Would President Paul Pardon All Tax Evaders?

[snaFU]

You vote, like we're doing now. This election is a perfect example of what we should do as soon as government starts to lean towards tyranny. Only when the democratic system fails and our power to elect and chenge our representatives are stripped do we need to pick up arms and stop following the law.

Stop fooling yourself. Majority rule always wins moderates who have no idea whats going on win the elections for the country its called the median voter model. If you have a majority who have no clue and a minority seeking special interests at the expense of the majority then you can't fix anything. The uninformed will always fail to make change.

Legitimizing violence of the govt by voting doesn't do any good either because you legitimize the consequences of your actions. You can't fight tyranny through ballots because of what has a tight grip on govt. Special Interests won't allow your money to stay in your wallet so quit believing that politician will allow you to stop paying taxes. Its a complete farce that you can make such a drastic change by voting for people who depend on your "voluntary" tax money.

Ron Paul may be the rare exception but it can be interpreted that voting for him is an act of self-defense and not entirely legitimizing the violence of govt.

Picking up arms and causing a disturbance doesn't do anything but give power to the tyrannical leaders. If you desire liberty you denounce that you must ever achieve it through violence. All you would be doing is participating in the same violence that the state does.

 

[johngr]

OKAY, Apparently nobody can be bothered to watch a youtube video of Ron Paul in this thread, so I'll post the transcript of the pertinent question from Niel Cavuto....





That's right kids. Even though, by strict constitutionalist standards, income taxes are not legal.... and even though he sympathizes and agrees with those who refuse to pay their income taxes, he's not going to tell people not to pay them, or that they don't have to. If he's not going to do that, what in the hell makes you think he's going to use such an authoritarian and utilitarian power of the presidency to pardon the people who have chosen to protest by breaking the current law???


Again....

/thread

Ron Paul never said (and Cavuto never asked specifically there) he would not pardon or refuse to prosecute tax cases, only that he wouldn't tell people not to pay them as President. But elsewhere in the interview he exhorts them to do just that. And he absolutely did not rule out refusing to prosecute or pardoning.

Dr. Paul has CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY promised that he will not prosecute non-violent drug offenders as President. I don't think this is so cut and dried as you portray it. If I bet I'd give you 7/5 that that he won't prosecute tax evaders and that before his term ends, he will pardon them wholesale. He contradicted the quote you picked out of the interview here, "It's about time the American people stood up and said, that's [implicit guilt until proven innocent by filing an income return] not part of the system", unequivocally advocating civilly disobeying the tax law. HE COMPARES TAX EVADERS TO GHANDI BUT WON'T DO WHAT'S IN HIS POWER HE WILL HAVE TO FREE THEM FROM AN UNJUST LAW?? I don't think so.

 

[johngr]

Here is a blog on the interview cited above http://ccannizzaro.com/2007/ron-paul-again/#more-145

Here is my response:

Cavuto completely ignored in his question (when he finally somewhat nailed him down) and Dr. Paul in his answer two of the powers the latter will have as President (I hope he was holding them, neatly concealed, like aces during the pre-flop betting round of a Texas hold-em hand.) He will be able to rehire all US attorneys and if he chooses, can instruct them not to prosecute tax cases. He will have for his purposes under Article 2 Section 2 unlimited pardon power, which includes via US v. Klein, the power to pardon classes of people. If Dr. Paul is reluctant to use this latter power, I suggest he read Federalist 74, for that paper covers in detail just such cases as this and it is clear that the pardon power was intended for just such injustices as we have every day with the profoundly unfair tax laws.

 

[ccannizzaro]

I'll repeat it....

If he's not going to do that, what in the hell makes you think he's going to use such an authoritarian and utilitarian power of the presidency to pardon the people who have chosen to protest by breaking the current law???


He only compares them to Ghandi in that they choose non-violent means. I fail to see how that somehow fundamentally changes his views on the power a president should wield autonomously. I mean, he blatantly says that he will work with congress to repeal the 16th amendment.

 

[johngr]

I'll repeat it....

If he's not going to do that, what in the hell makes you think he's going to use such an authoritarian and utilitarian power of the presidency to pardon the people who have chosen to protest by breaking the current law???


He only compares them to Ghandi in that they choose non-violent means. I fail to see how that somehow fundamentally changes his views on the power a president should wield autonomously. I mean, he blatantly says that he will work with congress to repeal the 16th amendment.

Will he prosecute non-violent drug offenders? If not, what's the difference not enforcing laws on them and not enforcing laws on tax evaders. How is one wielding power autonomously and the other not? If he will prosecute them, why did he promise not to in Philadelphia?

One more thing: to me it's pretty god-damned "authoritarian" to send thugs with guns to violently kidnap someone who hasn't informed on himself and/or paid his extortion money! Jury nullification (which has largely been taken away) and executive pardons are meant for just such gov't tyranny.

 

[ccannizzaro]

wait... so now we've morphed the subject into talking about prosecution? I thought we were still talking about (only) pardoning the convicted.

I don't disagree with anything you just said. But I also don't see how that connects to Paul's specific stance on pardoning people who have already been convicted.

 

[snaFU]

I'll repeat it....

If he's not going to do that, what in the hell makes you think he's going to use such an authoritarian and utilitarian power of the presidency to pardon the people who have chosen to protest by breaking the current law???


He only compares them to Ghandi in that they choose non-violent means. I fail to see how that somehow fundamentally changes his views on the power a president should wield autonomously. I mean, he blatantly says that he will work with congress to repeal the 16th amendment.

Since you are obviously are unaware I would like to inform you that Austrian Economics preaches that taxation is theft so yes most likely he will pardon tax evaders.

 

[johngr]

wait... so now we've morphed the subject into talking about prosecution? I thought we were still talking about (only) pardoning the convicted.

I don't disagree with anything you just said. But I also don't see how that connects to Paul's specific stance on pardoning people who have already been convicted.

I suggest you read Federalist paper number 74. Jury nullifying and pardoning gov't tyranny victims are the opposite of authoritarian. The framers' intent was clear on that as is obvious from the paper I refer you to.

I find it hard to believe that you oppose pardoning tax evaders but don't oppose not enforcing the law against them going forward. What makes one acceptable but not the other? How can whatever your arguments against pardoning people not apply to refusing to enforce the law against them?

 

[Matt Collins]

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts -- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln

The irony of that statement coming for Lincoln!

 

[Matt Collins]

just watch him say it in his own words. why are we still discussing this?

LINK?!?!

 

[Futurity]

That's right kids. Even though, by strict constitutionalist standards, income taxes are not legal.... and even though he sympathizes and agrees with those who refuse to pay their income taxes, he's not going to tell people not to pay them, or that they don't have to. If he's not going to do that, what in the hell makes you think he's going to use such an authoritarian and utilitarian power of the presidency to pardon the people who have chosen to protest by breaking the current law???

Constitution IS the law. In fact it is the highest of laws. High court ruled that 16th amendment did not give government any new forms of taxation.
RP tells people to pay them, because government will use force to enforce non-existing law. The government will sue you and you may lose and go to jail for non-existing law. There are people who stood up to this totalitarian government and won. There are also people who lost.
Personally i don't blame people who do pay Income tax. I do admire people who don't pay them because they know it is illegal for government to enforce it.

Again:
There is no law that requires you to pay Federal Income Tax.
On other hand government will enforce the rule that there is a law and you might get sued.

Watch "America: Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo, it is free on google video for more info.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

 

[johngr]

LINK?!?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZnzGredcIs

 

[theodorelogan]

How the hell is a pardon "authoritarian"?

Pardons are meant for JUST these types of abuses. It was one way that the founders gave the president to OPPOSE illegal and/or unconstitutional acts of Congress.

 

[johngr]

How the hell is a pardon "authoritarian"?

Pardons are meant for JUST these types of abuses. It was one way that the founders gave the president to OPPOSE illegal and/or unconstitutional acts of Congress.

It has certainly been abused. Unfortunately, rather than remedying injustices it's usually used (at the federal level, anyway) to repay political favors.

Btw, one chilling bit of political trivia: of the 140-some odd death penalty cases that came across Governor George W. Bush's desk, the only one he ever commuted was that of a prolific serial killer (one wonders: CIA contractor?).

 

[VoluntaryMan]

At the time of this nation's founding, it was a well established legal principle that bad law was NOT law (read Blackstone, which most of the founders studied). I believe firmly that if Dr. Paul is sincere in his position that tax protestors are practicing a noble tradition of civil disobedience, then it would be his obligation as President to pardon those brave souls who are resisting what he sees as a criminal system.

 

[snaFU]

Constitution IS the law. In fact it is the highest of laws. High court ruled that 16th amendment did not give government any new forms of taxation.
RP tells people to pay them, because government will use force to enforce non-existing law. The government will sue you and you may lose and go to jail for non-existing law. There are people who stood up to this totalitarian government and won. There are also people who lost.
Personally i don't blame people who do pay Income tax. I do admire people who don't pay them because they know it is illegal for government to enforce it.

Again:
There is no law that requires you to pay Federal Income Tax.
On other hand government will enforce the rule that there is a law and you might get sued.

Watch "America: Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo, it is free on google video for more info.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

Whether there is a law or not is irrelevant..

 

[Gordon]

he would not pardon "all" nor should he.

He would pardon all "federal" income tax evaders thorugh his attorny generals. A blanket pardon to not prosecute essentially.

 

[strategos]

absolute bullcrap

How do you use the system to stop getting used by special interests and politicians who want to stay in office?

You use your Presidential veto pen as a weapon to get what you want, slowly but surely things get done.

 

[Cinci4RP]

In my opinion:

It would depend on your definition of 'Tax Evasion'.

If it is simply choosing not to file a 1040 by April 15th, then I do think those people should be pardoned.

FWIW I just filed 2003 and 2004. My refund check is into the banking system with a "Ron Paul for President" stamped on it.

shhhhhhh tho they're watching.

 

[Gilby]

what in the hell makes you think he's going to use such an authoritarian and utilitarian power of the presidency to pardon the people who have chosen to protest by breaking the current law???

You're making the assumption that not paying the income tax is breaking the current law, or you're making the assumption that congress has the power to make any law it pleases.

You need to understand what law is...

Constitution IS the law. In fact it is the highest of laws.

Actually, it's not. The constitution is a common law document. A contract between the states and the newly created federal government. It's a contract that tells what "constitutes" this new entity and what powers are given to it. The powers given to it cannot exceed any powers that states had themselves. So, to the US government, yes, it is the law. They must follow their charter. It is based on common law (or natural law), which is quite simple. Natural law basically is that you cannot violate someone else's property, and that you must honor your contracts. The government is subject to natural law, therefore, they cannot violate your property or the fruits produced from your property. In other words, the most basic property you own is your body and the government cannot claim ownership of the wealth created from the use of your property. Therefore, the income tax as it is being applied is not lawful. The government does have the power to tax the use of their property, just like I would be able to tax someone who put a lemonade stand on my property, where in the contract I have with the lemonade stand business owner, we use their resulting income as the method to determine the amount of the tax they owe me.

Does congress have the power to make any law they want that applies to everyone? Of course not. They are an entity that can only reach as far as their powers go. Just like a company, such as Walmart, cannot make any arbitrary rule to tax me. Walmart can only impose a tax on me if i exercise some privilege they give me with their property (such as a special fee to have a display in their store, or even an entry fee to get into their store).

Now, to the Cavuto interview posted, it makes no mention of whether Ron Paul would pardon those who exercised non-violent civil disobedience in regards to the income tax. To me it sounded like he thought non-violent civil disobedience was a nobel action.

In some video from like June or so, I remember Ron Paul saying something about having all the non-violent convicts being released from prison. Maybe it was just my impression at the time that I remember. In any case, I think he supports non-violent civil disobedience as that is one way to accomplish change... he has just chosen a different route by entering the political arena, and I am very glad he has chosen that route. He's also stated that he doesn't endorse such action because you will have to pay the consequences, which are that you will have to fight prosecution of a government and a people that think that you must "pay your fair share".