AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Ican, you still have not explained why no successful legal challenge has been put forward to address what you claim is an unconstitutional taxation upon your income.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ican, you still have not explained why no successful legal challenge has been put forward to address what you claim is an unconstitutional taxation upon your income.

Cycloptichorn

Wrong again!

I've already explained this more than once. I'll explain it again.

Back in 1913, Democrats enacted the income tax along with go-along-to-get-along Republicans. They subsequently evolved it to what it is today. They have done their best to prevent federal judges being appointed that would interpret the USA Constitution and stop legislating it.

Democrats along with go-along-to-get-along Republicans use the current position of the federal courts to allow them to steal our taxes to purchase votes for themselves and increase the corruption of our society.

It took the USA 76 years (1789 - 1865) to finally adopt the 13th Amendment and lawfully abolish slavery. It took almost 100 hundred more years for us to pass the Civil Rights Act and properly apply that amendment. If we are lucky, we will manage in less in less than 100 years--before 2013--to abolish the current illegal non-uniform income tax law.

...
Can you point out the attempts which have been made to challenge the legality [of the federal income tax] in court - the ones which were denied? I doubt it.

Cycloptichorn

Wow, you did better then I thought you would!

Now, can you explain why each and every one of those challenges failed so spectacularly to show that our tax code is unConstitutional?

Cycloptichorn

USA Constitution 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;

definition of imposts
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=imposts&x=28&y=10

definition of uniform
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8

You are using 'uniform' incorrectly; it refers to Federal taxation being equal in the United States, referring to each individual state; not that everyone will pay the same percentage uniformly, Ican!

Cycloptichorn

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Well, I'll tell ya what. You go on railing against paying taxes, and the country will go right ahead and keep taking your money. Unless you're admitting that you personally dodge taxes, Ican?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, I'll tell ya what. You go on railing against paying taxes, and the country will go right ahead and keep taking your money. Unless you're admitting that you personally dodge taxes, Ican?

Cycloptichorn

What I pay in income taxes strictly conforms to what my 1040 forms say I must pay. That is not my problem!

My problem is that all the people who earn more than I do, are required to pay a larger percentage of what they earn than I do. I detest that. I'm not some privileged citizen who has earned a lower tax rate than others just because I earn less than they do. Their income tax rates should be the same as mine. It is not only personally hateful to me, it is illegal. It is destructive to our nation's attempt to secure our lives, our properties, and our pursuits of happiness. Specifically, it threatens the future freedoms of my grandchildren. Allowing Congress to use our taxes to buy the elections of incumbent members of Congress is corroding our and their nation. It must be stopped.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ican, you still have not explained why no successful legal challenge has been put forward to address what you claim is an unconstitutional taxation upon your income.

Cycloptichorn

Wrong again!

I've already explained this more than once. I'll explain it again.

Back in 1913, Democrats enacted the income tax along with go-along-to-get-along Republicans. They subsequently evolved it to what it is today. They have done their best to prevent federal judges being appointed that would interpret the USA Constitution and stop legislating it.

It took the USA 76 years (1789 - 1865) to finally adopt the 13th Amendment and lawfully abolish slavery. It took almost 100 hundred more years for us to pass the Civil Rights Act and properly apply that amendment. If we are lucky, we will manage in less in less than 100 years--before 2013--to abolish the current illegal non-uniform income tax law.

Quote:

USA Constitution 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;

definition of imposts
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=imposts&x=28&y=10

definition of uniform
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8

Uniformity Requirement .--Whether a tax is to be apportioned among the States according to the census taken pursuant to Article I, Sec. 2, or imposed uniformly throughout the United States depends upon its classification as direct or indirect. 504 The rule of uniformity for indirect taxes is easy to obey. It exacts only that the subject matter of a levy be taxed at the same rate wherever found in the United States; or, as it is sometimes phrased, the uniformity required is ''geographical,'' not ''intrinsic.'' 505 Even the geographical limitation is a loose one, at least if United States v. Ptasynski 506 is followed. There, the Court upheld an exemption from a crude-oil windfall-profits tax of ''Alaskan oil,'' defined geographically to include oil produced in Alaska (or elsewhere) north of the Arctic Circle. What is prohibited, the Court said, is favoritism to particular States in the absence of valid bases of classification. Because Congress could have achieved the same result, allowing for severe climactic difficulties, through a classification tailored to the ''disproportionate costs and difficulties . . . associated with extracting oil from this region,'' 507 the fact that Congress described the exemption in geographic terms did not condemn the provision.

The clause accordingly places no obstacle in the way of legislative classification for the purpose of taxation, nor in the way of what is called progressive taxation. 508 A taxing statute does not fail of the prescribed uniformity because its operation and incidence may be affected by differences in state laws. 509 A federal estate tax law which permitted deduction for a like tax paid to a State was not rendered invalid by the fact that one State levied no such tax. 510 The term ''United States'' in this clause refers only to the States of the Union, the District of Columbia, and incorporated territories. Congress is not bound by the rule of uniformity in framing tax measures for unincorporated territories. 511 Indeed, in Binns v. United States, 512 the Court sustained license taxes imposed by Congress but applicable only in Alaska, where the proceeds, although paid into the general fund of the Treasury, did not in fact equal the total cost of maintaining the territorial government.

No, I guess you don't understand a thing about the constitution. Something that is PART of the constitution can't be "illegal." the income tax is constitutional because it is right there in the constitution.

This from annotations on the constitution at findlaw

The National Legislature has express authority "To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the Common defence and general welfare" with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United states, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution, and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defence and "general Welfare."

[...]

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the General Welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorised in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

§ 954. Having endeavoured to point out the leading distinctions between direct and indirect taxes, and that duties, imposts, and excises, in the sense of the constitution, belong to the latter class, the order of the subject would naturally lead us to the inquiry, why direct taxes are required to be governed by the rule of apportionment; and why "duties, imposts, and excises" are required to be uniform throughout the United States. The answer to the former will be given, when we come to the farther examination of certain prohibitory and restrictive clauses of the constitution on the subject of taxation. The answer to the latter may be given in a few words. It was to cut off all undue preferences of one state over another in the regulation of subjects affecting their common interests. Unless duties, imposts, and excises were uniform, the grossest and most oppressive inequalities, vitally affecting the pursuits and employments of the people of different states, might exist.

A better benchmark to test ican's claims, then, would be sources from the founding era or some time close to it. A good index to the available sources is The Founder's Constitution, published online and in print by the University of Chicago Press.Their chapter on Article 1, section 8, clause 1 features two founding-era sources that comment on the meaning of the term "uniformity". Both of them state unambiguously that the clause refers to uniformity among the states, not among individuals.

parados wrote:

No, I guess you don't understand a thing about the constitution. Something that is PART of the constitution can't be "illegal." the income tax is constitutional because it is right there in the constitution.

I don't think that any law can be 'illegal', can it, Parados? A law, duly passed by a legislative body can be unconstitutional where it's deemed to be in conflict with the Constitution but that doesn't make it illegal.

USA CONSTITUTION 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.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

ican711nm wrote:

Quote:

USA Constitution 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;

definition of imposts
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=imposts&x=28&y=10

definition of uniform
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8

"uniform throughout the United States."

The statement says the all taxes must be uniform geographically.

You will not find an informed opinion by any constitutional scholar or a court ruling that says it does not mean anything more than one state can't have a different tax rate than another state.

This from annotations on the constitution at findlaw

Quote:

Uniformity Requirement .--Whether a tax is to be apportioned among the States according to the census taken pursuant to Article I, Sec. 2, or imposed uniformly throughout the United States depends upon its classification as direct or indirect. 504 The rule of uniformity for indirect taxes is easy to obey. It exacts only that the subject matter of a levy be taxed at the same rate wherever found in the United States; or, as it is sometimes phrased, the uniformity required is ''geographical,'' not ''intrinsic.'' 505 Even the geographical limitation is a loose one, at least if United States v. Ptasynski 506 is followed. There, the Court upheld an exemption from a crude-oil windfall-profits tax of ''Alaskan oil,'' defined geographically to include oil produced in Alaska (or elsewhere) north of the Arctic Circle. What is prohibited, the Court said, is favoritism to particular States in the absence of valid bases of classification. Because Congress could have achieved the same result, allowing for severe climactic difficulties, through a classification tailored to the ''disproportionate costs and difficulties . . . associated with extracting oil from this region,'' 507 the fact that Congress described the exemption in geographic terms did not condemn the provision.

The clause accordingly places no obstacle in the way of legislative classification for the purpose of taxation, nor in the way of what is called progressive taxation. 508 A taxing statute does not fail of the prescribed uniformity because its operation and incidence may be affected by differences in state laws. 509 A federal estate tax law which permitted deduction for a like tax paid to a State was not rendered invalid by the fact that one State levied no such tax. 510 The term ''United States'' in this clause refers only to the States of the Union, the District of Columbia, and incorporated territories. Congress is not bound by the rule of uniformity in framing tax measures for unincorporated territories. 511 Indeed, in Binns v. United States, 512 the Court sustained license taxes imposed by Congress but applicable only in Alaska, where the proceeds, although paid into the general fund of the Treasury, did not in fact equal the total cost of maintaining the territorial government.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/26.html#7

Amendment XVI (1913)
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 of enumeration.

The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition is so powerful that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations. -- Adam Smith

What is wrong with our age is precisely the widespread ignorance of the role which these policies of economic freedom played in the technological evolution of the last two hundred years. People fell prey to the fallacy that the improvement of the methods of production was contemporaneous with the policy of laissez faire only by accident. -- Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. -- John Adams

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder. -- Frederic Bastiat

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. -- William Boetcker

When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. -- Benjamin Franklin