Posted on 02/25/2016 9:26:00 AM PST by Fhios
In a bit of unusual news, the Utah Senate voted 20-6 to ask Congress to repeal the 17th Amendment of the Constitution. The 17th Amendment allows for the direct election of senators. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Al Jackson (R-Highland) argued that the 17th Amendment was not what the founders of the country had intended and changed the meaning of the role of the senators.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
An improvement ? In a word, no. The argument at the time is that it would be much harder to bribe the voters en masse of a given state than bribe a handful of legislators.
The action is taking place at the State where the men have some balls.
I’m confident there will be term limits. It will require either a grandfathering of current members or numerous primary upsets. But we’ll get there within three or so election cycles.
As for repealing the 17th? Not sure.
Term limits are more important. But after that is out of the way, congressional appointments on an ANNUAL basis would give voters a chance to shake the entire tree of politics rather than just at DC. And the state legislators would feel less impotent, more able to serve their constituents effectively. So the relationship would be rebuilt.
Combine that with modern communications, and it would be a vast improvement.
Lastly, voters would be less emotionally invested in appointed senators, eager to demand that the bum be kicked out at the slightest annoyance.
Orrin Hatch, Jon Huntsman, Gary Herbert, Jason Chaffetz, and the rest of the gutless GOP "leaders" from Utah must have missed that memo.
I said the State.. Not the idiots in Washington.
point taken, I was thinking senate overide
Dude, you’re a self-admitted income tax evader.
You spout Hendrickson’s “federal privilege” nonsense in post after word-salad post. You brag about finding the “truth” and thus paying no federal income taxes for 10 years. You fail to understand that every time any federal court at any level has considered his nonsense “theory,” it has been rejected. Every. Single. Time.
Hendrickson used his rubbish on his own return and was convicted and sentenced to federal prison.
You’re playing with fire.
So. Pacific v Lowe, 247 US 330, (1918)
“...’income’, as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as [not] to include everything that comes in. The true function of the words, ‘gains’ and ‘profits’ is to limit the meaning of the word ‘income’....We must reject... the broad contention submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts— everything that comes in— are income...”
And the 16th while you’re at it.
5.56mm
So, did you miss the all-important fact that Southern Pacific v Lowe was a case about dividends paid to one corporation by another, wholly-owned corporation under the corporation income tax act of 1913?
Do you understand that it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the federal taxation of individual income? Not then. Not now. Not ever.
Did you miss the simple fact that your “quote” is a total fake and fabrication? It is of course, straight from Hendrickson because a convicted federal tax felon is a go-to kind of guy when it comes to tax advice.
Notice how he leaves out any mention that the case deals with corporate income tax law (at the time) and not the taxation of individuals?
Go read the decision and try and find your “quoted” words in the text. Can’t be done, they ain’t there.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/247/330.html
Now, I don’t know if Hendrickson concocted that pile of junk you call a quote or if it had been floating around the internet for years and he just decided to use it to fool himself and others.
Doesn’t matter, neither he nor you have any idea of what you are talking about.
Speaking of the legal definition of income, here ya go:
26 U.S. Code § 61 - Gross income defined
(a) General definition. Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest; (5) Rents; (6) Royalties; (7) Dividends; (...)
And the list goes on.
It’s really very simple — if it isn’t later specifically exempted in the IRC, it’s income and that’s that. And as has said every single federal court that has ever ruled on it.
Nowhere in the entire IRC will you find a word about federal privilege or any of the other nonsense Hendrickson foists on the unsuspecting public.
The only mentions of him and his goofy theories by federal courts are to dismiss his nonsense as frivolous.
See, the only thing that various tax protester types like without exception is the self-serving outcome — no tax due! Until you get caught.
Did you miss the fact that those dividends were from stock in federally owned corporation, therefore, all gains & profits from those stocks are subject to taxation because those profits were acquired from the federal purse? United States v. County of Allegheny, 322 US 174 (1944)
Also, it does not even have to be a federally owned corporation, it could be a private one that is built on government land that they lease from the government. Any profits or gains from any source, be it wages, salaries, or investments, all those gains and profits are subject to taxation and that is why the 16th says, ‘from any source’ because ultimately, the source of the gain or profit is from the federal purse. Capiche?
26 U.S. Code § 7701 - Definitions
(26) Trade or business
The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office
(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined
Therefore, by the use of the word “public” in defining a “trade or business”, this excludes those which are “private”. This is legal interp 101, did you miss that class?
Internal Revenue Manual
Table of Contents
Part 4 Examining Process
Chapter 10. Examination of Returns
Exhibit 4.10.4-9
The Bank Deposits and Cash Expenditures Method: Example of Computation of Gross Receipts.
Bank Deposits and Cash Expenditures Method
Example
1. Total reconciled bank deposits $151,500
Less:
2. Nontaxable receipts deposited ($35,000)
3. Net deposits resulting from taxable receipts $116,500
There are taxable receipts and there are nontaxable receipts and it is not the responsibility of the IRS to tell us which are taxable and which are not. The people write the laws, the people pass the laws, therefore, it is the responsibility of we the people to know the laws we write and pass via our representatives in DC. My guess is you have never been through an audit. Well, I have, more than once.
Actually, I could see all three of those being selected by their state legislators.
I don’t know if people are more stupid than they used to be. Granted, voting rights have expanded to less educated and younger people over the years. But I tend to think the donors and big media advertising is why so many more liberals get put in the Senate than in the House. If people 200 years ago could be bombarded with ad buys, they might’ve been duped too. Donors would have a much harder time influencing who gets elected in state legislatures than in a single statewide race. They’d have to run different ads against many different candidates.
I’m on board with repealing the amendment for this reasons. I think it’s a good bet we’d get better Senate representation.
One downside could be that state legislators could be bought off to elect the Senator donors want. However, those state legislators have shorter terms than 6 years in most or all states. So they would have to worry about accountability for who they picked over a shorter period of time than the Senator would have to worry about being accountable to the voters. So it lessens the “safe zone” of that 6-year-term before the voters could lodge a protest at the ballot box related to the Senator.
Never let it be said that ever miss an opportunity to put your ignorance on display.
US v Allegheny was a PROPERTY tax case. That’s even more irrelevant than a fake cite to a corporate tax case.
You clearly don’t yet understand that whether or not something is or is not somehow related to the feds has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether something is income.
And then you trot out yet more nonsense from Hendrickson — his “includes and including” rubbish. What’s next? His I’m not a “person” baloney?
It’s comical. TPs whine and complain about laws being unclear. Then, when Congress adds some words to reduce possible confusion such as “includes the performance of the functions of a public office” (you know, like a judge) TPs try to twist it to mean the exact opposite of what the words mean.
See, way back when, some thought that the income of federal judges couldn’t be taxed. The courts said it could be. That’s why those specific words “public office” are there. To remove all doubt from the minds of the uninformed.
Perhaps anticipating Hendrickson’s nonsense, they added the sentence “... ‘includes’ and ‘including’ (...) shall NOT be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined” [emphasis added].
Get it? Using the word “public” excludes no other thing from the meaning. Private, for instance.
You’re about as good as Hendrickson at “legal interp” — that is, not good at all. Horrible, in fact.
If you doubt that, there are many, many federal court decisions referring to him and his utterly stupid book, including many against people who bought his book and were dumb enough to believe it.
Every bogus idea he has ever concocted has been slapped down by one or more federal judges as frivolous. You should read some of those decisions instead of junk that means nothing.
The poor guy even has something almost nobody else has — a permanent federal injunction against filing his own tax returns using his crack-pot ideas.
Keep it up. Your name could wind up on a federal civil tax lawsuit or federal criminal tax indictment, too.
Why are you babbling about the Internal Revenue Manual? It means nothing in court.
Why are you posting useless links about an irrelevant case?
Audits? Of course you’re wrong. The last one covered about 5 mill of gross revenue for one year. Result. No change, not even a penny.
The IRS is well aware of PH and his nonsense, not to mention his followers and the kind of junk they put on their returns. They have pursued many of them and won every single time. You better hope that you’re never audited again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.