Posts Tagged ‘Amendment

19
Feb
13

Why Is Requiring a Warrant Bad? (Arizona HB2574)

Tom Forese

Tom Forese (AZ LD17)

The Fourth Amendment reads as follows:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

To me this seems pretty straight forward – the government cannot search your person, house, papers, or other property unless there is a warrant issued. In this warrant a specific scope will be given to include what can be searched and what can be seized… permitting that a probable cause can be given under Oath or affirmation to the people who can lawfully issue a warrant.

So how is it that we now have a government that allows drones come and search us as we move about our daily lives? If you truly think that anyone is up to no good then obtaining a lawful warrant should not be difficult.

Here in Arizona we are trying to pass a bill – HB2574 – that would require a warrant to be issued before any government agency can use a drone to spy or search any citizen. It must first pass Committee so that it can be put on the floor for debate and a subsequent vote. However, Thomas Forese and Justin Pierce are both balking at this bill to keep it off the floor.

If you believe that the government should be required to obtain a warrant to search our life happenings, by drone or by person, then please consider contacting these politicians and telling them to allow it on the floor to be voted on.

Thomas Forese
tforese@azleg.gov
602-926-5168

Justin Pierce
jpierce@azleg.gov
602-926-5495

Below is a copy of my short and sweet email – please feel free to use it and edit it as you see fit.

Dear Mr Forese:

As a law-abiding citizen and a precinct comitteman (LD17) I beleive that we should be afforded the right to privacy and the law. If any citizen is believed to be involved in wrong-doing then the proper procedure has long been to obtain a warrant in a lawful court and carry out any surveilence, searching, or seizures that are needed to protect the safety of our community. If a valid threat is brough forth in this procedure then a warrant should not be difficult to obtain. I am kindly asking you to use your elected position and as a family-man yourself to allow Arizona HB 2574 entitled “Citizens Protection From Unwarranted Surveillance Act” to be brought to the floor to be properly debated and voted upon.

08
Mar
11

The Return of the Balanced Budget Amendment

“The balanced budget amendment has good aspects, but it is simply not good enough in dealing with fundamental constitutional change for our country.” And thus with that 23-word statement in 1997, Democrat Sen. Robert Torricelli of New Jersey sunk conservative spirits. No longer did the U.S. Senate have the two-thirds it needed to enshrine a fundamental principle of governing into the highest law of the land: that politicians should pay for what they spend.

Controversial, I know. Pfft.

Due to Democrat Torricelli’s jellyfish backbone, the 1997 Balanced Budget Amendment fell one vote short of hitting the needed threshold, which was the same margin of failure as just one year before. And liberals couldnt have been happier. Their penchant for obligating the taxpayers of tomorrow to pay for the spending binges of today remained unbroken.

Not that the dissenting senators worded their objections that way. Nope. To Vermont’s incorrigible leftist Sen. Patrick Leahy, inserting a mechanism into the Constitution that would enable our government’s books to mirror the realities American businesses and families face daily was “bumper sticker politics” and “sloganeering.” The way toward rectifying Uncle Sam’s balance sheet was, according to Leahy, “political courage,” not tinkering with the Constitution. Thirty-three of Leahy’s Democratic colleagues agreed.

Mind-Boggling Debt

Of course, by “political courage,” Leahy didnt mean reforming our insolvent entitlement systems or abolishing many of the improvident, senseless, and unconstitutional government bureaucracies and programs in existence. Nah. He meant tax increases on the rich. You know the drill, people.

Prescience, however, is not a valued commodity in Washington, D.C., as lawmakers pursue policies that are in the best interest of their reelection, not of the republic.

When the balanced budget amendment failed in 1997, the federal deficit stood at just $22 billion and the national debt hovered around 5.5 trillion — meager compared with today’s obscene figures, where we have a deficit topping $1.6 trillion this year alone accompanied by a mind-boggling debt of $14 trillion and growing.

To put our debt in perspective, Kobe Bryant makes $25 million playing for the Los Angeles Lakers. Any guesses on how many seasons Kobe would have to play in order to pay off today’s national debt? How about a whopping 560,000. That’s chilling, and quite frankly, incomprehensible.

Heck, we’ve run deficits in 54 of the last 60 years, as the National Taxpayer Union points out. That’s a figure that would make Keynes himself blink.

Ironically, Leahy was on the right track when he spoke of the need for political courage. This country desperately needs it, but it must manifest itself in the form of politicians who will defend the property rights of all Americans as opposed to the current lawmaking that treats this nation’s treasury as a personal ATM card.

The brute political courage we need is for politicians to plug Congress’s desire to ransack the appropriations process to engineer winners and losers in the marketplace and thus perpetuate a class of constituents whose inspiration to vote is driven by keeping the government gravy train on a track straight to their bank accounts.

Thanks to the midterm elections, the time for real political courage is now: The balanced budget amendment is making a comeback thanks to one veteran and one freshman senator.

“The people are calling for it. They are clamoring for it. They’re demanding it,” said newly elected Utah Sen. Mike Lee, who has 19 of his colleagues, including Jim DeMint and Rand Paul, rallying in support of his balanced budget amendment. “The American people overwhelmingly demand it, and if members of Congress value their jobs, they are going to vote for it,” he told Human Events in an exclusive interview.

Lee’s a Tea Party faithful who believes his job boils down to this bare-bones task: produce a government in the original mold of the Constitution, which is to say, one whose legislative reach is restricted and clearly defined. In other words, a federal government that looks absolutely nothing like what we have today.

Opportune Time Needed

Lee is so intent on getting a vote on his balanced budget amendment that he’s ready to filibuster the vote on whether or not to raise the debt ceiling as a tactical move.

“I can tell you that there are a lot of people who will not even consider it [a vote on the debt limit] without a balanced budget amendment first being proposed by Congress,” he said emphatically.

That’s certainly one approach — to hold the Senate hostage until real, austere statutory spending limits are adopted.

Utah’s senior Sen. Orrin Hatch doesnt see it that way. He’s looking for a vote on his balanced budget amendment too, but at a time believed to be the most opportune for passage. He hasn’t set firm timetables or made any strict demands.

“You have to have a bipartisan vote. You have to have a President that does care, and you have to have a setting in time where people can’t do anything but vote for it,” Hatch explained. “Right now, I don’t think we have that.”

If youre keeping score, the two senators from Utah both have competing balanced budget amendments floating around the Senate. In some ways, these jockeying amendments are a reflection of the Tea Party being a big kid on the block within the GOP.

Hatch, though, has been in the Senate for more than three decades, and is confident that he can get a balanced budget amendment through, which is why he’s taking a softer tone and insisting on waiting for the best moment to accomplish that.

And there’s something to be said for Hatch’s, well, “political,” approach. He’s shepherded the balanced budget amendment since 1982, when it was approved in the Senate, but torpedoed in the House by then-Speaker Tip O’Neill. And, as noted above, Hatch came painstakingly close twice in the Senate, both in 1996 and 1997.

“It’s every bit as difficult now, but it’s important that we bring it up and that we make all the strides we can,” he said.

The long-serving senator has 32 co-sponsors for his bill, including Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who is the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee.

When it comes down to it, both Hatch and Lee’s amendments have the same goal: ending profligate spending. In fact, as Nobel Laureate James Buchanan said, “The balanced budget norm is ultimately based on the acceptance of the classic principles of public finance, meaning that politicians shouldn’t spend more than they are willing to generate in tax revenues, except during periods of extreme and temporary emergency.”

Courts Involved

There are notable differences between the balanced budget amendments of Hatch and Lee, which we lay out in detail in the accompanying chart. While Mike Lee would restrict government spending to 18% of the gross domestic product (GDP), Hatch’s limits the figure to 20%. The 40-year average of tax receipts to GDP is around 18%, and Hatch knows this to be the case, but, to quote him, “If you get it too low, then you lose any chance with the Democrats.” And that, right there, encapsulates the internal friction the GOP will face with this budding Tea Party caucus going head-to-head with those who are willing to work with Democrats to deliver a final product.

But there’s more: Hatch’s proposal allows a simple majority vote to waive the balanced budget requirement when there’s a declaration of war or a designated military conflict, whereas Lee’s amendment provides no such exception. His threshold is much higher — a two-thirds vote.

When aren’t we in a military conflict? Lee quips.

There are also differences in the enforcement mechanism. Lee would grant standing in federal court to members of Congress if flagrant violations of the amendment occur. Hatch doesnt want the courts anywhere near enforcement, believing that public pressure placed on politicians instead provides the best form of accountability. Plus, “Who wants the courts doing it?” asked Hatch, alluding to their predilection toward activism.

Lee himself acknowledges that court intervention would be rare, but that the mere possibility that it could occur would add some additional incentive to Congress to make sure that it stays within their restrictions.

So far, so good.

But procedurally, how would our gargantuan budget ever get balanced? We’re dealing with trillions of dollars here, after all, a highly complex web of arithmetic. Congress must make a good-faith effort, say Hatch and Lee, to use the best possible projections of spending and receipts. Even with the accurate projections, economic conditions change throughout the year that may inhibit the Feds’ budget from being balanced, such as underestimating costs, which happens more frequently than not these days. If such a scenario plays out, and a fiscal year does end with a deficit, such spending cuts can be incorporated into the next fiscal year’s budget and make up the difference on the back end. Under both plans, by the way, two-thirds of Congress would be needed to raise taxes, so it would be more likely than not that the budget would be balanced by spending cuts, not tax increases.

Hey, were all game for that.

Naturally, getting a balanced budget amendment adopted as part of the Constitution will not be an easy feat. And not because of the numerical hurdles and multiple steps needed to get any amendment through the Constitution (the process should be difficult). It’s because Democrats will kick and scream over the severe cuts to spending that would ensue after the adoption of a balanced budget amendment.

Heck, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his left-wing posse went apoplectic at a proposed spending reduction of $61 billion over the next seven months, calling it “extreme” and “draconian.” Just $61 billion. Thats it. To realize just how absurd such objections were, $61 billion is only a one-third of the money needed to cover the interest payments for U.S. bondholders this year alone.

Imagine when formal debate begins on the need to cut trillions in spending to rein in our deficit? Democrats may cut off their right arms in protest.

“This is exhibit A for why we need a balanced budget amendment,” responded Lee. “Politicians have reached the conclusion that they are the bad guys unless they say ‘yes’ to more spending, and it’s in light of that aspect of human nature that particularly tends to affect politicians, and that’s why we need a constitutional amendment.”

Unified GOP Caucus

“If this is going to get passed in the next two years,” says Hatch, “President Obama will have to step to the plate. Ultimately you’ll need presidential leadership because everybody knows that you’re not going to get spending under control until we take on entitlements as well. You cannot do it without presidential leadership.”

Remider: There’s always new presidential leadership come 2012. Well, we hope so anyway.

In the end, expect the GOP to have a unified caucus on a merger of the Hatch and Lee balanced budget amendments. It’s hard enough (almost impossible) to get one through when Democrats are in control of the Senate and the presidency, so the Republicans will need a unified front like they’ve had in the past.

A balanced budget amendment restricts the power of lawmakers, and that’s why the left despises it, and will work vigorously to defeat it. Get ready.

In the end, it is exactly what the Constitution needs. And esteemed economist Milton Friedman identified why two decades ago.

Said Friedman: “The amendment is very much in the spirit of the first 10 amendments — the Bill of Rights. Their purpose was to limit the government in order to free the people. Similarly, the purpose of the balanced-budget-and-tax-limitation amendment is to limit the government in order to free the people — this time from excessive taxation.”

If we cannot cut the Welfare State under these distressing economic conditions, then we’ll never do it. Now’s the time.

http://www.redstate.com/jasonmattera/2011/03/07/the-return-of-the-balanced-budget-amendment/

11
Apr
10

The Sixteenth Amendment Did Not Allow the Government to Tax You!

So guess what time it is – TAX TIME! For many of you it is a viewed as a time to “get a refund.” Of course, this completely ignores the fact that the government has been taking your money, interest free mind you, for the entire year. That money never even hit your wallet (or purse for you ladies) so it never really seemed like yours in the first place.

But, what is the justification for the government to take 20 or so percent of your paycheck? If you listen to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) then they will tell you that they do.

The Law: The constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment has invariably been upheld when challenged. And numerous courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non‑apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid. In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited to Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the “sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation.” (link)

So POOF there you have it – the courts have undoubtedly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment allows a direct income tax on [all] United States citizens. If you are a United States citizen, then you are taxable.

United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 950 (1991)

the court found defendant’s argument that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct, non-apportioned tax on United States citizens similarly to be “devoid of any arguable basis in law.”

Broughton v. United States, 632 F.2d 706 (8th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 930 (1981)

the court rejected a refund suit, stating that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes imposition of an income tax without apportionment among the states.

United States v. Hockensmith, 104 A.F.T.R.2d 2009-5133, 2009 WL 1883521 (M.D. Pa. Jun. 30, 2009)

the court rejected the taxpayer’s arguments that no law created an income tax and that the taxpayer was outside the government’s taxing authority. The court held that the Sixteenth Amendment allows for the taxation of income and eliminates the requirement for apportionment among the states.

IRS Publication 2105 entitled “Why Do I Have to Pay Taxes” also states,

Congress used the power granted by the Constitution and Sixteenth Amendment, and made laws requiring all individuals to pay tax.

So there you have it. There is nothing unconstitutional about the Sixteenth Amendment so you are taxable. The Sixteenth Amendment reads as follows.

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.

But wait…

The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified on February 3, 1913, so if it is what allowed the government to tax “incomes, from whatever source derived” then we should have an influx of people start filing starting around 1913 or 1914. Please review the chart below as I have compiled a list of the number of returns from 1913 to 2005 as well as a corresponding population. I have also added a category of the percentage of the American public filing as well as a percent increase of filings from the previous year.

Year Number of Returns Population % of Population Filing % Increase
1913 358,000 97,225,000 0.37% NULL
1914 358,000 99,111,000 0.36% 0.00%
1915 337,000 100,546,000 0.34% -5.87%
1916 437,000 101,961,000 0.43% 29.67%
1917 3,473,000 103,268,000 3.36% 694.74%
1918 4,425,000 103,208,000 4.29% 27.41%
1919 5,333,000 104,514,000 5.10% 20.52%
1920 7,260,000 106,461,000 6.82% 36.13%
1921 6,662,000 108,538,000 6.14% -8.24%
1922 6,787,000 110,049,000 6.17% 1.88%
1923 7,698,000 111,947,000 6.88% 13.42%
1924 7,370,000 114,109,000 6.46% -4.26%
1925 4,171,000 115,829,000 3.60% -43.41%
1926 4,138,000 117,397,000 3.52% -0.79%
1927 4,102,000 119,035,000 3.45% -0.87%
1928 4,144,000 120,509,000 3.44% 1.02%
1929 4,133,000 121,767,000 3.39% -0.27%
1930 3,852,000 123,076,741 3.13% -6.80%
1931 3,411,000 124,039,648 2.75% -11.45%
1932 4,083,000 124,840,471 3.27% 19.70%
1933 3,892,000 125,578,763 3.10% -4.68%
1934 4,198,000 126,373,773 3.32% 7.86%
1935 4,670,000 127,250,232 3.67% 11.24%
1936 5,486,000 128,053,180 4.28% 17.47%
1937 6,350,000 128,824,829 4.93% 15.75%
1938 6,251,000 129,824,939 4.81% -1.56%
1939 7,652,000 130,879,718 5.85% 22.41%
1940 14,711,000 132,122,446 11.13% 92.25%
1941 25,870,000 133,402,471 19.39% 75.85%
1942 36,619,000 134,859,553 27.15% 41.55%
1943 43,722,000 136,739,353 31.97% 19.40%
1944 47,111,000 138,397,345 34.04% 7.75%
1945 49,932,000 139,928,165 35.68% 5.99%
1946 52,817,000 141,388,566 37.36% 5.78%
1947 55,099,000 144,126,071 38.23% 4.32%
1948 52,072,000 146,631,302 35.51% -5.49%
1949 51,814,000 149,188,130 34.73% -0.50%
1950 53,060,000 152,271,417 34.85% 2.40%
1951 55,447,000 154,877,889 35.80% 4.50%
1952 56,529,000 157,552,740 35.88% 1.95%
1953 57,838,000 160,184,192 36.11% 2.32%
1954 56,747,000 163,025,854 34.81% -1.89%
1955 58,250,000 165,931,202 35.10% 2.65%
1956 59,197,000 168,903,031 35.05% 1.63%
1957 59,825,000 171,984,130 34.79% 1.06%
1958 59,085,000 174,881,904 33.79% -1.24%
1959 60,271,000 177,829,628 33.89% 2.01%
1960 61,028,000 180,671,158 33.78% 1.26%
1961 61,499,000 183,691,481 33.48% 0.77%
1962 62,712,000 186,537,737 33.62% 1.97%
1963 63,943,000 189,241,798 33.79% 1.96%
1964 65,376,000 191,888,791 34.07% 2.24%
1965 67,596,000 194,302,963 34.79% 3.40%
1966 70,160,000 196,560,338 35.69% 3.79%
1967 71,651,000 198,712,056 36.06% 2.13%
1968 73,729,000 200,706,052 36.73% 2.90%
1969 75,834,000 202,676,946 37.42% 2.86%
1970 74,280,000 205,052,174 36.22% -2.05%
1971 74,576,000 207,660,677 35.91% 0.40%
1972 77,573,000 209,896,021 36.96% 4.02%
1973 80,693,000 211,908,788 38.08% 4.02%
1974 83,340,000 213,853,928 38.97% 3.28%
1975 82,229,000 215,973,199 38.07% -1.33%
1976 84,670,000 218,035,164 38.83% 2.97%
1977 86,635,000 220,239,425 39.34% 2.32%
1978 89,772,000 222,584,545 40.33% 3.62%
1979 92,694,000 225,055,487 41.19% 3.25%
1980 93,902,000 227,224,681 41.33% 1.30%
1981 95,396,000 229,465,714 41.57% 1.59%
1982 95,337,000 231,664,458 41.15% -0.06%
1983 96,321,000 233,791,994 41.20% 1.03%
1984 99,439,000 235,824,902 42.17% 3.24%
1985 101,660,000 237,923,795 42.73% 2.23%
1986 103,045,000 240,132,887 42.91% 1.36%
1987 106,996,000 242,288,918 44.16% 3.83%
1988 109,708,000 244,498,982 44.87% 2.53%
1989 112,136,000 246,819,230 45.43% 2.21%
1990 113,717,000 249,438,712 45.59% 1.41%
1991 114,730,000 252,127,402 45.50% 0.89%
1992 113,605,000 254,994,517 44.55% -0.98%
1993 114,602,000 257,746,103 44.46% 0.88%
1994 115,943,000 260,289,237 44.54% 1.17%
1995 118,218,000 262,764,948 44.99% 1.96%
1996 120,351,000 265,189,794 45.38% 1.80%
1997 122,422,000 267,743,595 45.72% 1.72%
1998 124,771,000 270,298,524 46.16% 1.92%
1999 127,075,000 272,690,813 46.60% 1.85%
2000 129,374,000 281,421,906 45.97% 1.81%
2001 130,255,000 285,081,556 45.69% 0.68%
2002 130,076,000 287,803,914 45.20% -0.14%
2003 130,424,000 290,326,418 44.92% 0.27%
2004 132,226,000 290,045,739 45.59% 1.38%
2005 134,373,000 295,753,151 45.43% 1.62%

We will notice that there are a few years where there was a big jump over the previous year. The biggest one is from 1916 to 1917 going from 437000 returns filed to 3,473,000 returns filed respectively. The second big jump is from 1939 to 1940 with 7,652,000 and 14,711,000 returns filed respectively. For the first example, 1916 to 1917 there was a whopping 3,036,000 extra returns filed for a total jump of nearly 695%. Why in the world would we have that big of a jump and later a 92% jump in 1939 to 1940? If the Sixteenth Amendment was what made us liable, then what happened in 1913, 1914, 1915, and 1916 where less than 0.43% of the American public filed? Was the government (IRS) so inept that it couldn’t wrangle in millions of righteous returns? Please… give me a break.

Take a minute and think about all your friends and family. Who files? If my life, everyone I know files (with the exception of children). I would venture to say that this is true for you as well. But look at the above table. Up until 1939 less than 6% of the public filed! For our purposes we will say that only 45% of the people file taxes today – the rest are underage or wholy exempt. By using this logic we still have a gap of 39% of the public not filing. That means that almost 4 of 10 people never filed up until 1939. And when I say they didn’t file, I mean they didn’t even fill out and sign a 1040 and of course didn’t pay taxes.

WHY!?

If you are more of a visual person let’s take a look at a graph. (Click on the graphic to see full view).

This graph was made from data from the IRS SOI report found here. The population data was found from Census.gov or other websites that derived their data from the Census Bureau. All data from the above table also was derived from these sites.

So seriously. Check that graph out. The part in orange is the number of returns filed and the yellow part is the population. Why is it that up until 1939 the number of returns generally did not change? But after about 1946 the amount of returns filed tracked with the population?

Look, it is pounded into our heads that we have to pay taxes. People always have and always have ever since the conception of government. This is true and I do not question this. Tax law has been around in America since it was founded – it is in the Constitution. However, America was founded on a unique idea that there were to be rules for how people were to be taxed. You know, the whole no tax without representation? No longer was it the will of the king or queen or dictator for what they wanted. No, for the first time the We the People were to have a say in how we were to be taxed.

Along the line something changed in America. I don’t know exactly what happened but I can speculate. I do know a few things though. The Sixteenth Amendment that was passed in 1913 did not make it so that I was taxable. If it was, then how do you explain the less than 6% of the population filing before 1939? Did it really take 26 years for them to finally enforce the Sixteenth Amendment? Certainly not the IRS I know.

The better answer is that in 1939 World War II started with the United States of America entering on December 8, 1941. Later in 1942 the American government signed into law what was called the Victory Tax of 1942. What it did was “There shall be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year beginning after December 31, 1942, a victory tax of 5 per centum upon the victory tax net income of every individual (other than a nonresident alien subject to the tax imposed by section 211(a)).” So if you wern’t paying taxes before, then you were now. This was later repealed by the Income Tax Act of 1944. But alas, two years was enough for people to get used to the government mandating that they have money taken out of their paycheck to give to the “good of the government,” which at the time of the bill was to fight the Axis of Evil.

But this still doesn’t explain why we had massive increases in people filing from 1939 to 1942 – 7,652,000 to 36,619,000 filings respectively. I have a theory but I believe it was because of the Social Security Act of 1935. Prior to this America had gone through the Great Depression – 1929 to 1939. During these times people’s lives were ruined. Their savings depleted and many were looking for help. The government has always take care of it’s people with retirement plans, unemployment benefits, temporary assistance, and other programs to help its workers out. Essentially what the Social Security Act of 1935 did was open up these programs to the general public, even if they were not working for the government. In other words, people could purchase “insurance” through the government.

I would assume that the support grew quite rapidly in the following years for the program. After all, people had just got done starving on the streets and living in the gutter – they wanted help. Of course, good old Uncle Sam was there to lend them a helping hand! In 1940 the government did a major overhaul to the tax law. The major addition was the Subtitle C taxes, called employment taxes. The language of Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Act of 1940 is almost, if not, word for word taken from the Social Security act of the 1935. What am I saying here? I am saying that if you wanted to participate in Social Security then you had to be treated in a different manner than you were before so you could be eligible. This is why there was an increase in taxes filed from 1935 to 1939. Look at the filings from 1925 to 1935. In general the amount of people filing is 4 million. There is very little deviating in these ten years. However when Social Security became an option (1935) about 1 million people voluntarily signed up every year until 1939 – then it was coded into law and then concreted into people’s minds that their “employer” took out money via the Victory Tax. It became commonplace. It became expected.

I am not really sure if I am making sense here. We will never know exactly how or what happened with the history of taxes. I do hope that by this table and chart that I have made you DO question what the government says about “why you must pay” though. They cite the Sixteenth Amendment as the precedent for being able to tax you but it can be clearly seen that it did not. Less than 6% of people filed taxes, much less paid taxes, before 1939.

Why? Why? WHY?!

Nothing has changed with laws. If you were not taxable back in 1920 then you are not taxable today. The Code has not changed in substance, only structure of how it was written. The courts, including the Supreme Court and Tax Court, have ruled that the Sixteenth did not expand the taxation power of the government.

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. , 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

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. (link)

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co. 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation — that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.

[…]

…they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.” (link)

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished:

“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.”

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U. S. 103, 240 U. S. 112 et seq.; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165, 247 U. S. 172-173. (link)

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926)

The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. (link)

Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, 32 T.C. 653 at 659 (1959), aff’d, 277 F.2d 16, 60-1 U.S. Tax Cas

In dealing with the scope of the taxing power the question has sometimes been framed in terms of whether something can be taxed as income under the Sixteenth Amendment. This is an inaccurate formulation [ . . . ] and has led to much loose thinking on the subject. The source of the taxing power is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. (link, sorry I had to use wiki as I could not find a free link to the TC case)

Emphasis mine. So what is it besides the fear of the IRS that makes you eligible for taxes? Is it really the 16th like the government tells us? I’d like to know your thoughts.

25
May
09

A Discussion Regarding Taxation on Private Sector Earnings

Taken from a college student’s paper regarding taxation. Author wishes to remain anonymous. I know that the subject of taxes is confusing and somewhat boring but I urge you to read through this and think about it. All sources are listed at the bottom if you want to see the sources used. Enjoy and thank you to the author of this paper.

Even though those whom disagree often site the sixteenth amendment as the law allowing the Congress to tax private sector labor as income, the taxation imposed on the pay of private sector workers is improper because Article 1 Section IX of the United States Constitution prohibits Direct taxation without apportionment, and numerous Supreme Court decisions espouse that trading labor for money is a natural right.

Taxes are a necessary evil. In order for Governments to function, they require a revenue stream – the debts of the government need to be paid, the members of the armed forces need to be paid, and the normal day to day operations of the Government need to be paid. The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power to generate a revenue stream through the laying and collecting of taxes; this power is given in Article 1 Sec 8 Cl. 2, which states:

“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;” 

Then, in Article 1 Sec 9 Cl 4; “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” And in Clause 5 “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.” The Founding Fathers, understanding the need of the Federal Government to have a positive inflow of Continue reading ‘A Discussion Regarding Taxation on Private Sector Earnings’

15
Apr
09

What Income Taxes Really Are

There IS an Income Tax . . .

HOWEVER

“Everything” you earn
IS NOT
“Taxable Income”

Did YOU earn your money by:

WORKING FOR…

DOING BUSINESS WITH…

INVESTING IN…

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ?

If not, then those earnings
ARE NOT “taxable income”

WWW.LOSTHORIZONS.COM

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 63. Taxable income defined

(a) In general: Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

That’s not very helpful, what exactly IS “income” since THAT is what you are taxing…

US Supreme Court, US v. Ballard, 535 f2d 400, 404 (1976) “The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code”

What does the Dictionary say “income” is?

in·come: The monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, such as rents or investments.

OK, “income” is all that I earn from my work and investments…just what I thought…

US Supreme Court, Southern Pacific v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330 (1918): “We must reject the broad contention submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts, everything that comes in, are income…”

WHAT !?…….”income” is NOT “all” money that I receive !? What does the Constitution say about a DIRECT TAX upon my earnings?

US Constitution, Article 1 Section 9: “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken”

In response to the above Constitutional reference, your accountant or the IRS will probably refer to the 16th Amendment, commonly known as the “Income tax”. To which the Supreme Court would reply…

US Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 U.S. 103 (1916): The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…

Additionally… Howard M. Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division of the Library of Congress Report No. 80-19A,“Some Constitutional Questions Regarding The Federal Income Tax Laws”:

Page CRS-5 (1979): “The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White [the Brushaber ruling], first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity.”F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department Legislative draftsman. March, 27 1943 Page 2580.

The income tax is, therefore, is not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.

The “PRIVILEGE” you must participate in to earn “taxable income” is working for, doing business with, or investing in businesses majority-owned by the Federal Government or “Federal Instrumentalities”. If you make your money having nothing to do with the Federal Government, then your earnings are not “taxable income”.

WWW.LOSTHORIZONS.COM

(original)

20
Mar
09

Mandatory Volunteerism = Free Slave: HR 1388

Interesting. I thought that America was the “Land of the Free,” but it appears that I was wrong. On 18 March 2009 the House of Representatives voted on HR 1388 – the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act or the GIVE Act with a vote of 321 to 105. (See how your representatives voted here).

Now let me make one thing clear. I am all for people volunteering their time to the community. I have long said that if everyone quit being so selfish that we would be better off. It is our neighbors that make life good, not the government. Even in my life, I can remember having neighbors who looked out for my siblings and me. And that is the way it should be;  the government should not look after people. But, I digress. I like volunteer work, but mandatory volunteer work. Um, no….

With this new bill it is possible that any able bodied person will have to volunteer their time to some sort of service of which the government will determine. This is interesting because as I remember it, we have the Thirteenth Amendment, which reads:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

What part of “involuntary servitude” does not make sense here fellas? Hell, they even have a “Senior Corps” built into this plan for people over 55!

Let’s also look at amendment 12 to this bill, which reads:

Amendment to prohibit organizations from attempting to influence legislation; organize or engage in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes; and assist, promote, or deter union organizing. Proposed: Mar 18, 2009. Accepted: Mar 18, 2009.

Hello? First Amendment? Please notice that this Amendment was ACCEPTED!

Moving on Section 1710 reads:

STUDY TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A CENTRALIZED ELECTRONIC CITIZENSHIP VERIFICATION SYSTEM.
(a) Study- The Corporation for National and Community Service shall conduct a study to determine the effectiveness of a centralized electronic citizenship verification system which would allow the Corporation to share employment eligibility information with the Department of Education in order to reduce administrative burden and lower costs for member programs. This study shall identify–

A WHAT? A centralized electronic citizenship verification system? Is this the National ID? Or the RFID chip? Or what? C’mon now…

Scaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyy….. On the bright side, thank you to Congressman Flake for voting Nay on this monstrosity!

01
Mar
09

Where Is Our Republic?

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”

– United States Constitution Article 4 Section 4 Clause 1.

Our Founding Fathers agreed to a Republican form of Government for this young upstart nation vice a Democracy for many reasons, among which, as James Madison said “A pure democracy is unwieldy, dangerous in its passion, and subject to mob rule thereby lending itself to instability and violence. Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

In a Republic, the majority may never have complete control over the minority. The rights of the minority are protected by the checks and balances built into the Republics by-laws. One of the checks and balances our Constitution provides was in how or country was represented at the Federal level. The members of the House of Representatives were elected by the people of the respective districts, the Senators were appointed by the legislatures of each of the several States. One chamber was for the people and one chamber for the States and the President was elected by a majority vote of the electors of the several States. This ensured that the rights, needs and desires of the PEOPLE and the STATES were represented at the Federal level.

Since the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted to the Constitution, the voice of the States has been taken away. The Checks and balances put into place by our founding fathers have been removed and our form of governance has been whittled away to an unwieldy Democracy. The people vote for our President, the people vote for our Representatives and the people vote for the Senators. Fifty-one percent of the country now has complete control over the other 49 percent. Look back at the history of our nation, prior to the adopting of the 17th Amendment things were pretty smooth, the People and the States had to agree in order for legislation to pass both houses. Now the People have to agree with the People, which ever side has 51 percent will usually win. I am well aware of the Senate 60 vote filibuster issue, but I contend it is merely a matter of time before Harry Reid tries to change that. The House has already all but eliminated any input from the minority party, I don’t expect the Senate to be far behind.

In order to reacquire the promise of Article 4 Section 4 Clause 1 of the Constitution, this American believes the road starts with repealing the 17th Amendment.

Written by: DJ




Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories