Prof. SteveSy Gets His Due

[The Observer]

They would find it constitutional some way....Congress does this already to some degree.

This is exactly why, Famspear, you will never be able to reason with Stevesy. He didn't arrive at his conclusions based on researching the issues and understanding the fact therein. He started with the conclusion that the government is trying to sock it to the little guy and then went looking for "facts" to support his conclusion. In short, as you have touched upon earlier, this is all emotional for Stevesy and has nothing to do with looking at it in a rational manner.

And every single time that Stevesy gets painted into the corner by people using reason and logic, he has nowhere else to go but back to his emotional conclusion that the government is conspiring to impose illegal taxes on us.

[Famspear]

They would find it constitutional some way....Congress does this already to some degree.

This is exactly why, Famspear, you will never be able to reason with Stevesy. He didn't arrive at his conclusions based on researching the issues and understanding the fact therein. He started with the conclusion that the government is trying to sock it to the little guy and then went looking for "facts" to support his conclusion. In short, as you have touched upon earlier, this is all emotional for Stevesy and has nothing to do with looking at it in a rational manner.

And every single time that Stevesy gets painted into the corner by people using reason and logic, he has nowhere else to go but back to his emotional conclusion that the government is conspiring to impose illegal taxes on us.

Yes, Steve, this is where you do have a tendency to slip into SteveSy Doug and Wendy Whiner Mode. Here's another excerpt from the case:

With these principles in mind, we now consider whether Congress' decision to treat Alaskan oil as a separate class of oil violates the Uniformity Clause. We do not think that the language of the Clause or this Court's decisions prohibit all geographically defined classifications. As construed in the Head Money Cases, the Uniformity Clause requires that an excise tax apply, at the same rate, in all portions of the United States where the subject of the tax is found. Where Congress defines the subject of a tax in nongeographic terms, the Uniformity Clause is satisfied. See Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S., at 106. We cannot say that when Congress uses geographic terms to identify the same subject, the classification is invalidated. The Uniformity Clause gives Congress wide latitude in deciding what to tax and does not prohibit it from considering geographically isolated problems. See Head Money Cases, 112 U. S., at 595. This is the substance of our decision in the Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S., at 156-161. 14 But where Congress does choose to frame a tax in geographic terms, we will examine the classification closely to see if there is actual geographic discrimination. See Id., at 160-161.

In this case, we hold that the classification is constitutional. As discussed above, Congress considered the windfall profit tax a necessary component of its program to encourage the exploration and production of oil. It perceived that the decontrol legislation would result--in certain circumstances--in profits essentially unrelated to the objective of the program, and concluded that these profits should be taxed. Accordingly, Congress divided oil into various classes and gave more favorable treatment to those classes that would be responsive to increased prices.

Congress clearly viewed "exempt Alaskan oil" as a unique class of oil that, consistent with the scheme of the Act, merited favorable treatment. It had before it ample evidence of the disproportionate costs and difficulties--the fragile ecology, the harsh environment, and the remote location--associated with extracting oil from this region. We cannot fault its determination, based on neutral factors, that this oil required separate treatment. Nor is there any indication that Congress sought to benefit Alaska for reasons that would offend the purpose of the Clause. Nothing in the Act's legislative history suggests that Congress intended to grant Alaska an undue preference at the expense of other oil producing States. This is especially clear because the windfall profit tax itself falls heavily on the State of Alaska.

--(bolding added; footnotes omitted).

[Famspear]

By the way, Steve, as you probably know, the trial court in this case had actually ruled the tax to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court rejected that, and ruled unanimously that the tax was constitutional.

Federal courts, even in the modern era, do sometimes rule federal taxes to be unconstitutional. As I have written in "another place" on the internet:

The 0.125% harbor maintenance tax on the value of commercial cargo involved in a taxed port use under 26 USC 4461 was unanimously ruled unconstitutional under Art. 1, sec. 9, cl. 5, in the case of United States v. United States Shoe Corp., 523 U.S. 360, 118 S. Ct. 1290, 98-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 70,091 (1998). No tax protester arguments were raised in this case. The government had argued that the tax was only a "user fee." The Court ruled that it was an unconstitutional tax on exports. The harbor maintenance tax was not an income tax.

Similarly, the coal excise tax under 26 USC 4221 was ruled to be an unconstitutional tax on exports by a federal district court in 1998 in the case of Ranger Fuel Corp. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 466, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 70,109 (E.D. Va. 1998).

In United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557, 121 S. Ct. 1782 (2001), the Supreme Court held that because certain special retroactivity-related Social Security rules enacted in 1983 effectively singled out then-sitting federal judges for unfavorable treatment, the Compensation Clause of the Constitution (in Article III, section 1, relating to reduction of the compensation of federal judges) prohibited the application of the Social Security tax to those judges. The Social Security tax is not an income tax.

See also United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 517 U.S. 843, 116 S. Ct. 1793, 96-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 70,059 (1996) (Supreme Court ruled that an excise tax on casualty insurance premiums paid to foreign insurers to cover shipments of goods violated prohibition on tax on exports).

So, for what it's worth, the federal courts do not simply rule ALL taxes to be constitutional.

[SteveSy]

This is exactly why, Famspear, you will never be able to reason with Stevesy. He didn't arrive at his conclusions based on researching the issues and understanding the fact therein. He started with the conclusion that the government is trying to sock it to the little guy and then went looking for "facts" to support his conclusion. In short, as you have touched upon earlier, this is all emotional for Stevesy and has nothing to do with looking at it in a rational manner.

That's about the stupidest nonsense I've ever seen. With that reasoning any scientist, lawyer or anyone else looking to support their argument isn't rational because they started with the presumption they were right and then went looking for the "facts" to support their conclusion.

By the way I didn't come to my conclusions that the government was operating unconstitutional based on my hate for the government. It started with research I was doing on social security. After finding out how much the government was lying and deceiving the public about the program and how it operated I started looking in to other areas.

[Famspear]

By the way I didn't come to my conclusions that the government was operating unconstitutional based on my hate for the government. It started with research I was doing on social security. After finding out how much the government was lying and deceiving the public about the program and how it operated I started looking in to other areas.

What specifically prompted your interest in researching the Social Security issues?

[SteveSy]

By the way I didn't come to my conclusions that the government was operating unconstitutional based on my hate for the government. It started with research I was doing on social security. After finding out how much the government was lying and deceiving the public about the program and how it operated I started looking in to other areas.

What specifically prompted your interest in researching the Social Security issues?

I used to maintain a website and assisted in research for a political letter exposing problems, not necessarily illegal, in the government and misleading statements offered by candidates seeking election. I was asked to provide all the information I could find on SS detailing how the program operated, its current and past financial status, and the laws constitutional or otherwise that enable it to exist and why. It was all volunteer I wasn't paid to do anything.

I used to be a staunch republican, now I have no party affiliation after I realized how corrupt the system is all together. I've been fascinated with American history ever since I left the military, about 20 years ago, so I already had a basis for some of my strongly held beliefs of how our government should operate..

[The Observer]

That's about the stupidest nonsense I've ever seen. With that reasoning any scientist, lawyer or anyone else looking to support their argument isn't rational because they started with the presumption they were right and then went looking for the "facts" to support their conclusion.

And there is that famous reading comprehension problem. A presumption is not the same as a conclusion. But there you go again with mixing apples and oranges. Everyone knows that a scientific hypothesis is presumptial and is required. And I never said you presumed anything - I said you had a conclusion before you had the facts.

By the way I didn't come to my conclusions that the government was operating unconstitutional based on my hate for the government.

[/quote]

More comprehension problems. I never said that you hated the government, nor did I say your research was motivated by your hatred for government. I said you were motivated by your belief that the government was socking it to the little guy.

It is this kind of transference that Famspear has mentioned earlier that causes you all sorts of problems when you try to argue your position.

[SteveSy]

GASP! Governments are corrupt (or prone to corruption)! I would have never guessed!
...
The best you can hope for is to minimize it and root it out and destroy it whenever it is discovered - like crabgrass or dandelions.

Problem is some dumbass in a black dress is running around behind the people pointing out those weeds with fertilizers and water instead of weed-b-gone.

[Famspear]

GASP! Governments are corrupt (or prone to corruption)! I would have never guessed!
...
The best you can hope for is to minimize it and root it out and destroy it whenever it is discovered - like crabgrass or dandelions.

Problem is some dumbass in a black dress is running around behind the people pointing out those weeds with fertilizers and water instead of weed-b-gone.

If, by the reference to someone in a "black dress," you are referring to federal judges -- it's not the job of judges to root out corruption. We already have people on that task (or, at least they're supposed to be staying on top of that.) The job of the federal judge is to render a decision -- generally, in an actual case or controversy between or among real parties -- according to rules of law. In federal tax cases, that's precisely what federal judges do. The federal income tax does not violate the provisions of the United States Constitution.

To the extent that the federal income tax is, however, a dumb idea, or bad public policy, the issues that logically flow from that extension are political questions. Given the decision that the federal income tax is constitutional, the proper forum for trying to change what we don't like about federal income taxation is not a court of law. In the case of federal income tax, we have a mechanism for transmuting the desires of citizens from the form of "political questions" to the form of "enacted legislation." It's called the Congress. Now, the Congress may not work very well, but that's what we have.

[.]

It started with research I was doing on social security. After finding out how much the government was lying and deceiving the public about the program and how it operated I started looking in to other areas.

That statement is really, really pitiful. But, very revealing.

"Research" on Social Security? Everyone who was paying any attention whatsoever knew that it was bankrupt from day one by its very nature. I figured it out sometime in the late '60s when I wasn't yet 15 years old.

What's even more incredibly lame is that you would think that an underfunded government retirement system has anything AT ALL to do with taxes which were enacted before the evil Social Security guys did their evil magic to deceive the poor, stupid public.

I've watched you dig your various very deep argumentative holes here for over 5 years. Now, I understand why. You're just not very bright.

[SteveSy]

GASP! Governments are corrupt (or prone to corruption)! I would have never guessed!
...
The best you can hope for is to minimize it and root it out and destroy it whenever it is discovered - like crabgrass or dandelions.

Problem is some dumbass in a black dress is running around behind the people pointing out those weeds with fertilizers and water instead of weed-b-gone.

If, by the reference to someone in a "black dress," you are referring to federal judges -- it's not the job of judges to root out corruption. We already have people on that task (or, at least they're supposed to be staying on top of that.) The job of the federal judge is to render a decision -- generally, in an actual case or controversy between or among real parties -- according to rules of law. In federal tax cases, that's precisely what federal judges do.

That's why I said "behind the people pointing out those weeds", instead of killing the weeds they're (the people in black dresses) running around with fertilizers and water. Glad I could clear that up.

[SteveSy]

It started with research I was doing on social security. After finding out how much the government was lying and deceiving the public about the program and how it operated I started looking in to other areas.

That statement is really, really pitiful. But, very revealing.

"Research" on Social Security? Everyone who was paying any attention whatsoever knew that it was bankrupt from day one by its very nature. I figured it out sometime in the late '60s when I wasn't yet 15 years old.

What's even more incredibly lame is that you would think that an underfunded government retirement system has anything AT ALL to do with taxes which were enacted before the evil Social Security guys did their evil magic to deceive the poor, stupid public.

I've watched you dig your various very deep argumentative holes here for over 5 years. Now, I understand why. You're just not very bright.

You're just a moron....you've pieced together multiple flawed conclusions about me to form a final one.

Not everyone knows how SS operates, not everyone knows the structure of the trust fund and not everyone knows how the on budget off budget system works. In fact several very significant scholars have written pieces on SS...so your little snippet about you being 15 years old and knowing all about SS makes you look like a fool, something that was very obvious from the start to me. As far as taxes being linked to SS, well numbnuts SS is funded by taxes and taxes alone of course there's a link.

I'm going to go out on a limb here an assume you might have been bright enough to conclude it has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the tax labeled "income tax", you would be right in that respect. I never claimed there was a nebulous between the two, merely that if they were corrupt enough to deceive people about SS on a trillion dollar scale what else were they deceiving people about which led me to among other things the income tax itself.

[cynicalflyer]

GASP! Governments are corrupt (or prone to corruption)! I would have never guessed!
...
The best you can hope for is to minimize it and root it out and destroy it whenever it is discovered - like crabgrass or dandelions.

Problem is some dumbass in a black dress is running around behind the people pointing out those weeds with fertilizers and water instead of weed-b-gone.

I see. So, judges that do not rule in favor of the frivolous lawsuits brought by TPs and others against da ebil gouberment are "fertilizing" the "corruption"?

I am not so naive as to suggest every judge or other elected/appointed official is as pure as the driven snow. But when you consider that every year there are 100 million+ cases in state courts alone, the random rants of a small number of cranks that the judges a protecting the "corruption" rings hollow.

Once again Steve: disgareeing with you and your views on (insert topic here) does not mean that judges are corrupt or fail to understand the constitution.

[cynicalflyer]

GASP! Governments are corrupt (or prone to corruption)! I would have never guessed!
...
The best you can hope for is to minimize it and root it out and destroy it whenever it is discovered - like crabgrass or dandelions.

Problem is some dumbass in a black dress is running around behind the people pointing out those weeds with fertilizers and water instead of weed-b-gone.

I see. So, judges that do not rule in favor of the frivolous lawsuits brought by TPs and others against da ebil gouberment are "fertilizing" the "corruption"?

I am not so naive as to suggest every judge or other elected/appointed official is as pure as the driven snow. But when you consider that every year there are 100 million+ cases in state courts alone, the random rants of a small number of cranks that the judges are protecting the "corruption" rings hollow.

Once again Steve: disgareeing with you and your views on (insert topic here) does not mean that judges are corrupt or fail to understand the constitution.

[SteveSy]

GASP! Governments are corrupt (or prone to corruption)! I would have never guessed!
...
The best you can hope for is to minimize it and root it out and destroy it whenever it is discovered - like crabgrass or dandelions.

Problem is some dumbass in a black dress is running around behind the people pointing out those weeds with fertilizers and water instead of weed-b-gone.

I see. So, judges that do not rule in favor of the frivolous lawsuits brought by TPs and others against da ebil gouberment are "fertilizing" the "corruption"?

There's a lot more than just the income tax, things a lot more important and devastating like the commerce clause and substantive due process. Both giving the courts the exclusive right to expand the constitution anyway they see fit, because only the personal opinion of the judge will set the limits to when and where will they end, especially on the substantive due process side.

[cynicalflyer]

There's a lot more than just the income tax, things a lot more important and devistating like the commerce clause.

Since when has an jurisprudential dispute on the interpretation of the commerce clause been "corruption"?

I forget we are in little Stevie's Wonderworld. Here "corrupt judge" = "jurist who disagrees with Stevie's interpretation of something".

If you cannot grasp the distinction between a judicial interpretation dispute and an act of corruption then you really are as thick as others have suggested.

[SteveSy]

There's a lot more than just the income tax, things a lot more important and devistating like the commerce clause.

Since when has an jurisprudential dispute on the interpretation of the commerce clause been "corruption"?

They are enabling the corruption to continue and in fact help it along with their verbal gymnastics setting precedent for the power to be abused even more.

1. lack of integrity or honesty (especially susceptibility to bribery); use of a position of trust for dishonest gain

The government uses things like the commerce clause to seize power where it doesn't belong. btw, many scholars agree the commerce clause and substantive due process are being abused, so don't try and make this some TP BS