CITIZENS’ TRUTH-IN-TAXATION HEARING

We the People Organization ^ | 03/04/02 | Bob Schulz

[Judith Anne]

Bump for the day crowd.

[allrightythen]

The "common good" of Beardsly Ruml, and socialists does not equal the general welfare of Article 2 Section 8 of the Constitution.

Quite right, they are not equal. Thank you for your answer but you didnt need to stay up all night. Mr Rumls 'common good' as you call it is really public policy. Public policy ruled the country then, and it rules the country now. So its a bit bigger than Mr Ruml, although he was among its architects.

Public policy (as I understand it) is the ideal American life in some groups view, an American utopia. Taxation is the principal means of implementing and maintaining public policy. Mr Ruml wasnt proposing anything, we was complaining about a part of public policy then.

In practical fact, we dont have a constitutional republic, we have an American utopia in compliance to public policy. Thats really where the TPs go wrong isnt it? They fix on the unconstitutionality of federal taxation, when in fact the constitution has nothing to do with it. I see you as Beardsleys intellectual equal, and yet you keep harping back to the constitution. I think you know better. Why do you do that? I suspect you know more about public policy than most.

[CyberCowboy777]

Bump for later

[ancient_geezer]

'common good' as you call it is really public policy. Public policy ruled the country then, and it rules the country now.

'Common good' is not my term it is Rumls term, and refer to the foundation of socialist policy.

'Public policy' is and always has been the intent of legislative acts of Congress from day one of the Republic. It is the legislative purpose of the act. Your distinction carries no weight as regards the construction of statutes. That has always been the pole star of judicial construction of statute.

U S v. FISHER, 6 U.S. 358 (1805)

• "It is undoubtedly a well established principle in the exposition of statutes, that every part is to be considered, and the intention of the legislature to be extracted from the whole."

FindLaw: U S v. GOLDENBERG, 168 U.S. 95,103 (1897)

"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of words and the rules of grammar. The courts have no function of legislation, and simply seek to ascertain the will of the legislator.

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."

FOSTER v. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 118 (1938)

"Courts should construe laws in harmony with the legislative intent and seek to carry out legislative purpose."

FindLaw: S.E.C v. C. M. JOINER LEASING CORP., 320 U.S. 344,351 (1943)

"... courts will construe the details of an act in conformity with its dominating general purpose, will read text in the light of context and will interpret the text so far as the meaning of the words fairly permits so as to carry out in particular cases the generally expressed legislative policy.

[ancient_geezer]

Taxation is the principal means of implementing and maintaining public policy.

Taxation, predominately corportate and indivdual income taxes, may be used for such, it is not the prime function of taxation as regards the intent of the Constitution.

Beardsly Ruml is not the expounder of the Constitution, he is merely another minion expressing an opinion of socialist intrusion into this nation's politics.

In practical fact, we dont have a constitutional republic,

We have a constitutional Republic regardless of the distortions of the socialist environment in which it now operates.

we have an American utopia in compliance to public policy.

Meaningless jargon. We have a two party system(dominent Factions) competing for political power by coercing votes through demogoguery and legislative chicanery.

Thats really where the TPs go wrong isnt it? They fix on the unconstitutionality of federal taxation

Nope, for they are looking to join the majority in being able to ignore the real costs of government, and get on the same gravytrain, of apparent or no taxation of themselves. The net and ultimate result of which will be accelerated growth of government through the perception of freebees buying votes. It's called:

Representation without Taxation

And the TPr's success in achieving there personal tax free goal, will be the total death knell of the Republic, for without the goad of taxation there can be no demand for fiscal accountability of the government to the electorate.

Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000

According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?

If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw

Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.

70% of the voting public continues to clamor for more from government looking for the top 40% of taxpayers to pay the freight

[ancient_geezer]

I see you as Beardsleys intellectual equal,

You live in a delusional world my friend.

and yet you keep harping back to the constitution. I think you know better. Why do you do that?

I keep harping back to the Constitution because the Constitution is what defines and limits the authority of government in this Republic.

As far as what you may imagine, that is of no concern to me.

I suspect you know more about public policy than most.

I know nothing, I can read and research with objectivity however. Which is something I am beginning to suspect is a rare commodity among the tax resistor community(aka TP mob).

[Buckeroo]

"Baloney ... " -- ancient_geezer

So you think that our "republic" which is built upon a Constituion inclusive of a re-address of grievances by the people is sustainable while ignoring methods of petitioning grievances? Man, you have a lot to learn. Our nation is built upon bloodshed based upon the same deaf ear we are seeing today by contemporary government stealth.

What do you think America is about? A cattle yard with self-voted cattle prods striking us by our elected representatives?

[ancient_geezer]

So you think that our "republic" which is built upon a Constituion inclusive of a re-address of grievances by the people is sustainable while ignoring methods of petitioning grievances?

Redress of grievances is through the Courts, and through Congress when the Court does not suffice.

The Courts and Congress have addressed your grievances with current law and enforcement of that law. Whether you like their answers or the result in that context is irrelevant.

If you do not like their answers or the result, it is up to you to enlist me the individual voter of the validity of your grievence and to offer up an plan for resolving them with an acceptable alternative to the current source of your grievance. To qualify for my aid in changing the law or changing Congress to make sure the law is ultimately changed, you must validate your position with reasoned and authoritative debate.

So far none of you have done the first thing towards validating your position but offer your personal desires through hyperbole and emotional outbursts, out of context and mis-quotation of historical records totally lack in objective scholarship.

In my observation Tax Resistance movement's plea amounts to Taxation without Representation.

On the basis of my research and understanding of the Constitution that plea does not meet my concept of a valid grievance.

Lay out your case, and demonstrate its value in the face of vigourously opposed debate based on reason. I'm not interested in your emotional diatribes of not wanting to pay taxes that are clearly authorised under the Constitution of the United States in accord with my understanding of the Constitution and intent of the authors of that Constitution.

I have clearly and repeatedly laid out my position and in part the research basis from I draw my conclusion.

To enlist my aid in your cause, it is up to you to provide the authorative and reasoned rebuttal to the product of my research.

[ancient_geezer]

What do you think America is about?

A Constitutional Republic, which operates under the rule of law, not the the majority views of a plebicite.

You however have expressed what you are not about America:

I don't believe in government, any government;

That sir is anarchy, and not the government described by the Constitution for the United States. We live withing the framework of a representative form of government called a Republic which operates in the national mode upon the individual citizen.

This is not an anarachy of every man for himself with the rule of the warlord with the biggest guns takes the prize.

Your Hyperbole and wrapping yourself in pseudo-patriotism is denied by your expression of anarchy.

[Buckeroo]

I believe, you have no concept about the basis of our nation. You must be inundated by a concept of government being separate from the people and the only method of address is through some form of government mandated tyranny.

You live by too many "laws." You live by too many "laws" that are in opposition to the Constitution. Our nation is not built upon "laws" but by an ignored method to control "laws." You fell into the trap of believing in government as opposed to believing in our country.

[ancient_geezer]

I believe, you have no concept about the basis of our nation.

You want to convince me to aid in your dream of Taxation without Representation.

I see that as the fundamental cause of the trend into socialism this nation in experiencing.

It is a concept totally foreign to my sense of paying my way, expressed as "Stanstaffel, their ain't no free lunch.

You want my aid or support, you convince me or go your own way.

The Constitution lays out the means to pay for the enumerated functions of the national government in the form of taxation paid out of the product of individuals who benefit from their presense in this nation.

 

Constitution for the United States of America:

• Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

• Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
  to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
  but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

• Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

 

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #12:

• "A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land."

• "The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #21:

• The principle of regulating the contributions of the States to the common treasury by QUOTAS is another fundamental error in the Confederation. Its repugnancy to an adequate supply of the national exigencies has been already pointed out, and has sufficiently appeared from the trial which has been made of it.

James Madison, Federalist #39:

• "The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"

James Madison, Federalist #45:

• "The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic 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;

James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:

• "If a government depends on other governments for its revenues -- if it must depend on the voluntary contributions of its members -- its [*129] existence must be precarious."

• "If the general government is to depend on the voluntary contribution of the states for its support, dismemberment of the United States may be the consequence."

James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention
4 Dec. 1787 Elliot 2:466--68

• No man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and each buys in proportion only to his consumption. The price of the commodity is blended with the tax, and the person is often not sensible of the payment But would it have been proper to rest the matter there? Suppose this fund should not prove sufficient; ought the public debts to remain unpaid, or the exigencies of government be left unprovided for? should our tranquillity be exposed to the assaults of foreign enemies, or violence among ourselves, because the objects of commerce may not furnish a sufficient revenue to secure tham all? Certainly, Congress should possess the power of raising revenue from their constituents, for the purpose mentioned in the 8th section of the 1st article; that is, "to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States."

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.

"Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"

James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:

• Mr. Chairman, in considering this great subject, I trust we shall find that part which gives the general government the power of laying and collecting taxes indispensable, and essential to the existence of any efficient or well-organized system of government: if we consult reason, and be ruled by its dictates, we shall find its justification there: if we review the experience we have had or contemplate the history of nations, here we find ample reasons to prove its expediency. There is little reason to depend for necessary supplies on a body which is fully possed of the power of witholding them. If a government depends on other governments for its revenues -- if it must depend on the voluntary contributions of its members -- its [*129] existence must be precarious."

• "If the general government is to depend on the voluntary contribution of the states for its support, dismemberment of the United States may be the consequence."

---

Now, begin your rationalization and rebuttal in support for Representation without Taxation under the "Constitution for the United States of America."

[Buckeroo]

You are fun to communicate with. I notice that your links are federalists as oppossed to Anti-federalists. You are the contemporary realization of debate before the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.

You are a horror story towards individual freedoms and liberties that our nation founded; not for government tyranny but for you and your family, as well. You don't believe in yourself, do you? You believe folks *NEED* control, don't you?

[ancient_geezer]

I notice that your links are federalists as oppossed to Anti-federalists. You are the contemporary realization of debate before the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791.

The anti-federalists argued against the Constitution and for retaining the Articles of Confederation.

They lost, the Constitution was ratified by the people of that time, not just there state governments and accepted in accord with the representations of it by its proponents and authors in the Federalist Newspaper and the Debates of the time.

We live under that ratified Constitution, that lays the ground rules.

If you are proposing the overthrow of the Republic guaranteed under that Constitution, you and I have no further basis for debate. That is where it comes down to guns under another provision of that Constitution which you as a member of militia are bound to uphold:

Constitution for the United States of America:

Article I Section 8: Congress shall have power ...

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[ancient_geezer]

You are a horror story towards individual freedoms and liberties that our nation founded; not for government tyranny but for you and your family, as well.

I believe that that Constitution and the government instituted thereby is the guarantor of those freedoms and liberties, to not uphold the provisions of that Constitution is to deny the freedoms and liberties that our nation was founded under.

As an member of the military I once took an oath to uphold and defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I may no longer be an active member of that military but that oath remains. For without that Constitution there is no United States of America, there is no Union of which it speaks, and there is no country underwhich responsible free men may live and prosper.

Are you placing yourself in opposition to the authority of that Constitution and its amendments?

[Buckeroo]

You belief system, to use a phase, "sucks." The government does not operate by the mandates of our Constitution to include the Bill of Rights.

Do you have a light on within your conscience?

[ancient_geezer]

You belief system, to use a phase, "sucks."

My belief system rests on the Constitution and hold all parties including that government to its provisions.

That is the only way it can work, and yes my conscience is very clear and fully illuminated.

You have yet to begin anykind of support for you position, other than, every man for himself. Since you apparently hold the Constitution no longer exists for you, obviously you cannot look to the institutions of that Constitution to render a solution to your petition of grievance.

So what are you complaining about? Seems to me you are no longer protected under the Constitution that you deny exists or has authority. You are fair game for whoever has a bigger gun.

Good luck,

A. Geezer

[Buckeroo]

"So what are you [Buckeroo] complaining about?" -- ancient_geezer

Your denial of the basic foundations of our nation. That you deny individual freedoms and liberties while sucking up to "laws" that are not provisioned under the Constitution. I am complaining about your position that has no basis in fact other than a few cheap tricks by a few politicians that have graduated over time.

[freekitty]

Thank you ancient geezer. Good question. I still see this as a high tax and we are still going to have to pay through the nose. They are going to have to do better.

[lewislynn]

I am complaining about your position that has no basis in fact other than a few cheap tricks by a few politicians that have graduated over time.

What can you expect from someone so dependent on the fruits of others labor that in his denial thinks it comes from the President:

Subject: Re: 27 Benefits From the Fair Tax

Just how much you gett'n paid to confuse the issue? Clinton's pay'n me 1700 a month.

Sent 11/28/99 16:49:38 PST by ancient_geezer [ Reply | Delete ]

I suppose now he'd like you to think/believe Bush is "pay'n" him.

[ancient_geezer]

I remind you of your words at the opening of this conversation

I don't believe in government, any government;

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"

Article I Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,

Article II Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

Article III Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

That is a government under the Constitution;

You have declared that you do not believe in "any government".

I can only presume you meant that, thereby you do not believe in the Constitution nor the amendment thats were ratified under its law.

You deny "the basic foundations of our nation." You deny the guarantee of those "individual freedoms and liberties" that Constitution was instituted to protect.

You offer only an emotional diatribe as your position, and your own statements belie any right to demand redress because you do not believe the institutions designed to assure the enforcement of law guaranteeing the respect of your fundamental rights exist.

I am complaining about your position that has no basis in fact other than a few cheap tricks by a few politicians that have graduated over time.

You have made no effort to demonstrate that. It is merely an assertion of your belief, which includes by the way a lack of belief "in government, any government;"

To whom do you expect to turn, for redress of grievance? You believe an anarchy, see to your own redress. Neither I nor the government under the Constitution owe you the time of day, much less redress for your claimed grievance. You don't believe ""in government, any government;" remember?

Sorry just doesn't seem to be anyone to listen, as the Republican form of government guaranteed to the states under that Constitution doesn't exist by your own belief and admission.

You're on your own buddy.