Drivel Redux

[SteveSy]

No, it isn't only because I don't like the law. I of course don't like it but that's not the reason. I've clearly shown that the people who were involved in the creation of the constitution did not believe a tax on revenue was an indirect tax.

Out of all the garbage that comes out of the TP movement, it's this sort of thing that disturbs me the most. The re-writing of history in order to show that, at all times, the TPer philosophy was correct and supported by the country's heroes. It's way too 1984 for me, and deeply worrisome, because it isn't just the TPer movement that enthusiastically rewrites history - I feel like we're seeing more and more of it all over the place.

Damn...what a bunch of horse crap.

I'm frigging quoting directly from history...what have any of you quoted from? Nothing but modern cases long after the constitution was written which have no historic support whatsoever. Show me one, just one single quote saying an income tax was thought or even hinted to be an indirect tax during or shortly after the adoption of the constitution. You won't post a damn thing because you can't, but that won't stop you from posting the total horse crap you posted above.

For the record, Steve, your quote above is complete and total nonsense. It's beyond stupid.

See above

One of the primary purposes, if not THE primary purpose, of the Constitutional Convention was to give the federal government authority to tax citizens. You spend so much time posting here - how about spending ONE DAY reading the Federalist Papers?

Stawman alert!

I never said once the government couldn't tax, or even tax citizens directly for that matter. Its the method I have issue with, there are two seperate rules put in the constitution. One is easy and likely can be perpetual the other is very difficult to lay perpetually, odious and because of that requires a method relying on representation.

As far as the federalist papers, I doubt you've even read one line from them unless of course it was hand fed to your via a quote from a court case. The federalist papers make it clear little to nothing of what we have concerning government power today was or is intended by the constitution.

[Famspear]

I'm frigging quoting directly from history...what have any of you quoted from? Nothing but modern cases long after the constitution was written which have no historic support whatsoever.

That pretty much summarizes your approach to legal analysis, Steve. In "SteveSy Legal Analysis World," actual court rulings are somehow trumped by the SteveSy Interpretations of Direct Quotes from History.

[Lasagna]

I'm frigging quoting directly from history...what have any of you quoted from? Nothing but modern cases long after the constitution was written which have no historic support whatsoever. Show me one, just one single quote saying an income tax was thought or even hinted to be an indirect tax during or shortly after the adoption of the constitution. You won't post a damn thing because you can't, but that won't stop you from posting the total horse crap you posted above.

Wow! You nailed me. Quoting from modern court cases written by judges who interpret the law. Quoting from statutes, drafted by Congress, who, you know, write the law. You're right, of course - how much bearing could these things possibly have on what the law is?

This is a riot : "Show me one, just one single quote saying an income tax was thought or even hinted to be an indirect tax during or shortly after the adoption of the constitution." I don't know, Steve. I suppose there might not be any quotes from the Federalist Papers that specifically say this. Been awhile since I read them. I suppose, also, there might not be any quotes that clearly state that the Constiution is intended to give political speech more protection than either commercial speech and slander, that freedom of the press can be limited by libel laws, and that arson isn't constitutionally protected. Guess, then, that by enforcing libel laws the government is violating the intentions of the drafters of the constitution, and, in your world, are therefore acting illegally.

Our posts aren't horseshit, Steve. Sorry. You just don't make any sense, don't understand what "law" means, don't understand the absurdity of interpreting complex constitutional issues through one quote from the "Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution," don't understand that you are constantly mixing your opinions on policy with claims of legal construction, and, in general, don't understand the role the intentions of the founding fathers plays in constitutional interpretation.

As far as the federalist papers, I doubt you've even read one line from them unless of course it was hand fed to your via a quote from a court case. The federalist papers make it clear little to nothing of what we have concerning government power today was or is intended by the constitution.

Whatever. I graduated from Columbia Law School, Steve. They were required reading, and I read them. I also notice that you STILL aren't claiming you read them. Somebody else in this thread posted a terrific quote from Mark Twain about being "self-educated." While there's nothing wrong with investigating things for yourself - it's commendable - you need to start listening to people with more expertise in this topic than you. When I go to the Guggenheim, I don't pretend to fully understand the art on display. I know very little about it. Hence, I listen to the experts and try to learn from them.

There are enormously complicated issues in law. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM. This is easy - the federal government is permitted, under the U.S. Constitution, to tax personal income without apportionment. If you can't get past this silliness, you're never going to learn anything.

[fortinbras]

It is my understanding of the court decisions that the 16th Amendment authorized the Congress to establish an income tax even if (and this point was not conceded) an income tax were a direct (or indirect) tax. In other words, the 16th Amendment made it moot whether an income tax were a direct tax because it legitimized an income tax either way.

[SteveSy]

I'm frigging quoting directly from history...what have any of you quoted from? Nothing but modern cases long after the constitution was written which have no historic support whatsoever. Show me one, just one single quote saying an income tax was thought or even hinted to be an indirect tax during or shortly after the adoption of the constitution. You won't post a damn thing because you can't, but that won't stop you from posting the total horse crap you posted above.

Wow! You nailed me. Quoting from modern court cases written by judges who interpret the law. Quoting from statutes, drafted by Congress, who, you know, write the law. You're right, of course - how much bearing could these things possibly have on what the law is?

Lol...notice to all those but the staunch quataloosians that he has provided nothing to back his statement concerning my position on the history of taxes where he says:

The re-writing of history in order to show that, at all times, the TPer philosophy was correct and supported by the country's heroes. It's way too 1984 for me, and deeply worrisome, because it isn't just the TPer movement that enthusiastically rewrites history - I feel like we're seeing more and more of it all over the place.

As I said...plain ol' horse crap. Nothing but slight of hand with switching of subjects from one to another. In his world the courts have achieved, with his support of course, an almost unbelievable power where they get to rewrite the constitution to whatever they see fit without support and by fiat alone. Long gone are the days where an unelected branch of government is to be assumed to be the weakest branch. Marshall's reasoning seems to spell it out quite clearly...just replace "legislature" with "judiciary" "legislative act" with "opinion".


"The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act"

[Duke2Earl]

Just to be clear, even assuming the Judiciary can just do all Steve accuses them of, they are still the weakest branch of the government. They have no army or enforcement agencies. They totally depend on other branches to enforce their rulings. They can be overturned at the whim of the other branches. They have no control of the documents they interpret. Even their budget is at the whim of the legislature. Their only power, in essence, is based on the respect and deference of the other branches and the public at large.

[Agent Observer]

Damn...what a bunch of horse crap.

I'm frigging quoting directly from history...what have any of you quoted from? Nothing but modern cases long after the constitution was written which have no historic support whatsoever.

Newsflash - We don't live in the 1700s. Last I checked it was 2009, which means a couple things have changed, like;
- you can't own slaves any more
- women can vote
- alcohol is legal again (yes I know that was only for a short while)
- California and Texas belong to the US, not Spain/Mexico
- Louisiana belongs to the US, not France
- Alaska belongs to the US, not Russia

And there are probably a million other things that have changed significantly. If you can demonstrate how you can turn back any of those issues from their present day standing to what they were at the founding of this country, then perhaps I'd give your "channeling the founders ideals" some credit. But until then, you're just another screeching Internet monkey out of touch with reality.

[Cpt Banjo]

Following up on Fortinbras' comment, following the ratification of the 16th Amendment it's completely academic whether the Supreme Court got it right in holding that an income tax on wages and personal earnings isn't a direct tax. The people have had over 125 years to overturn this result and not only have they seen fit not to do so, they overturned the one and only instance where the Court held that an income tax was a direct tax (the Pollock case). So it's absurd to bitch and moan about how the Court was out of touch with history and somehow relieved income taxes from the apportionment requirement by judicial fiat -- the people have ratified and approved the idea that income taxes don't have to be apportioned, period.

Now there are some idiots who maintain that the 16th Amendment doesn't mean what it says and that the word "income" doesn't include the wages of the average working stiff. Never mind that there's no support for such a claim in the text of the amendment or in the congressional hearings discussing it. Never mind that Congress already had the power to tax wages without apportionment and that Congress isn't exactly known for ceding power. Never mind that the income of the average working stiff was protected via a generous exemption amount under the statute instead of being singled out in the amendment.

Never mind that if such a claim were true, it would be up to the courts to decide where to draw the line between income that's constitutionally taxable and that which isn't -- is Tiger Woods' $100 zillion a year taxable under the amendment? Is Joe Sixpack's $30,000? Maybe Stevie, who fancies himself a history expert, can unearth exactly where it's written that income below a certain amount is constitutionally off limits.

[Famspear]

Following up on Fortinbras' comment, following the ratification of the 16th Amendment it's completely academic whether the Supreme Court got it right in holding that an income tax on wages and personal earnings isn't a direct tax.

As the United States Tax Court has stated:

Thus, since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment it is immaterial, with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or an indirect tax.

---from Sortillon v. Commissioner, 38 T.C.M. (CCH) 1097, T.C. Memo 1979-281, CCH Dec. 36,194(M), Docket No. 2108-79 (July 26, 1979).

EDIT: Similarly:

Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, it is immaterial with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or indirect tax. The whole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from [the requirement of] apportionment and from [the requirement of] a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.

---from Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, CCH Dec. 41,031 (1984).

[SteveSy]

Just to be clear, even assuming the Judiciary can just do all Steve accuses them of, they are still the weakest branch of the government. They have no army or enforcement agencies.

They have the entire government, that assumes that the judiciary isn't in agreement with those in congress. The truth is they are appointed by congress so its very likely they'll have the same desired outcome.

They totally depend on other branches to enforce their rulings.

So what, the "other branches" totally depend on people to enforce them. They have adopted the same blind, lemming like approach you have, they said it so its law even if its ridiculous or totally baseless. I can give you an example, uniformity. We all know what the intention was but that makes no difference. Uniformity is meaningless at this point, its so easily circumvented most any tax, even one that singles people out or even has a geographic stipulation would still fly through. Congress can pass any law and the likelihood of it being held unconstitutional is almost nil.

They can be overturned at the whim of the other branches. They have no control of the documents they interpret.

What's to keep them from just interpreting the new documents to mean whatever they want, nothing. Remember, their decisions, by this group's argument, doesn't have to have any basis. It doesn't matter what the intention was or the historical record says. But that doesn't matter anyway, congress and the branches do as the courts desire because overall their motivations are the same.

Even their budget is at the whim of the legislature. Their only power, in essence, is based on the respect and deference of the other branches and the public at large.

Again that assumes that the court, appointed by the very people its intended to restrain, don't have the same motivation. There are rare cases where a judge has gone awry and surprised them all, but in general that's a very rare event.

[Duke2Earl]

A few points....Congress does not appoint judges. There are many instances of the executive branch and Congress basically ignoring rulings of the federal courts. For instance, the Federal Courts ruled that the NRC had to pick up and store nuclear waste from power plants years ago and exactly nothing has happened. And Steve's bias on this issue is so thick he couldn't see the actual situation if it beat him senseless... oh wait, he's senseless already.

[Cpt Banjo]

At the risk of nit-picking, the direct/indirect nature of the income tax is immaterial only so long as it's geographically uniform. If it ever weren't the character of the tax as direct or indirect would be relevant.

[Famspear]

Just to be clear, even assuming the Judiciary can just do all Steve accuses them of, they are still the weakest branch of the government. They have no army or enforcement agencies.

They have the entire government, that assumes that the judiciary isn't in agreement with those in congress. The truth is they are appointed by congress so its very likely they'll have the same desired outcome.

Oh, so thaaaaaatttt's the problem! The legislative, executive, and judiciary all agree with each other on what the law is -- and they collectively refuse to follow Stevie's Interpretation of History as the authoriative pronouncement! Why, the dirty b*st*rds! This is tyranny!

So what, the "other branches" totally depend on people to enforce them. They have adopted the same blind, lemming like approach you have, they said it so its law even if its ridiculous or totally baseless.

waaaaaaAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!

What's to keep them from just interpreting the new documents to mean whatever they want, nothing. Remember, their decisions, by this group's argument, doesn't have to have any basis. It doesn't matter what the intention was or the historical record says.

waaaaaaAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!

[Famspear]

At the risk of nit-picking, the direct/indirect nature of the income tax is immaterial only so long as it's geographically uniform. If it ever weren't the character of the tax as direct or indirect would be relevant.

Mucho profundo point, Banjo! There is still that requirement of geographical uniformity.

[Kimokeo]

"The self-taught man seldom knows anything accurately, and he does not know a tenth as much as he could have known if he had worked under teachers; and, besides, he brags, and is the means of fooling other thoughtless people into going and doing as he himself has done."
Mark Twain

I disagree with this as it is too broad a stroke.

A self-taught man may seldom know anything accurately, but a man who has toiled alone has learned much from his own labor than anyone who watched him.

I guess I'm misinterpreting the statement. If I read a book by someone else, they are teaching me their views. If I read the books of different people, on the same subject, I will either find simiiliar, conflicting, or both views.

When the views of the many out weigh the few, then how am I to judge that the majority is actually correct?

In an issue of law, the courts are right - simply because the Constitution says so. The higher I go in court, the winning side, well, wins. It's sometimes because they're right - but it's sometimes because the law says so. There is right and wrong and legal and illegal.

You can be legally correct, but the issue be wrong (morally or whatever). You can have a bad judicial decision. The result means one side won- -but shouldn't have.

I read Steve's responses as the 'judicial decided the law' wrong. But, the legal response is 'the judicial response says this' and is now correct for future decisions. The only way it isn't correct is for another judicial decision to overturn it.

So, Steve's answers are contrary to court decisions, but not necessarily wrong. Just wrong always until they change their minds.

[SteveSy]

A few points....Congress does not appoint judges. There are many instances of the executive branch and Congress basically ignoring rulings of the federal courts. For instance, the Federal Courts ruled that the NRC had to pick up and store nuclear waste from power plants years ago and exactly nothing has happened. And Steve's bias on this issue is so thick he couldn't see the actual situation if it beat him senseless... oh wait, he's senseless already.

Wow...and how many of them deal with the constitution? Besides we're getting off point, the point is the constitution is meaningless if a court can, without basis, change its meaning by fiat.

[Cpt Banjo]

They can be overturned at the whim of the other branches. They have no control of the documents they interpret.

What's to keep them from just interpreting the new documents to mean whatever they want, nothing.

If Congress and the Executive see fit, they can increase the number of justices and appoint people who'll vote to overturn the Court's decisions. Although FDR's court-packing plan never passed, it would still be a very workable solution to an out-of-control Court. But then in Stevieworld, all three branches think in lockstep, so maybe I'm wrong.