Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ancient_geezer
I'm also sure that no one in the judicial system would dare stick his neck out on something as entrenched as the income tax system.

34 posted on 01/20/2003 1:50:10 PM PST by William Terrell (Advertise in this space - Low rates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: William Terrell

I'm also sure that no one in the judicial system would dare stick his neck out on something as entrenched as the income tax system.

Why should they go against established law?

FindLaw: RODGERS v. U S, 185 U.S. 83 (1902)
"The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature."

Not Larkin Rose, Thurston Bell, or anyone else.

The authority to levy and collect indirect taxes (e.g. duties, imposts, and excises) from individual citizens from the time of ratification of the Constitution is well founded.

Even the TP'rs behind WTP in the article admit the income tax is an excise or indirect tax. So just what basis is SCOTUS or any other court supposed to find otherwise?

James Madison, Federalist #39:

Especially regarding taxes:

James Madison, Federalist #45:

  • "The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;

Constitution for the United States of America:

Or are one of those who figure that the judiciary is supposed to legislate from the bench or the meaning of the Constitution changes with time.

35 posted on 01/20/2003 2:11:10 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson