Comments on: Our Federal Government

By: Bob Greenslade

Bob Greenslade — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 05:58:12 +0000

Yo Mr. Elitist…you missed the point…he did not know basic geography. That said, I read your latest on the income tax. You might want to re-think your statement on the 16th Amendment.

In 1980, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) prepared a report for Congress concerning the federal income tax. (According to CRS web-page, they provide Congress with legal and other analysis that is authoritative, accurate, objective and nonpartisan). This Report discussed two 1916 Supreme Court decisions and the effect of the Sixteenth Amendment on the federal government’s power to tax:

“The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, 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… 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.”

Source for above quote: “Some Constitutional Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax,” Howard M. Zaritsky, (Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., 1980) p. 5, Report No. 84-168 A 734/275.

Note: The two cases were Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1, (1916) and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S.103 (1916).

In the Baltic Mining Company case, Justice White wrote:

“(T)he Sixteenth 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….”

As stated by above, the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax or repeal or revoke the existing clauses. Indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity and direct taxes were still required to be apportioned among the several States based on population. Thus, the Amendment could not have granted Congress a new power to impose income taxes because the Amendment did not authorize a new type or class of tax.

By: DarylLloydDavis

DarylLloydDavis — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:41:50 +0000

@onetenther You clearly haven’t checked out my site if you think I’m advocating some sort of socialism. At the very least, read my latest blog post about the income tax:

http://whatdirectdemocracymightbe.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/the-immoral-income-tax-and-direct-democracy/

The sole aim of my brand of direct democracy is to teach the People to do without government altogether–allow them limited political autonomy within their local communities so as to learn hands-on the folly of any dependence upon government. (The essence of the 10th Amendment, only more local control)

Where we may differ is that I don’t believe that in a dangerous world everything can be voluntary–pay taxes voluntarily, go to jail voluntarily, follow the law voluntarily, etc. I’m not interested in hearing theories of voluntarism until EVERYONE is listening–especially people who take pleasure in violating others’ rights.

Talking to me about it is just preaching to the choir.

By: onetenther

onetenther — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:19:51 +0000

@DarylLloydDavis The point I was making about consent of the governed is that it is a consent to have some freedom removed VOLUNTARILY. People consent to certain laws through the democratic process but what about people who did not get an opportunity to vote up or down on those same laws or have any say in the law’s creation? We can’t really say that people outside the political jurisdiction are really bound by the law in the same way as the people inside of it because they really didn’t consent to having that liberty taken away from them. The people of Canada can’t be subject to US law simply because they had no opportunity to consent to them hence while they live in Canada they are not subject to the laws of the United States.

What about people born after the laws creation? What about if that gap between the time the law was enacted and when the law is being applied is several generations? I think the proceeding generations are in the same boat as Canadians in that they did not consent to the law removing some of their natural pre-existing freedom so it kind of seems that these laws are tyranical since that generation did not have any opportunity vote or have any say in it. The very definition of dictatorship is being ruled without your approval and living under laws that you did not consent to. This definition seems to imply that laws being applied to the current generation are, in fact, tyranical.

By: onetenther

onetenther — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:09:28 +0000

@DarylLloydDavis I’m not really sure if you are advocating for some kind of socialist system but this is what I have to say on the subject.

The right to life and the ability to maintain it is what the idea of individual pursuit of property is. Once a person freely secures some property such as food, shelter, and everything else they need to survive then why to they have to give that up once it has been obtained? More importantly, why does anyone have to give up the freedom to obtain the things they want? It is a very individualistic and individualism is selfish since the individual in these societies focuses on their own interest. Call it self-interest if you want but greed has been more beneficial to humanity that selflessness ever was.

By: DarylLloydDavis

DarylLloydDavis — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:32:37 +0000

@onetenther The Social Contract is not a valid contract; but it is nevertheless an enforceable contract. Individual rights are predicated upon the survival of individuals–on the right to life. If survival itself depends upon securing control of limited natural resources; and such control cannot be maintained absent a limited state system, primarily in the form of a combined defense against competing human collectives; then individual rights must be partially subsumed by a state system–only to the extent necessary for ensuring life itself.

If technology advances to a point where individual survival is either no longer dependent upon limited natural resources or no longer physically imperiled by other humans, then the state might dissolve naturally.

http://whatdirectdemocracymightbe.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/the-nation-state-law-punishment-and-immigration/

By: DarylLloydDavis

DarylLloydDavis — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 15:25:42 +0000

@Bob Greenslade Spare me the elitist pretensions. True, it was a thoughtless question. But does letting Nancy Pelosi make decisions for such people make them or make us any better for it. I’d rather let the former student take responsibility for his/her own life than allow Pelosi to take charge of mine.

Perhaps that same former student might school you on the free speech and copyright ramifications of the SOPA legislation–I.e. something more relevant to this generation than Pearl Harbor.

Perhaps you’re betraying your own bias in favor of burying your head in history books–an unwillingness, more likely a fear, to make of your own present day what the Founding Fathers made of theirs.

Some men are content with quiet mediocre lives; some are not. To each his own.

By: onetenther

onetenther — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:29:52 +0000

@DarylLloydDavis The idea that this is not the founders nation anymore kind of brings me to a question of if we live by consent of the governed then do we really have to honor the constitution’s authority whatsoever? I surely didn’t consent to it in anyway and neither did anyone else. I would also say the same for international treaties that impose restrictions on our behavior such as not going to war when the U.N. comes a calling. I did not consent to having to participate in a retirement system such as the social security tax. I did not consent to have any of my liberties taken away from me in these regards yet it is imposed. It seems that I was born in chains with a lot of my natural God-given freedom already denied to me. This does not seem fair.

By: Bob Greenslade

Bob Greenslade — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 03:47:20 +0000

@DarylLloydDavis

“the proliferation of the college educated citizen? ”

Like the one who asked me if the Japanese flew over the US before bombing Pearl Harbor in 1941.

By: DarylLloydDavis

DarylLloydDavis — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:37:14 +0000

Our “federative system” is based upon a representative scheme of 1790, when the population of the whole Republic numbered far less than many of our larger cities today. Why should we not re-calibrate this scheme to reflect, not only an explosion in population, but the development of a national digital press, the ubiquity of the internet, and the proliferation of the college educated citizen?

This is not the nation of the Founding Fathers any longer. Let’s stop pretending that we owe them our blind allegiance. Americans are, and have always been, of a special character.

http://whatdirectdemocracymightbe.wordpress.com/the-perilous-mob/