Funny how Clinton supporters whined about Trump not accepting the results of the election. Now the Democrats are threating to stop funding their big government, unless the American constitutional republic is overturned:
Democrats must, therefore, pester Republicans where it hurts: the pocketbook.
Is signing a pledge to not pay taxes legal? Yes, if no overt act of conspiracy is involved, and the pledge itself is hypothetical. No one knows when or if it would be carried out.
A national movement not to pay federal taxes in the future would put Republicans on notice: they do not have the right to impose a hard-right, second-place presidency on a moderate nation every dozen or so years. If the Republicans won’t help amend the Constitution so that America can resume being a democracy, then Democrats, lacking the representation that supporters of a future popular vote-winner ought to have in the executive branch, should not submit to paying taxes to the federal government.
America can resume being a democracy? America never was intended to be a democracy, that is why we have the Electoral College:
Voters will not elect the President when they show up to the polls on November 8. The President will not be elected until the new Congress counts the votes of the Electoral College, people whose names would probably be unfamiliar to most of us, on January 6, 2017.
The historical reasons for this odd state of affairs go back to 1787, to the Constitutional Convention. The delegates at the Convention wanted to construct a stronger central government, but they were torn between the desire to give the new Federal Government popular legitimacy and their fears that the people might be subject to unwise temporary enthusiasms, a “mobocracy,” as they called it. The delegates also faced a mechanical problem: the delegates from the larger states wanted the states represented by populations, while the smaller states wanted to retain the equality of representation from the Articles of Confederation under which the nation was still being governed in 1787.
The compromise between the larger and smaller states gave us the Electoral College. This compromise was based in another compromise: the bicameral legislature known as Congress. In the House of Representatives, each state had a number of members in proportion to its population, while in the Senate, each state was represented by two members.
When it came to electing the President, the Constitutional Convention repeated that compromise. It provided that each state would have the power to select a number of electors equal to the number of Representatives they had, thus representing the populace, if indirectly. Each state would also have two more electors for the Senators each had, thus representing state sovereignty. The Convention imagined these electors would be wise men who would vote for the most capable individuals for President and Vice President, rather than being swayed by the man of the hour. Thus the election of the President would not be due to some passing whim of the mob, while still ultimately arising from the people.
The Electoral College was to give more say for small states like South Dakota, but that hasn't stopped the Neo-Marxists at Madville to squeal like pigs about doing away with the Electoral College. So what's next, the elimination of the US Senate?