Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
FR, getting to the original point.
Before getting to that, people who end a post with the word moron are quite challenged. I hope everybody can now see what the fuck I've been sating for years, that last word was counterproductive and showed immaturity. Thing is, the guy made a good point but has now gone down a notch in everyone's eyes and now must earn that part of his credibility back. A word to the wise.
Now, here's what people fail to realize. I'm not going into the debate about income tax except to say if you refuse to pay do not file. The only way to consider it a valid analogy is to consider that the tax return is a cantract as well as an affidavt. If you lie you can be prosecuted, and it is totally Constitutional in that case. People who beat the IRS have one thing in common, they did not file. If you file you agree. You are swearing that the facts you give are true. If you lie, even if you embarrass the court into ruling in your favor against the IRS, you would be rightly guilty of perjury.
You are not required in any way by law to have house insurance. You agree to that in the mortgage agreement, which is also a contract. My house is paid off so I have no impetus to buy house insurance, but I do. I know what a fire costs as of 01/03/95. I couldn't imagine pulling that money out of my pocket. About ¼ of the house burned and the final bill was almost $50,000. I choose to buy house insurance now, but before it was paid off it was required. Not by law, but by contract.
The application for a driver's license and the license itself are both contracts. When you sign on the dotted line you are agreeing to the terms of the contract. The contract boils down to if you want to drive on public roads, the contract that YOU SIGNED has a clause that requires you to have liability insurance or other surety.
When you buy a car on credit or lease it, it is generally security for payment. The loan agreement again, is a contract. They will require you to have full coverage and you are fully within your rights to decline, but then you don't get the car. But once you sign you must stick to your word.
Now for a contract to be legal in this country there must be consideration on both sides. Many, unbeknownst to the amateur originators are unenforcable. A buddy of mine was forced to sign a non-competition clause by a boss with whom he had a great falling out. He said he altered his signature, but I explained to him that this does not work. But then I asked a couple of questions. Did this agreement have a time and geographical limit ? Those to items are reqiured for enforcement at least in this state. But the legal definition of a contract is fairly universal. My other questio was whether or not he recieved any compensation for signing. That employer required it for him to get his final pay. He had earned that and therefore is not compensation. If he had recxieved any sort of unearned severance pay, then it might be valid, but a one sided contract is by legal definition not a contract and therefore is unenforcable. In fact witholding justly earned pay in tyhat manner can be and will be consider to be threat, duress or coersion by just about any court in the land.
That is the difference. Don't sign that you will be financially responsible if you are at fault in a car accident, don't sign,.no driver's license. Don't agree to get full coverage on that new car ? Fine, just pay cash and all you need is liability. Of course you don't even need that if you just park it in a garage somewhere. Don't want house insurance, likewise, all you have to do is pay cash.
Now income tax has been proven by tax protesters to have no consideration for them, and that compnent of such a defense is that there being no closing date that past tax returns can't be used against you. But that is only a small part of the case and the court will not usually make you go through all that, they'll just stipulate or whatever they call it.
When the healthcare mess passes, a similar defense will work. The first thing the idiot prosecutor will do is to claim that the health insurance is a benefit and therefor consideration. That'll take me five seconds flat to get rid of. You can't use the copnsideration of the value of what they are forcing you to buy. It is a different matter if you are getting special price or terms in the agreement, but in the absence of that there is no consideration. Actually there was no contract in the first place.
This has alll been fought out before when it comes to the driver's licenses. The case was so strong that many state courts have had to rule that driving is a priveledge, which was to be expected because to rule otherwise would bring down a good piece of their house of cards. Yes it is unconstitutional, but that's the way it is, that is until someone with the ability, desire and moxie comes along and successfully fights it. At the time I believe the protesters will eventually prevail.
It might be me. I am not buying health insurance and I am not paying the fine. Then they can put me in jail and take care of me. Cool, no more bills, no more pressure. A ltttle bit of money and I should be able to live pretty good except for the beer.
In other words fukum. The threat of incarceration no longer affects me. I don't pay their income taxes either and they know right where I am. Come and get me.
T
|
RE: Is it constitutional? (Forcing us to buy corporate ... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread