DOI

 Declaration of Independence


When in the Course of live chat debate it becomes necessary for one clan to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the OPS, the separate and equal channel to which the Laws of IRC and of IRC OPS entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of chatterdom requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all chatters are created ban free, that they are endowed by the IRC OPS with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Access, bandwidth and the pursuit of unfettered rants.

That to secure these rights, Channel Operators are instituted among chatters of all stripes, deriving their just powers from the consent of the client IP.

That whenever any Form of Channel Ops become destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the Blabbing Ilk to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new OPS rules, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their construction style and rhetoric.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Channel OPS long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn the chatting class are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, corruption and penetrations of socialists, brigands, skirt chasers and ne’rdowells, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Channel OPS, and to provide new OPS for their future enjoyment.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Nicknames; and such is now the necessity, which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Channel Regulation. The history of the present Supreme Authority of #Politics is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these yapping types.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid Undernet.

They have refused their Assent to rants and catcalls, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good and topic flow.

They have forbidden their Channel OPS to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till their Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

They have refused to pass other rules for the accommodation of large districts of chatters, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the plush ops lounge, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

They have called together secret political meetings at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Scroll, for the sole purpose of fatiguing victims into compliance with their measures, suffering certain kick/bans and severe taunts for non compliance.

They have dissolved Pleasant and vigorous Conversations repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness their invasions on the rights and interests of the chatters.

They have refused for many clock ticks, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the OP Powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the chatters at large for their exercise; the Channel remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and abuse within.

They have endeavoured to prevent the yapping of this channel with caprice and nonchalance; for that purpose impeding chat; refusing to acknowledge others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of rhetoric.

They have endeavoured to disrupt scroll with provocations at once unseemly, raucous, saucy and snippy, to the dismay of the common weal.

They have excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and have endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Porn bots and Slummy attacks, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, races and shoe size.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury and salacious lies. A Prince or Princess, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free dialogue. Even on Dalnet.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our #Politics brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their OPS Cadre to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.

We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. To disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and text flow. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.

We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the founding members of #AmericaPolitics, in mutual agreement, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of IRC for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good chatters of this channel, solemnly publish and declare,

That these assembled chatters are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent entities owing to none, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the #Politics Crowd, and that all political and URL connection between them and the #Politics, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent Chatters, they have full Power to chat unimpeded, pick fights, grabass, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent Chatters may of right do. - And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of C-Service, we mutually pledge to each other our Time, our Typing and our Sacred Spew.



A musing Glitch


The latest in constitutional clarity from the Northern Sage

Volume 1, Issue 1

The General Welfare Clause

The commonly referred “General Welfare Clause” is often a controversial issue.  There are two opposing views that have been debated since the founding of the nation.  Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to Congress.  Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

The government, in United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1 (1936), conceded that the phrase 'to provide for the general welfare' qualifies the power 'to lay and collect taxes.' The view that the clause grants power to provide for the general welfare, independently of the taxing power, has never been authoritatively accepted.

The Supreme Court has acknowledged that it is accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, taking Madison's point of view.  Therefore, those powers not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states or to the people.  In other words, powers not granted to Congress are prohibited. For example, there are no constitutional powers granted to Congress to regulate health care insurance, therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden.

It is an established principle that the attainment of a prohibited end may not be accomplished under the pretext of the exertion of powers which are granted.  To state it another way, Congress may not use a legitimate constitutionally-granted power, such as taxation, to achieve an act that is specifically prohibited by that same document.  “Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the states.” Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 199.

In closing, Thomas Jefferson had this opinion on the National Bank in 1791 (ME 3:148):

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

|Glitch|

Y




 
Make a Free Website with Yola.