FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
It ain’t just the taxes... and the Tree of Liberty is as dry as a bone.
Bang!
This is a natural and logical eventuality in the social contract is it not? It should be what gives our leaders ‘pause’ when they dream up increases in taxes.
Sadly the only revolt likely to happen will be in favor of taking more of other peoples’ money and redistributing it.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
When an originalist Justice of the Supreme Court says it’s time, it’s time.
And then Judge Scalia casually said to no one in particular; “Will no one rid me of this bothersome Tyranny?
I can see the liberals/progressives/Marxists collective heads exploding.
For the record, it's not just taxes...
5.56mm
It is in the Constitution.
I suppose this would make Antonin Scalia a “Domestic Terrorist”, and he’ll find himself on a ‘no fly’ list.
“A Revolution now and then helps to clear the air.” (Thomas Jefferson)
What about tyranny, Judge?
What should we do about that?
Whoa. Justice Scalia must have a very clean closet indeed to speak such a truth in this age of tyranny, unprecedented domestic surveillance, and the unrestrained lawlessness of every single government agency. Stay safe, Mr. Justice.
Well, at this point, if we don’t get an acceptable outcome from a limited Convention of States or a “radical” anti-government POTUS, then, yes, states should begin nullifying unconstitutional federal law, begin severing financial ties with the feds, and move to low, flat taxes and the free market. Pretty soon, that state will be richer than the federal government.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
I used to have a button that said,
TAXES ARE REVOLTING.
WHY AREN’T YOU?
I would like to know the actual question. I think for a law student to ask about the Constitutionality of the income tax is remarkable, since the 16th amendment has never been revoked and all arguments to say it w.as improperly instituted have thus far failed
Jim Robinson: When an originalist Justice of the Supreme Court says it’s time, it’s time.
Amendment10: Harvard Law School-indoctrinated Justice Scalia had a golden opportunity to tell the students about Justice John Marshall's official clarification of Congess limited power to lay taxes - and Scalia blew it. “Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Repeal The 17th: Some other FReeper (can't remember who it was) pointed out the other day that the main thing about the 16th amendment wasn't the "tax on income" but that a federal tax, for the first time ever, could be levied upon an individual citizen. Up until that time, there was very little interaction between an individual citizen and the federal government. AMENDMENT XVI Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." ––– “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes ... without regard to any census or enumeration.
Amendment10: While I would support repeal of 16A because it ignores other tax-related constitutional clauses imo, I actually don't have problems with it for the following reason. 16A doesn't constitute an excuse for Congress to ignore its limited power to lay taxes, imo, which I indicated in previous post. In fact, I think that the states should amend Justice Marshall's clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes to the Constitution where corrupt Congress can continue to ignore it. /sarc
Amendment10: As mentioned in related threads, it remains that before 16A was ratified, the Supreme Court had clarified that Congress cannot lay taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue which Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers. “Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824. Also mentioned elsewhere, not only is the Court's clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes still in effect imo, but the states need to amend Justice Marshall's statement to the Constitution where corrupt Congress can continue to ignore it. /sarc
SoFloFreeper: I would like to know the actual question. I think for a law student to ask about the Constitutionality of the income tax is remarkable, since the 16th amendment has never been revoked and all arguments to say it was improperly instituted have thus far failed.
You want a real revolution, one that will stick? Then just require the government to obey the law, and get rid of their ability to “presume” corporate law applies to non-corporate people. That would be the most fundamental of all possible revolutions in America.
Because the truth - the plain, simple truth - is that the income tax IS limited, and it says so itself. It has to, otherwise it would conflict with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. At Title 16 (Federal Tax Code Title), Sections 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f), the ENFORCEMENT of the income tax code is limited to “An officer or employee of a listed type of corporation; AND 2) Under a duty to perform an act; AND 3) In respect of said act, a violation occurs.”
And remember, taxes are “imposed.” If it can’t be imposed, it’s not a tax. And if it can’t be enforced, it can’t be imposed. The government plays games here, too, by calling the income tax “voluntary” because they know it doesn’t apply to most people. But they set up rules where they presume people are “volunteering” - and then deny them knowledge of how to “un-volunteer.” And then the “impose” the tax on the “volunteers.”
Funny tricks, huh? Hah hah.
But like I said, the courts allow the government to “presume” people fit those definitions. And the government provides NO safe way for people to rebut that presumption - even though they don’t fit the definition. And that’s how they “convict” so many people who actually do not fit the tax code requirements.
Therefore a REAL revolution would fix THIS problem. It would be people learning about these FACTS, and crafting laws that require full disclosure from the government, and a safe way for people to point out that they don’t fit the requirements of the law.
THAT WOULD SAVE AMERICA.
And it would save a LOT of foolish and ignorant bloodshed, too.
Our Constitution, our freedoms and our lives are precious. Picking up arms should be the absolute LAST thing anyone does. And if it can be prevented merely by learning the law that is published right in front of the entire population, openly, then it would be a crime before God not to explore that alternative to it’s uttermost extent.
Please read, and please learn, as much as possible about this REAL solution: Brains Before Guns.
One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America