmal from what I see advertised. Really, laughable so I doubt security will really happen on the capital when the work is being performed by the type of contractors that accept the lowest rates in the nation in one of the most expensive cities.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
