Constitutionalist/Libertarians speak out!!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by YWD67, Apr 20, 2011.

Watchers:
This thread is being watched by 1 user.
  1. YWD67

    YWD67 YOUR WATCH DOG 67 Established Member

    Okey, her we go!!! I want all, and I mean all so called such members here of such AI, Carp, Poot; please given your idea of what the U.S. government is only supposed to be responsible for under their interpretation of the constitution?
    That includes everything from taxes, property, security, commerce, etc,etc,etc.
    Get it right the first time, as anything after words will be conidered spinning, lying, BS, by "their own definition", in other words their definition of politcits as usual.
  2. carpefile

    carpefile Chronic Established Member

    Since I have to get it right the first time, you don't need to ask for any of our interpretations of the constitution. The intent of the framers is all spelled out with great detail and clarity in the Federalist Papers. There is no spin, its all there in black and white, with very little wiggle room for interpretation.
    I'll be happy to debate with you, point by point, on any constitutional limitation or authorization you care to, with references in context written by the framers.
    I'm not going to just give you some all inclusive one shot straw man for you to pick at though.
    If you can't be troubled to learn the design of our nation by our framers in their own words, I will pull up the pertinent information for you as needed.
    Pick a topic and we'll begin.
  3. YWD67

    YWD67 YOUR WATCH DOG 67 Established Member

    I am well aware of the history of the framing of the constitution. Safe to say almost three times longer then you have.
    I have worked with the laws of this land for probably twice as long as you have been alive. I worked with it in its practicality. Not in theory, or in a personal opinionated context.
    So please do not lecture me on such.

    However since you feel that you can not deal with such in a large context, I will just pick one topic so you will not have to multitask.

    Here you go.
    Property!!!!!
    That is it nothing more
  4. Tic3

    Tic3 - Staff Member Moderator

    You really miss Don Webb, don't you?
  5. carpefile

    carpefile Chronic Established Member

    You're not so much older than I as you think. I will make the dangerous assumption that you refer to the federal government's role with regards to private property.
    The founding fathers maintained that private property rights pre-existed before government, under common law. They defined private property as "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual" and in the Federalist Papers #10 & #54 discuss limiting the federal government to enforcing law protecting property rights from infringement, even from the federal government, and arbitrating disputes between property owners. They further discuss the concept of "eminent domain" and just compensation for such, which has been trampled by our government at an alarmingly progressive rate over the past 100 years or so.
    Non-elected federal agencies such as the EPA, FHA, FTC, and HUD combine executive and judicial functions with their rule-making authority, subverting the 3 tiered division of power concept put in place by our founders, resulting in feudal-like power over the private property held by citizens.
    In Federalist Papers #54 James Madison warns that "the accumulation of all powers legislative, executive, and judicial in the same hands, whether of one, few or many and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the Constitution chargeable with this accumulation of power or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system."
    Clearly the federal government has grossly overstepped their constitutional limits with regard to private property rights.
    Rebuttal, Oh sage elder?
  6. YWD67

    YWD67 YOUR WATCH DOG 67 Established Member

    Your interpretation would apply to the effect that if I want to dump four thousand pounds of chicken waste from my farm into waterways that passes through my property is my right.

    Please show how this does not apply.
  7. carpefile

    carpefile Chronic Established Member

    Simply put, you can't own flowing water. It doesn't meet the requirements of private property. "That dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual".
    Every property owner through which the waterways run shares access to the water, so none of them can claim dominion in exclusion of every other individual. Any property owner downstream would be harmed by your dumping of chicken waste and you would be liable for damages.

    Same reason you can't dam the stream and divert the water to irrigate your fields. You can pull water from the stream and water your fields if you want, but you can't eliminate access to those downstream.
  8. carpefile

    carpefile Chronic Established Member

    Well, moving on. Let's talk about taxes. In the Federalist Papers #32-36, the issue of the federal government's authority to collect taxes is discussed in exhaustive detail, mostly on what the states are allowed to tax vs what the fed can tax. They conclude that taxable items are import and export duties, land, and consumption, of which the fed can lay taxes on all of them, while the states are excluded from taxing import/export. Income is never mentioned. Not once. The other major point is that congress is given the duty of making and implementing tax laws because they are made up of elected representatives with the closest ties to the people. This duty is expressly prohibited from being delegated in order to keep congress in step with the will of the people. So no IRS. Ooops.

    The sixteenth amendment introduces the income tax and the IRS, illegally. Not because it changes the constitution, that is after all what amendments are for. Its illegal because it was passed without being properly ratified by 3/4 of the states (we had 48 at the time). 36 states were required to approve to obtain ratification. Only 20 states actually submitted proper approval, yet congress ratified it anyway. Federal income taxation is therefore fraudulent and illegal, as is the existence of the IRS.
  9. YWD67

    YWD67 YOUR WATCH DOG 67 Established Member

    The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was not properly ratified, thus the federal income tax laws are unconstitutional.
    WRONG!
    This argument is based on the premise that all federal income tax laws are unconstitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment was not officially ratified, or because the State of Ohio was not properly a state at the time of ratification. This argument has survived over time because proponents mistakenly believe that the courts have refused to address this issue.

    The Law: The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio (which became a state in 1803; see Bowman v. United States, 920 F. Supp. 623 n.1 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (discussing the 1953 joint Congressional resolution that confirmed Ohio's status as a state retroactive to 1803), and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only three fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment. There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.
    Similarly, Robert L. Schulz, along with his organizations, We the People Congress and We the People Foundation, marketed and distributed to customers a fraudulent Tax Termination Package� supposedly providing a way for taxpayers to legally stop withholding and paying taxes. The scheme was based on a number of false premises, including the claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. In August 2007, a federal court permanently enjoined Mr. Schulz and his organizations from promoting the scheme. See http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv07595.htm. United States v. Schulz, 529 F.Supp.2d 341 (N.D.N.Y. 2007), aff'd 517 F.3d 606 (2nd Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 435 (2008).
    In March 2008, a federal court in California permanently barred Steven Hempfling from selling a tax fraud scheme that falsely claims to give customers a legal defense against criminal prosecutions for income tax evasion. The court found that Hempfling sold a 16th Amendment Reliance Program that falsely promised customers that they could rely on the opinion of an Illinois tax defier, William Benson, to stop filing tax returns and to stop paying federal taxes and avoid being convicted of federal tax crimes. The court also barred Hempfling from selling how-to manuals that falsely tell customers that IRS tax liens and levies are invalid and that employers are not required to withhold federal income taxes from employees pay. See http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv08250.htm.
    William Benson wrote the book The Law That Never Was, in which he asserts that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. On his website, Benson sold his book, accompanied with excepts from state legislative histories, records from the National Archives, court cases, and other materials, in what he titled a Reliance Defense Package. In January 2008, the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a permanent injunction against Benson, barring him from promoting, organizing, or selling the Reliance Defense Package or the 16th Amendment Reliance Package or any other tax shelter, plan, or arrangement. United States v. Benson, 2008 WL 267055 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2008). The district court, however, did not require Benson to turn over his customer list. In April 2009, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the permanent injunction but reversed and remanded regarding the customer list. 561 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2009).
    The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2005-19, 2005-1 C.B. 819, which discusses this frivolous argument in more detail, warning taxpayers of the consequences of attempting to pursue a claim on these grounds.

    Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens.

    Some assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non apportioned income tax and thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws.
    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.
    Contention: The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States.
    WRONG!

    Some argue that the IRS is not an agency of the United States but rather a private corporation, because it was not created by positive law (i.e., an act of Congress) and that, therefore, the IRS does not have the authority to enforce the Internal Revenue Code.

    The Law: There is a host of constitutional and statutory authority establishing that the IRS is an agency of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 534 (1971), bear in mind that the Internal Revenue Service is organized to carry out the broad responsibilities of the Secretary of the Treasury under 7801(a) of the 1954 Code for the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws.
    Pursuant to section 7801, the Secretary of the Treasury has full authority to administer and enforce the internal revenue laws and has the power to create an agency to enforce such laws. Based upon this legislative grant, the IRS was created. Thus, the IRS is a body established by positive law because it was created through a congressionally mandated power. Moreover, section 7803(a) explicitly provides that there shall be a Commissioner of Internal Revenue who shall administer and supervise the execution and application of the internal revenue laws.
    In April 2006, a federal district court in Louisiana permanently barred Eddie Ferrand, Glenda F. Elliott, and William N. Kennedy, from preparing tax returns, because they had understated income on their customers federal income tax returns based on the frivolous premise, among others, that the IRS is an illegal organization.
  10. carpefile

    carpefile Chronic Established Member

    Source? Never mind, all it really says is the supreme court thumbed their noses at the constitution. Ohio was not the only state in question;
    The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.

    Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. But there's a number of problems with the count.

    In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Kentucky was counted as approving it!

    In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Still, Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.

    Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.

    The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. The Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.

    Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.

    Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.

    When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.

    Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.

    The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above). Source

Share This Page