#juan
So what ? _our constitution also says something about not paying taxes to the federal government ,how true is that ?
This is the latest article I have found on this subject.
http://www.freedomparty.org/consent/cons24_4.htm
The reason that this is useful to the OP is that the NAU is an issue that already has a process of how it has to be done in order for it be 'in effect'. It tells us that each Legislature has a certain process that has to be followed, with the NAU it brings in the clauses that deal with constitutional matters.
IE, the B.N.A. that was signed in 1867 as a starting point.
Voting by all the people has to be done for some issues. Anything to deal with changes to our constitution has to be taken to a referendum by all the people, that has never changed, nor can it be until there is a vote by all the 'common voters' saying referendums are now obsolete. It only takes an objection of 'a few' to bring any new law to a vote by all the voters. MP's, ect. get 1 vote each.
The NAU would seem affect our current constitution.
It changes the purpose of having 'elected people' if they take their advice from 'business' whose loyalty is to the share-holders and not the voters. Harper has already said {while in Mexico for a meeting} that this 'deal' would make 'businesses' the only ones 'advice on how to handle things' the "govt' would listen too. The chilling part were his words to the effect that steps would be taken to ensure that 'their advice would be followed', not something that any vote could affect.
If the NAU would make 'all voters' also 'a share-holder' then they (voters) would retain 'some input' into the direction any business would take.
In a transparent govt all things are discussed 'in public' before they can be acted upon, (decisions based on input from voters) . In a business 'board-room' the direction is made in 'secret', the meetings of anything NAU is held in secret, we don't even get a list of who attends, let alone anything that is discussed and what direction it is certainly headed. Since business is about 'profit' for only some and that come at somebody else's expense (share-holders vs without any shares). Winners and Losers.
I'm not sure why 'the people' should pay the salaries of somebody who 'takes their orders' from somebody else in a meeting that is kept secret from the ones paying them to be there.
The ones who vote in a person should be able to 'have them wired' so their conduct can be monitored by the ones who he has 'a say for' in some matters, not just the few sound-bites available these days but the whole of what was said during any meeting (or telephone call that was business related) or speeches, like a closed-door meeting.
