Posted on 01/13/2003 1:26:05 PM PST by heyhey
Edited on 04/13/2004 3:30:09 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Now say so in your own words, if you can, without any cut-n-paste.
The 16th amendment is not the Constitutional authority for the income tax as it regards wages, salaries fees or other compensation for service or labor, Article I Section 8 of the Constituion is.
Does that go down anymore readily than the original basis on which that conclusion was made. I suspect not where you are concerned.
Where is the conviction?
There is no "conviction" in a civil proceeding for injunctive relief.
There will be a charge of contempt of court, and conviction if he fails to heed the court's order.
Got it?
He gets an opportunity to correct his behavior before someone brings a criminal complaint against him. If he fails to change behavior, that establishes willful conduct and intent for a criminal complaint.
As the first proposition is plainly in conflict with the meaning of the 16th Amendment as interpreted in the Brushaber Case, it may also be put out of view. As to the second, while indeed it is distinct from the subjects considered in the Brushaber Case to the extent that the particular tax which the statute levies on mining corporations here under consideration is distinct from the tax on corporations other than mining and on individuals, which was disposed of in the Brushaber Case, a brief analysis will serve to demonstrate that the distinction is one without a difference, and therefore that the proposition is also foreclosed by the previous ruling. The contention is that as the tax here imposed is not on the net product, but in a sense somewhat equivalent to a tax on the gross product of the working of the mine by the corporation, therefore the tax is not within the purview of the 16th Amendment, and consequently it must be treated as a direct tax on property because of its ownership, and as such void for want of apportionment. But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113] in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed. Mark, of course, in saying this we are not here considering a tax not within the provisions of the 16th Amendment, that is, one in which the regulation of apportionment or the rule of uniformity is wholly negligible because the tax is one entirely beyond the scope of the taxing power of Congress, and where consequently sequently no authority to impose a burden, either direct or indirect, exists. In other words, we are here dealing solely with the restriction imposed by the 16th Amendment on the right to resort to the source whence an income is derived in a case where there is power to tax for the purpose of taking the income tax out of the class of indirect, to which it generically belongs, and putting it in the class of direct, to which it would not otherwise belong, in order to subject it to the regulation of apportionment.
Oops...you forgot some things...
Thanks for playing. Good to know the Justice Dept. is "someone" and not something.
Good to know you recognise the Justice Department is made up of prosecutors which one normally recognizes as someones bringing suit on the part of the United States government.
Thanks for playing along.
Of course the next step for him, once willful is established, can be aiding and abetting tax fraud.
Oops...you forgot some things...
Oops ... you forgot to include my full statement of reply 261:
The 16th amendment is not the Constitutional authority for the income tax as it regards wages, salaries fees or other compensation for service or labor, Article I Section 8 of the Constitution is.
And look up what Pollock to which the court refers found:
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):
First. We adhere to the opinion already announced,-that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.
Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.
Third. The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.
16. The injustice of the conclusion points to the error of adopting it. It takes invested wealth, and reads it into the constitution as a favored and protected class of property, which cannot be taxed without apportionment, while it leaves the occupation of the minister, the doctor, the professor, the lawyer, the inventor, the author, the merchant, the mechanic, and all other forms of industry upon which the prosperity of a people must depend, subject to taxation without that condition.
Sorry, a tax levied as an excise is authorised under the Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.
Constitution for the United States of America:
Which is why the Court in Stanton Found:
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916), 240 U.S. 103:
- "the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"
Now we know why I don't waste time or effort making simple statements to TP'rs.
In other words, we are here dealing solely with the restriction imposed by the 16th Amendment on the right to resort to the source whence an income is derived in a case where there is power to tax for the purpose of taking the income tax out of the class of indirect, to which it generically belongs, and putting it in the class of direct, to which it would not otherwise belong, in order to subject it to the regulation of apportionment.
You forgot to mention that the tax discussed in this statement is upon real or personal property which is what is subject to apportionment at the time of Pollock, not upon the activities of individuals engaged in trades vocations or employments which are subject to excises under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.
OOPs seems as you overlooked quite abit there.
Yes, because the totality of alleged defects is well below the number of KNOWN defects in previous amendment ratifications, as well as the ratifications of the original Constitution. Those defects were summarized in a memorandum to Philander Knox, the Secretary of State when the 16th Amendment was ratified.
I think you're wrong. The FF were diligent men and wouldn't make the mistakes you attribute to them.
The Founding Fathers were probably diligent, but in an era where everything was HAND-WRITTEN before being taken to the printing press (as opposed to modern techniques of camera-ready art or digital prepress), mistakes are inevitable unless one is very lucky. What came out of the Senate and House may very well have been letter-perfect, but the print shops of the several state legislatures introduced their own unique errors. Essentially, thirteen different copies of the Constitution and the BoR were studied and debated--and none agreed with the version that came out of the Constitutional Convention.
And here I thought I was clearing things up.
LOL
One may claim anything for background or expertise, the the logic of the argument and the evidence to back it are the only authority.
Rule one of the internet, do not give out personal information. Not a copout just simple sense. You don't likie it, stuff it. My personal life is none of your business.
The arguments and information provided is sufficient to the needs of the discussion in this forum.
Why should I trust the "logic" of your particular "argument"?
You don't have to. It's your liberty and property at risk in the courts. Not mine.
But then I don't expect you to agree, the cites and hyperlinks to the basic information are made available for others evaluation, as it is apparent you are locked into your own position.
I'll pass on your presumptions, which is how I view your "argument".
Fine by me. Its your hide.
It is men like the following you need to convince of your stand,:
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that state citizens are exempt from income tax.KANNE, Circuit Judge.
- Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.
- The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.
- We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.
An article published in John Birch Society's "The New American" to read and consider:
Patriot Beware!
by Thomas R. Eddlem
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm
As has been mentioned before a few times in this thread, the titles are not legally binding. And the regulations still say that sections 861 and following determine the sources of income for the purposes of the income tax. The word "foreign" is distinctly absent from those regulations, leading one to conclude that the title is to be interpreted as:
(SOURCE RULES) and (OTHER GENERAL RULES RELATING TO FOREIGN INCOME)
not
(SOURCE RULES AND OTHER GENERAL RULES) (RELATING TO FOREIGN INCOME).
Further to this point, prior to 1988, this title was “Determination of sources of income,” which is still the heading of the related regulations, and the text of the statutes did not change, and therefore the application of the law did not change. And as Larken Rose points out, this title change apparently only affected the Government Printing Office version, while the US Code Service version retained the old title.
If, as this decision claims, Congress has the power to reach into and control anything and everything through the power of taxation, regardless of the specific and limited powers delegated by the States and the People to the Federal government, then the limits of the Constitution are utterly meaningless, as long as Congress cloaks their exercise of undelegated power in the veil of "taxation."
"Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the states have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a socalled tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word 'tax' would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the states."
[Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922)]
It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the constitution. However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.
[McCullough v. Com. Of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898)]
If, as this decision claims,
The decision only claims that which is the proper function of taxation. To finance the Constitutional operation of the government.
Congress has the power to reach into and control anything and everything through the power of taxation, regardless of the specific and limited powers delegated by the States and the People to the Federal government, then the limits of the Constitution are utterly meaningless, as long as Congress cloaks their exercise of undelegated power in the veil of "taxation."
The power of taxation only extends to the payment of debt, provision for the common defense and general welfare of the United States as delimited in enumerated powers. Nothing more but certainly nothing less.
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."
Tell us how the authority to tax to finance the Constitutional functions of government is an unlimited power to control. It certainly is not in the Constitution. Neither does the Court recognize a power to control via the excercise of taxation with the exception of those specific powers granted in which regulation is a clear mandate.
MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)
- "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. "
It's up to the people to select virtuous representatives in a Republic; "Eternal Vigilence", slack off and the concequence for lack of electorate virtue is automatic and certain. It is inherent to the functioning of a Republic.
Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813). Scottish jurist and historian:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
- "The power of taxing the people and their property is essential to the very existence of government, and may be legitimately exercised on the objects to which it is applicable, to the utmost extent to which the Government may choose to carry it. The only security against the abuse of this power is found in the structure of the Government itself. In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation."
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
"If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."Champion v. Ames(1903), 186 U.S. 321
- '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 [21 US 1, 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."
If you expect the Courts to do your job, you are barking up the wrong tree.
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.