Why is the average American shocked that universal income taxes are unconstitutional?

[dude58677]

I don't see how it can surprise anyone that a universal income tax is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons given our countries heritage. We fought a revolutionary war against a unfair tax from Britian, wrote a declaration of independence on the principles of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. We also created an Articles of Confederation where the powers to tax were so limited that a tax law couldn't even be enforced. When the Bill of Rights were enacted, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights states that they are intended prevent abuse of power and misconstruction. Afterwards we didn't have an income tax for 120 years and didn't have a witholding tax law till 1943 and was only intended to be used for a war effort. Now it is surprising that taxes are unconstitutonal?

 

[diesirae]

It would be very surprising because courts at all levels have repeatedly ruled that the income tax is, in fact, constitutional.

 

[Broadlighter]

Dude, the only taxes that are constitutional are indirect which are apportioned according to the states and the enumeration of their populations and direct taxes which are excises and tariffs. These moneys are only to fund items that are authorized in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

So there are constitutional taxes, but like the government, they are supposed to be LIMITED!

 

[ItsTime]

It would be very surprising because courts at all levels have repeatedly ruled that the income tax is, in fact, constitutional.

really?

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30860.html

 

[diesirae]

Dude, the only taxes that are constitutional are indirect which are apportioned according to the states and the enumeration of their populations and direct taxes which are excises and tariffs. These moneys are only to fund items that are authorized in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

So there are constitutional taxes, but like the government, they are supposed to be LIMITED!

Funny, but the claim that the income tax is a direct tax has also been repeatedly ruled against:

“[T]he words direct taxes, as used in the Constitution, comprehended only capitation taxes, and taxes on land, and perhaps taxes on personal property by general valuation and assessment of the various descriptions possessed with the several States. It follows necessarily that the power to tax without apportionment extends to all other objects. Taxes on other objects are included under the heads of taxes not direct, duties, imposts, and excises, and must be laid and collected by the rule of uniformity.”

“[Becraft’s] position can fairly be reduced to one elemental proposition: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens and thus such citizens are not subject to the federal income tax laws. ... We hardly need comment on the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition. For over 75 years, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized the Sixteenth Amendment’s authorization of a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens residing in the United States and thus the validity of the federal income tax laws as applied to such citizens.”

really?

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30860.html

Yes, really. Your article even specifically supports that:

Income taxes existed--and were considered constitutional--before the 16th Amendment.

It argues that what you need to eliminate the income tax is an amendment to remove the income tax. Repealing the 16th amendment would remove a number of different types of income taxes (non-apportioned); it would not eliminate the income tax, period. It would just require an apportionment.

 

[Fox McCloud]

the income tax is unconstitutional, from what I gather...but the courts have repeatedly ruled in favor against the Constitution itself (surprise surprise)....so it's pretty much impossible to beat, unless you're lucky.

 

[diesirae]

the income tax is unconstitutional, from what I gather...but the courts have repeatedly ruled in favor against the Constitution itself (surprise surprise)....so it's pretty much impossible to beat, unless you're lucky.

No, some people (apparently including you) believe the income tax is unconstitutional, and the courts have repeatedly told them they're wrong, but they don't listen. There's a reason why judges at all levels have repeatedly ruled against tax protester arguments, and it's not because every single judge in American history is evil and part of some dark kabbalahic organization designed to ensure that you pay income tax.

It's not "unless you're lucky" — it's "unless you're insane". The only people who have been able to get out of paying the fine for making frivolous tax protester arguments (and not paying their taxes) is by arguing that their irrational belief that the income tax is illegal constituted a mental delusion. Ironically, they usually win.

What I really, really don't understand is how anti-democratic this argument is. The states specifically passed an amendment to the constitution to allow for a non-apportioned income tax - and the argument is basically that the will of the people, exercised via legal channels and in the manner described by the constitution should is wrong and so they make up legally frivolous arguments so they don't have to take part.

 

[Fox McCloud]

What I really, really don't understand is how anti-democratic this argument is. The states specifically passed an amendment to the constitution to allow for a non-apportioned income tax - and the argument is basically that the will of the people, exercised via legal channels and in the manner described by the constitution should is wrong and so they make up legally frivolous arguments so they don't have to take part.

I'm not going to address what you previously said because I am not an expert, and I don't feel like arguing the matter anyway.

Either way, so, since it's the "will of the people", you wouldn't mind if the majority of States passed an amendment that banned gay marriage, formed a national health-care system, forced you to become part of a certain church, subsidize failing industries, to mandate that everyone has to be a certain weight, or pay 90% of your income to the government in exchange for them to "take care of you"?

Granted, those are extremist examples, yes, but just how eager are you take "Democracy"?

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I don't see how it can surprise anyone that a universal income tax is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons given our countries heritage. We fought a revolutionary war against a unfair tax from Britian, wrote a declaration of independence on the principles of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. We also created an Articles of Confederation where the powers to tax were so limited that a tax law couldn't even be enforced. When the Bill of Rights were enacted, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights states that they are intended prevent abuse of power and misconstruction. Afterwards we didn't have an income tax for 120 years and didn't have a witholding tax law till 1943 and was only intended to be used for a war effort. Now it is surprising that taxes are unconstitutonal?

It is interesting that the 10% tithe placed on Church members wasn't for God's work as people suppose but just for widows and orphans.
Of course, the Roman Emperor's tax was more mafioso in that it was his cut of the action. It was an agreement between the Romans who would supply an army to help the lessor armies of the individual nations within the Roman empire fend off invading armies. (Give to Caesar what is Caesars, give to God what is God's)
The King of England owned all the land in England which created a lot of illegal business in his Kingdom. As the normal business of the day had the first born going to work for the ruling monarchy and the second born going into the Church, the rest of the children were left to take care of the illegal business of survival. Because the King owned every inch of property, he hired Barons to penalize this illegal business.
I would think the reason the King of England needed to collect a tax to pay for the war with the French was to replentish his military.
Also I would think the whole reason for a tax would be to set up an inequitable system. If the government just spent the money necessary to take care of its business then the people could pay for it through productivity without the need for a tax. I would think this would be more productive than having to hire thousands of people to collect taxes.
I think the problem really exists between the rule of the people and the rule of tyranny. We are a nation of the people which means we should own the purse (debt) while tyranny creates legal counterfeit. So, the people and their posterity should not have to be burdered with any legal counterfeit created by tyranny outside of any reasonable debt. A Supreme Court ruling on this would certainly go towards helping our government operate more economically.

 

[dude58677]

It would be very surprising because courts at all levels have repeatedly ruled that the income tax is, in fact, constitutional.

Judicial supremacy is a myth under the text of the Constitution and it is just as much a myth as the income tax being unconstutional. Juries are allowed to rule on the Constitution under the ninth amendment as this is called jury nullification which is an American tradition dating back to the Magna Carta. The Supreme Court might say that there is no jury nullfication under the Bill of Rights and might instruct jurors to rule on only guilt and innocence but this act by the Supreme Court is unconstitutional and so jurors must rule to nullify the Supreme Court with the use of jury nullification.

Also Congress doesn't have to fund the Supreme Court and also Congress can control the jurisidiction of the Supreme Court. Congress has abused this power by enacting laws that sanction "tax protestors" so it isn't like the government wins fair and square.

LAst, the preamble to the Bill of Rights says "In order to prevent the misconstruction and abuse of powers, further restrictive clauses must be added" and thus the bill of rights restricts taxing, spending, and judical power esp the ninth amendment even if the government denies it.

 

[muh_roads]

What countries out there do not have an income tax?

 

[dude58677]

What countries out there do not have an income tax?

Not one, but America is unique based on how it was founded on freedom. We are the only country where the right of individuals to own guns is explicit in the Constitution.

 

[bander87]

What countries out there do not have an income tax?

Not sure about this, but one of them ought be to correct...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#Countries_with_no_personal_income_tax

 

[diesirae]

Judicial supremacy is a myth under the text of the Constitution and it is just as much a myth as the income tax being unconstutional. Juries are allowed to rule on the Constitution under the ninth amendment as this is called jury nullification which is an American tradition dating back to the Magna Carta. The Supreme Court might say that there is no jury nullfication under the Bill of Rights and might instruct jurors to rule on only guilt and innocence but this act by the Supreme Court is unconstitutional and so jurors must rule to nullify the Supreme Court with the use of jury nullification.

Also Congress doesn't have to fund the Supreme Court and also Congress can control the jurisidiction of the Supreme Court. Congress has abused this power by enacting laws that sanction "tax protestors" so it isn't like the government wins fair and square.

LAst, the preamble to the Bill of Rights says "In order to prevent the misconstruction and abuse of powers, further restrictive clauses must be added" and thus the bill of rights restricts taxing, spending, and judical power esp the ninth amendment even if the government denies it.

You don't even have an argument here. You're just saying "it's unconstitutional because I say it is". Judges are members of the legal profession and serve as experts in what the law says - that's why they act as interpreters in a court of law, and evaluate legal arguments. It is really, really telling that no judge or bar association has ever said that the income tax is an unconstitutional tax - instead, they have repeatedly found that it is a constitutional tax, and the current one was explicitly allowed for in the 16th amendment. That was why the 16th amendment was passed.

Jury nullification occurs when a jury acknowledges a law, but disregards it for what they feel are more compelling reasons. This has absolutely nothing to do with constitutionality - if the income tax was unconstitutional, juries should rule against it, and would not nullify anything. What you are arguing is that juries should disregard the opinion of every single legal authority and instead say the constitution says something which it explicitly does not.

Hell, why we're at that why don't we just throw atheists in prison and then make specious legal arguments that it's okay because atheism isn't a religion under the free exercise clause, and then use jury nullification to uphold it. Jury nullification isn't a magic ticket where you get to write in whatever rights or lack-thereof you feel like filling in; and this falls right into that category. For someone who purportedly really cares about the Constitution and the set of checks and balances it laid out, you appear to basically be willing to say "SOD OFF" to the judicial branch when it tries to enforce a law which Congress amended the Constitution to allow because you don't like it.

Think about that - Congress, following the principles in the Constitution, amended the Constitution to explicitly allow for a non-apportioned income tax. This was ratified by the states, and both houses. The judiciary, acting as an arbiter of laws, correctly interpreted the amendment to allow for an income tax, and upheld the subsequent laws Congress passed following the 16th amendment. The will of the people, reflected in both Congress and the states passed a law you don't like. Your response? "Screw them all, we should just ignore it. And we should remove funding from any judge who applies the Constitution as it is written".

That's not the rule of law, and that's not respecting the Constitution. That's throwing a petulant little fit, and a tremendously shortsighted one at that. I am reminded of a famous quote which you might want to reflect on:

Accused by his son-in-law, Will Roper, of giving the devil the benefit of law, More retorts: “What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?”

Roper, also a lawyer, is quick with his answer: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that.”

“Oh?” says More, “And when the last law was down and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, man’s laws not God’s, and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the devil the benefit of law for my own safety’s sake.”

 

[Danke]

Dude, the only taxes that are constitutional are indirect which are apportioned according to the states and the enumeration of their populations and direct taxes which are excises and tariffs. These moneys are only to fund items that are authorized in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

So there are constitutional taxes, but like the government, they are supposed to be LIMITED!

Just the opposite. Indirect taxes need to be uniform and direct taxes need to fall under the rules of apportionment.

 

[Danke]

It argues that what you need to eliminate the income tax is an amendment to remove the income tax. Repealing the 16th amendment would remove a number of different types of income taxes (non-apportioned); it would not eliminate the income tax, period. It would just require an apportionment.

Wrong.

The income tax has always been an indirect tax.

Apportionment is and always has been required for a direct tax.

The 16th Amendment did not change that.

 

[Danke]

It's not "unless you're lucky" — it's "unless you're insane". The only people who have been able to get out of paying the fine for making frivolous tax protester arguments (and not paying their taxes) is by arguing that their irrational belief that the income tax is illegal constituted a mental delusion. Ironically, they usually win.

Sweeping statement really has no substance. What defines a "Tax Protester"? Or "a frivolous tax protester argument."

Many people who have challenged the IRS after getting a frivolus letter, the accompanying proposed fine, and have gotten the IRS to back down and reverse their position.

The states specifically passed an amendment to the constitution to allow for a non-apportioned income tax...

Wrong.

The income tax has always been non-apportioned, it is an indirect tax.

 

[dude58677]

:/

Hell, why we're at that why don't we just throw atheists in prison and then make specious legal arguments that it's okay because atheism isn't a religion under the free exercise clause, and then use jury nullification to uphold it. Jury nullification isn't a magic ticket where you get to write in whatever rights or lack-thereof you feel like filling in; and this falls right into that category. For someone who purportedly really cares about the Constitution and the set of checks and balances it laid out, you appear to basically be willing to say "SOD OFF" to the judicial branch when it tries to enforce a law which Congress amended the Constitution to allow because you don't like it.

Think about that - Congress, following the principles in the Constitution, amended the Constitution to explicitly allow for a non-apportioned income tax. This was ratified by the states, and both houses. The judiciary, acting as an arbiter of laws, correctly interpreted the amendment to allow for an income tax, and upheld the subsequent laws Congress passed following the 16th amendment. The will of the people, reflected in both Congress and the states passed a law you don't like. Your response? "Screw them all, we should just ignore it. And we should remove funding from any judge who applies the Constitution as it is written".

That's not the rule of law, and that's not respecting the Constitution. That's throwing a petulant little fit, and a tremendously shortsighted one at that. I am reminded of a famous quote which you might want to reflect on:

Ron Paul doesn't agree with you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA4GKG__B-s&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRdse8zBzyI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA4GKG__B-s&feature=related

Let's also look at the limitations on the Supreme Court:

1) The judicial officers have to swear to uphold the Constitution like everyone else under article 6. It never says that Supreme Court opinions are the Supreme Law of the Land, it only says that the Constitution is.

2) Congress doesn't have to fund the Supreme Court, so hypothetically it doesn't have to exist.

3) Congres controls the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 3 section 2.

4) Congress didn't have to enact the Judiciary Act of 1789.

5) The President doesn't have to appoint a justice.

6) The Preamble to the Bil of Rights states that "In order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of it powers, further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added".


7) Unenumerated rights shall not be construed to deny or disparge others retained by the people such as the right not to be taxed for unconstitutional programs, wasteful programs, taxed for no reason, taxed for political purposes such as "pay their fair share", not to be taxed for debt that was created from unconstitutional and wasteful spending, and/or the right to not be forced to abide by a 50,000 page tax code(none of these things have been changed by the 16th amendment). Also the right as a juror to nullify the law.

8) The powers not delegated to the United States, are reserved to the States or to the people. There is no judical supremacy in the Constitution, so the people as jurors have a right to nullify the law even if the Supreme Court doesn't think so.

 

[dude58677]

The 16th amendment did not change the fact that the government is not allowed to tax the people to pay for unconstitutional programs, tax for the purpose of wasteful spending, tax and not spend the money on anything, tax for political purposes such as"paying their fair share" or tax to pay off a debt that was created with unconstitutional and wasteful spending. These things are prohibited under the ninth amendment and the preamble to the bill of rights stated that the bill of rights are restrictive clauses on government power, whether it is judicial, taxing, and spending power.

It is also worth noting that when the 16th amemdment was adopted there was a proposal that stated "direct tax" and it was rejected.

If I were a juror, I would conclude that a univeral income tax is unconstitutional for the reasons I stated and thus I would vote to aquit.

 

[zach]

What's the purpose of the income tax other than that the government gets some of my paycheck?