Replies

Winged Shark Wrote:

As to the idea that a personal income tax it is fundamentally indicating that our labor is of no value I disagree… and the only other common alternative of a nation-wide sales tax would invite the federal government into every financial transaction and essentially cement the current/horrible interpretation of the Commerce Clause as per Wickard.
(The only other way I can see structuring taxes would be the tax placed directly on the States — IIRC, that's one reason the Articles of Confederation didn't work.)

You say you disagree, but then don't indicate why. I submit that the reason you do not provide any rationale is that you there is not actually one, and you're just repeating the habituation you've been subjected to annually like Pavlov's dog.

A sales tax is not the same thing as a tax on personal income, and by that we've already invited the federal government "into every financial transaction" and also enabled the Social Engineering of the welfare state. I recommend reading Andrew McCarthy's phenomenal 2010 Article on National Review titled "Empty Promise".

When we work, if we are only exchanging our labor for for monetary reward, a fundamentally equal trade, then there is no profit or gain, but we are treated as if all of our income is profit, and thereby taxed. Corporations are taxed, but generally only pay taxes on their net profits, after expenses,etc are deducted. The entirety of the Social Engineering state was created by first allowing personal income tax, which enables the government to engage any sort of agenda, and even pick winners and losers on a personal level.

They began personal income tax first it being only a tax on those greedy corporations, and then later only a temporary tax on the the wealthiest of Americans.

Yet we know from the Pennsylvania Ratification convention, as well as other historical records, that a wages from work are to be considered a direct tax.

Contrary to your understanding of the Constitution, the Constitution did not end "tax being directly on the States". The Constitution at Article 1, Section 9, prohibitions to congress indicates:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

A tax on income is undeniably a direct tax to the individual, and as required by the Constitution, even after the 16th Amendment, all (other) direct taxes must be applied the States proportionally. Even the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention notes indicated of a direct tax, "it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise, and will be paid, because all that a man hath will he give for his head." That sounds pretty direct and personal to me, and is how they turn us into Pavlov's dogs.

Regarding Grand Jury amendment, WingedShark wrote:

I cannot emphasize in strong enough terms that your indications about the Grand Jury being "an independent, self-directing body of inquisitors" is extremely misguided,

Then please explain the concept and usage of presentments. Moreover, please explain how and why they were removed from the current rules courts.

Independent presentments, or allegations of wrongdoing made by a Grand Jury, have nothing whatsoever to do with Grand Juries being entirely independent entities. Furthermore at no time have those presents necessarily resulted in a prosecution by the government.

As far as independent presentments being inappropriately removed as valid process, that never occurred by any law, or even official precedure, but actually occurred as a result of the Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and not actually a part of that Rule 7 itself, but rather only a Note 4 to Rule 7 by the Avisory Committee,

Attorney Leo Donofrio had an excellent discussion of this history in a 2009 blog article titled, "The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government". However Donofrio later removed that Article as a result of people in Georgia mistakenly misinterpreting his Article and improperly believing any Grand Jury can be formed anywhere, and have unrestrained authority on its own. In his latter response to that Georgia Citizen's Grand Jury, which resulted in scrubbing the article, Donofrio made the following comments:

We are governed by our Constitution, not common law.

My grand jury 5th amendment “power of presentment” articles were meant to educate people as to their power ONCE SWORN IN AS A FEDERAL GRAND JUROR in a federal court.

The articles weren’t meant to encourage citizens to form their own grand juries and prosecute at will. There is no such guarantee in the Constitution. And I am a true believer in the Constitution. Are you?

Fortunately, I have resurrected Donofrio's original article via the Wayback archive: "The Federal Grand Jury is the 4th Branch of Government".

You would actually do well to read my article, "Are Common Law Grand Juries Valid", because the side-notes to your amendment actually has several evident misconceptions about Grand Juries, what that "common law" is, and even a misunderstanding of the impact of the Magna Carta. You might be surprised to learn that the one reference to the common law in the Constitution, in the 7th Amendment, is actually there to prohibit common law practice, rather than to praise that common law. I discuss the 7th Amendment in the 4th comments following the article.

Well, mostly because it was late and I wanted to make it a quick post — but look here, you've revealed yourself as not only willing, but eager, to impute upon me unthinking/brainwashed (and ill-will?). Something I suspected given your post #239 wherein you talk out of both sides of your mouth regarding incorporation.

But, since you ask about why I disagree it is this: your assertion that wages are merely equivalent exchange of labor for money is actually the model wherein a person's labor has no intrinsic worth. You see, given a pile of wood, tools, and a laborer the resultant dog-house's value is not merely cost+labor, but cost+labor+utility. This is to say that the usefulness of the work is also a factor and why a brain-surgeon's wage is not going to be equal to a short-order cook's. — moreover, there is also the agreement with the employer (who in essence judges the utility of the laborer), there is a parable in the bible where a group of people were operating under your:

(Matthew 20:1-16)
“For the Kingdom of Heaven is like the landowner who went out early one morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay the normal daily wage and sent them out to work. “At nine o’clock in the morning he was passing through the marketplace and saw some people standing around doing nothing. So he hired them, telling them he would pay them whatever was right at the end of the day. So they went to work in the vineyard. At noon and again at three o’clock he did the same thing. “At five o’clock that afternoon he was in town again and saw some more people standing around. He asked them, ‘Why haven’t you been working today?’ “They replied, ‘Because no one hired us.’ “The landowner told them, ‘Then go out and join the others in my vineyard.’ “That evening he told the foreman to call the workers in and pay them, beginning with the last workers first. When those hired at five o’clock were paid, each received a full day’s wage. When those hired first came to get their pay, they assumed they would receive more. But they, too, were paid a day’s wage. When they received their pay, they protested to the owner, ‘Those people worked only one hour, and yet you’ve paid them just as much as you paid us who worked all day in the scorching heat.’ “He answered one of them, ‘Friend, I haven’t been unfair! Didn’t you agree to work all day for the usual wage? Take your money and go. I wanted to pay this last worker the same as you. Is it against the law for me to do what I want with my money? Should you be jealous because I am kind to others?’ “So those who are last now will be first then, and those who are first will be last.”

To assert that there is only the fundamental exchange equivalency WRT work and wage is to set up the foundation for a framework of labor-laws which would strip the hirer of the ability (a) to evaluate the utility of the labor [and laborer] and [when aggressively enforced] (b) to be generous.

A sales tax is not the same thing as a tax on personal income, and by that we've already invited the federal government "into every financial transaction" and also enabled the Social Engineering of the welfare state.

Again, I disagree — the income tax is a single point: when the laborer is paid — the sales tax is essentially every financial transaction in the commercial sector. (Also note, I've not said anything about the welfare state — that would be resolved by the move to a physically-based currency and limitation on the amount of debt that could be assumed and so becomes a non-issue in light of such an amendment.)

A tax on income is undeniably a direct tax to the individual, and as required by the Constitution, even after the 16th Amendment, all (other) direct taxes must be applied the States proportionally.

The graduated/progressive income tax is therefore a violation — while it could be argued that a flat tax rate is proportional (on income, rather than the debt's amount). Amendment 16 says: 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. — by that, it seems that a income tax may indeed be without proportion.

As far as independent presentments being inappropriately removed as valid process, that never occurred by any law, or even official precedure, but actually occurred as a result of the Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and not actually a part of that Rule 7 itself, but rather only a Note 4 to Rule 7 by the Avisory Committee,

Ah, and does that not stink more? After all the power of presentment is mentioned in Amendment 5, so to remove it should require a Constitutional amendment, no?

Much like the decision of Sparf, the right of nullification by the jury exists but there's no obligation to inform of the right... and the judge can apparently declare a mistrial if it is brought up by an officer of the court. So, by forced ignorance, the right is lost.

But, in short, I do not believe that the current relation of the government to the jury (either grand or petite) is healthy or as it should be. You yourself brought up the indict a ham sandwich saying, and that is directly a result of stripping away the power of presentment because all that leaves the Grand Jury with is the indictment. So, like the Federal Reserve whose only tool is print money! the grand jury can only indict under this system. As for petite juries, nullification was mentioned, but there's also the will you convict even if you disagree with the law? questionnaire and judges have been known to deny them access to the text of the law.

In short, I do not believe that the juries should be subordinate/dependent on the government — to do so is to make them into rubber-stamp appearance-of-legitimacy style organizations beholden to the government [which even you must agree is corrupt] rather than actually being about justice.