[allrightythen]

Can Congress return tax dollars to selected portions of the taxpayers under the constitution?

No. Congress can lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, only for the common defense or general welfare according to the constitution. The EITC should be found unconstitutional on its face. The taxing power was intended to be (thus) limited.

Not any more it seems. Now with great swelling of words, the 'courts' declare that public policy trancends rights to property. Anyone claiming his property becomes a kind of enemy of the State. I regret to say Dershowitz is right. The Constitution is dead letter. Public policy has so colored the actions of government, that it rules now. Wouldnt you agree?

[lewislynn]

AG is on the government dole as is pig. AG once claimed Clinton was paying him (I have the proof)...now I suppose he thinks Bush is paying him...simply put, in spite of all his spam he doesn't really know/care where his money comes from or if it's constitutional as long as you keep sending it....You don't think anyone on the government dole would admit the money they receive every month is un-constitutional do you?

[ancient_geezer]

No. Congress can lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, only for the common defense or general welfare according to the constitution. The EITC should be found unconstitutional on its face.

So should all specialised exemptions and deductions in the IRC and tax only on gross on a basis of receipts. If you accomplished that, the Individual Income tax would become a true Flat Tax, with a rate of 13%, the SS/Mediscare income tax would drop to 8% paid on all wages not just the first $80k.

Fine, now file your law suit if you can find standing and grounds and get it done. I haven't figured out away to accomplish that myself.

MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)

• "'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56]   he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."

• "Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "

If you can get over the bar, you'll do us all a favor.

Personally I would like to get rid of the IRS, legal jeopardy and political control of the income/payroll tax system myself and banish it all replacing it with a flat single rate tax at point of retail sale. That way we could scrap the IRS intrusion into our personal finances as well.

[ancient_geezer]

Public policy has so colored the actions of government, that it rules now. Wouldnt you agree?

Public policy is legislative intent and always has been, or didn't you realize that? You want a different policy, you had better figure out a way of replacing the numbskulls in Congress.

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."

FLETCHER v. PECK, 10 U.S. 87 (1810)

"The question, whether a law be void for its repugnancy to the constitution, is, at all times, a question of much delicacy, which ought seldom, if ever, to be decided in the affirmative, in a doubtful case. The court, when impelled by duty to render such a judgment, would be unworthy of its station, could it be unmindful of the solemn obligations which that station imposes. But it is not on slight implication and vague conjecture that the legislature is to be pronounced to have transcended its powers, and its acts to be considered as void. The opposition between the constitution and the law should be such that the judge feels a clear and strong conviction of their incompatibility with each other."

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."