Dale Eastman Well, under the "Voting Examined" and Voting for Cake" categories the claim is that the "voter" is "being controlled by the majority" and nothing could be further from the truth. There is no "control"...the losing side simply lost the vote....so eat your chocolate cake or don't. You don't have a "right" to be pleased. The party planner should have planned better selections. But, this of course is IN NO WAY SIMILAR to the way the US Congress works per the Constitution.
Regarding the "Voting for a Representative" section, which is where it mis-understands the Constitution, the claim is made that "the pro-Lilac voters will not have any representation in Congress."
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. The elected representative has the DUTY to represent ALL their constituents, regardless of party affiliation, and regardless of whether they voted or not.
Regarding "The majority controls who is going to allegedly represent the minority." The word "allegedly" should be left out...because it is not needed. Maybe the representative will "allegedly" FAIL to represent ALL his constituents...in which he should be VOTED OUT by those constituents the next election cycle...that's how that is resolved. Failing Representatives should be removed.
Or, if the offense is grievous enough...his constituency can work to secure his removal by an expulsion vote by 2/3 of the House of Representatives.
And the rest of this...everything after "Continuing the examination of voting for a Representative:" is just drivel. In the context of the US Constitution and a US Representative, nothing in this section is relatable and nothing applies.
The Congress IS the Legislative branch...and they have the authority to make laws, "malum prohibitum", or otherwise. This authority rests in the government instituted by Constitution of the United States, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence: "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...." If you disagree...continue reading in the document to find what steps you can take.
Trying to simplify the operation of the Legislature to a simple "principle-agent" relationship is juvenile...such as the idea of Legislators being "immediately terminated for failing to protect any voter's interests." Really? THIS represents a rational persons expectations of their Representative? Only the irrational voter who cannot understand compromise (the juvenile thinking citizen) would believe this.
I'll stop there...Thank you for the discussion.
[T]he claim is that the "voter" is "being controlled by the majority". Yes, that is the claim.
You stated: “The Congress IS the Legislative branch...and they have the authority to make laws, "malum prohibitum", or otherwise.” I'm glad you brought up “LAW”. Is not law a command.
Title 26 USC §7203 states:
Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
This law is quite clear. If you don't do what they say, they will hurt you. The ruling class has spoken.
Also, by your logic, voters have voted for this.
You stated: "The elected representative has the DUTY to represent ALL their constituents, regardless of party affiliation, and regardless of whether they voted or not."
I have no party affiliation. That's an error of assumption on your part.
I also don't want to see troops sent to foreign wars, The REPRESENTATIVES don't care what or others want in this regard. What right does any politician have to order me to kill anybody?
"[D]eriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
I DEMAND to know where the certified copies of my alleged consent,
with my signature on the consent form is being stored.
I DEMAND to know where the certified copies of the terms
I allegedly agreed to are being stored.
I DEMAND proof of this alleged consent
to be governed, ruled, or owned
be presented IMMEDIATELY.
Failure to do so immediately is government's testimony,
and my evidence, that this alleged consent does not exist.
Now what?
