Sherry Peel Jackson Makes a Bad Situation Much Worse

[Doktor Avalanche]

is clearly ambiguous in that it fails to say This section specifically applies to Sherry Jackson

That seems to be the TP du jour. I actually got into an argument with someone because they claimed that since the law didn't specifically mention him (by name) then he wasn't liable for any taxes.

To wit, my response was a hearty :angrybird:

[Famspear]

Doctor Avalanche wrote:

That seems to be the TP du jour. I actually got into an argument with someone because they claimed that since the law didn't specifically mention him (by name) then he wasn't liable for any taxes.

Yeah, that's a good one. We could also respond to that tax protester with the argument that it does not matter; under the protester's own theory, the U.S. government presumably has the power to arbitrarily take whatever amount the government wants from that individual, without regard to any statutory provisions or constitutional rights -- or any constitutional limitations at all on government action. When the protester says, "Hey, what about my constitutional rights?!!", we just respond with, "Sorry, constitutional rights just don't apply to you, since you're not specifically mentioned by name in the U.S. Constitution."

[Quixote]

"Sorry, constitutional rights just don't apply to you, since you're not specifically mentioned by name in the U.S. Constitution."

I'm changing my name to speech so Congress can't abridge my freedom.

[Demosthenes]

Yeah, that's a good one. We could also respond to that tax protester with the argument that it does not matter; under the protester's own theory, the U.S. government presumably has the power to arbitrarily take whatever amount the government wants from that individual, without regard to any statutory provisions or constitutional rights -- or any constitutional limitations at all on government action. When the protester says, "Hey, what about my constitutional rights?!!", we just respond with, "Sorry, constitutional rights just don't apply to you, since you're not specifically mentioned by name in the U.S. Constitution."

What rights? The Bill of Rights was never ratified if you use the same methodology to compare the various versions that Bill Benson used for the 16th Amendment.

[LPC]

under the protester's own theory,

Useless, because tax deniers wouldn't recognize "logic" or "consistent" if they were painted blue and biting them on the butt.

After all, how many tax deniers claim not to be "persons" within the meaning of the IRC even while claiming to be "persons" within the meaning of the 5th Amendment?