Novel tax protester argument

[johngr]

The government has reserved to itself the power to label any citizen a terrorist and summarily execute him. As federal taxes fund US citizens' summary executions, being required to pay violates the right to life.

 

[Elwar]

The government has reserved to itself the power to label any citizen a terrorist and summarily execute him. As federal taxes fund US citizens' summary executions, being required to pay violates the right to life.

There is no right to life in the Constitution.

 

[erowe1]

There is no right to life in the Constitution.

What about this?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[mczerone]

There is no right to life in the Constitution.

In US Constitutional parlance, the right to maintain one's life is protected by due process, either as a stand-alone right or as a subsidiary to the right to liberty (usually only applied to false imprisonment and denial of professional aspirations).

There is no Consitutional definition of life, however, which is why the abortion debate rages on: in state and common law traditions life began at live birth, not at any point in utero. Thus the balancing of the prospective of live birth against the costs of the mother's health (and prospects for continued life) that SCOTUS has adopted as the standard in determining whether State practices are Constitutional.


Speaking and Understanding Statespeak is a real bitch.

 

[Elwar]

What about this?

Ya...I've focussed on that as well...

I'd love for that part of the Constitution to mean what I want it to mean...that they can't deprive you of any of that without due process of law.

That would mean that they can't take away my liberty without due process of law either.

But every time I've asked about it, the response has always been that that section is just about how they can treat me once I'm in the court system. And that they can take it away after due process of law.

 

[Elwar]

There is no Consitutional definition of life, however, which is why the abortion debate rages on: in state and common law traditions life began at live birth, not at any point in utero. Thus the balancing of the prospective of live birth against the costs of the mother's health (and prospects for continued life) that SCOTUS has adopted as the standard in determining whether State practices are Constitutional.

So, Constitutionally, for a state to pass a pro-life law could they make the act of "being conceived" illegal?

The cells would then be granted the right to life until due process of law is followed...

 

[Peace&Freedom]

There is no Consitutional definition of life, however, which is why the abortion debate rages on: in state and common law traditions life began at live birth, not at any point in utero. Thus the balancing of the prospective of live birth against the costs of the mother's health (and prospects for continued life) that SCOTUS has adopted as the standard in determining whether State practices are Constitutional.

There were also not even five constitutional scholars who would have told you with a straight face prior to Roe that there was a right to abortion in the Constitution, let alone that 180+ years of settled law on abortion across the 50 states were all equally unconstitutional. Before then states provided different types of partial recognition, protection or preference to the unborn, although full acknowledgement of the life began at birth.

On the basis of an exceedingly rare instance where the mother's physical life was threatened (a situation Dr. Paul says he never encountered in delivering 4,000 babies) the SCOTUS concocted a 'balancing' where the live birth of the unborn is granted legal protection 0.0% of the time---some balance.

 

[Elwar]

Well, if life were protected under the Constitution under the 5th Amendment, so would Liberty and Property.

And we all know that we do not have Liberty in the US.

 

[RATM99]

How does the IRS search us without warrants?

Because we "volunteer". What a bunch of BS.

 

[rancher89]

Interesting perspective here, go to "Patriot Mythology" on the left side of the page.

http://teamlaw.org/

 

[AParadigmShift]

It's interesting how SCOTUS, deliberately and narrowly defined the nebulous language of 16th Amendment in the first cases which sought to test its bounds.

Generally speaking there are only two types of taxes allowable under the Constitution: direct and indirect. A direct tax, is a tax which cannot be avoided by normal activity; it is a tax that can be imposed on the enjoyment of Rights, of property/income, and which, constitutionally, must be apportioned. An indirect tax, is a tax that can be avoided by normal activity; it is an excise tax, a tax on specific activities: the exercise of privileges.

There's no room here to delve into the reasoning behind the need for the 16th Amendment, expect to say that Congress was eager to capture corporate income (increase from capital gains). Needless to say, Congress gave it several addled attempts, and the court shot them down, one after the other.

So, with that in mind, it's interesting to note the court's decisions respecting the breadth of the 16th Amendment. To recap, without apportionment i.e. a direct tax, an individual cannot be taxed for the privilege of existing. Or, looking at it from the other side, individuals are not subject to an indirect tax (an excise), unless they engage in a privileged (corporate) activity.

From Brushaber, the first case, Justice White states (and note, he's using a negative approach to clarify the extent of the Amendment by drawing attention to "erroneous assumption", a position which he later hammers crystal clear in Stanton):

The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th 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. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows: (a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside of the Amendment, and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned. . .

Did you catch that? The suggestion that the 16th Amendment provided an unknown power of taxation or a power to levy an income tax not subject to apportionment, is an erroneous assumption.

Now, here again, is White opining in Stanton:

. . . by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged. . .

What do we know? The 16th Amendment, per SCOTUS, did not disrupt apportionment or uniformity, it did not upset "income taxation" per the Constitution into another category, nor did it grant Congress new plenary powers of taxation respecting the work-a-day individual's property i.e. his/her income. What it did do however, was give Congress the power to tax gain or increase from corporate activities.

I think it should be noted that the income tax is not a tax on income per the 1909 Corporate Tax Act and the 16th Amendment; but rather, it is an excise tax with respect to engaging in an activity or privilege, and it uses the amount of income as a gauge to the level of taxation.

So, if you're not engaged in a privileged activity, and income taxation is yet in the category of direct taxation, how can the federal gov't, without apportionment, infringe on the enjoyment of your Rights and think to gnaw away at your property/income?

Good freakin' question.

 

[Elwar]

So, if you're not engaged in a privileged activity, and income taxation is yet in the category of direct taxation, how can the federal gov't, without apportionment, infringe on the enjoyment of your Rights and think to gnaw away at your property/income?

Because they have bigger guns than us.

 

[AParadigmShift]

Because they have bigger guns than us.

Bigger guns on the one side, tragic ignorance on the other.

Another score for Leviathan.

 

[MN Patriot]

Here's a novel idea: outlaw payroll deductions of taxes

Get some liberty candidates to propose introducing legislation to outlaw employers taking their employees money.
Require each tax payer to send in a check every month for their federal taxes, state taxes, Social Security, Medicare, etc.
That would start a tax revolt, and it is perfectly legal. Unless the fascists pass a bill forbidding them to introduce legislation.