Rallying Cry 2

[Famspear]

Dear SteveSy: You are asking me what tax protester argument am I claiming you made? Are you serious?

Steve, you just wrote, in the same post above:

Like what, that a tax on the earnings of an average worker is unconstitutional? You're a joke.....don't need to read TP material to arrive at that conclusion.

Uh, Steve, the last time I looked, the argument that a "tax on the earnings of an average worker is unconstitutional" was a tax protester argument. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I think that would be an example of an argument that you are making. Are you going to back off from that now, and say that you're NOT making the argument that a tax on the earnings of an average worker is unconstitutional?

You keep accusing me of exactly what you are doing. I have cited case after case, decision after decision, supporting my arguments, Steve. (And don't deny that unless you want to be humiliated again.) You, by contrast, have yet to come up with a single case where a court ruled that an income tax on ordinary wages is a direct tax that must be apportioned. (Reason: There is no such case.) You have yet to come up with a single case where a court ruled that a tax on the earnings of an average worker is unconstitutional. (Reason: There is no such case.) Do you think it's reasonable for anyone to think that you have somehow come up with logic or facts to support your position? (Hint: That's a rhetorical question.)

[jg]

Flint makes it clear that even though a State created a privilege it does not deny congress from also taxing that privilege.

Nothing in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. is definitive as to what can be taxed by an income tax. The tax being ruled on in Flint v. Stone Tracy was not an income tax.

As I said in prior threads and you continually choose to ignore:
As has been cited to you repeatedly, the same justices save one wrote about the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 in STRATTON'S INDEPENDENCE v. HOWBERT 231 U.S. 399

As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107, 55 L. ed. 389, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912 B, 1312; McCoach v. Minehill & S. H. R. Co. 228 U.S. 295, 57 L. ed. 842, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419; United States v. Whitridge ( decided at this term, 231 U.S. 144, 58 L. ed. --, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24.

Full case at http://supreme.justia.com/us/231/399/case.html

Your inability or unwillingness to understand the difference between an excise tax and the class of excise taxes does not limit the application of the income tax.

There is no requirement for the existence of a privilege for a tax to be in the class of excises. There is no legal basis for claiming a privilege is required to impose an income tax on income derived from any source. Many taxes in the class of excises are on a transaction or an activity, e.g. sales tax.

That you continue to attempt to apply the definition of an excise tax, which is not an income tax, of the Supreme Court in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. to attempt to limit the application of the income tax is dishonest and disingenuous.

[jg]

Like what, that a tax on the earnings of an average worker is unconstitutional? You're a joke.....don't need to read TP material to arrive at that conclusion.

Perhaps not, but you do need to resort to the source from which the income was derived to make that claim. You know from prior discussion that prohibition of looking to the source of the incomewas the purpose of the sixteenth amendment.

That you have decided the law for yourself and choose to just ignore decisions by the courts that are not supportive of your decisions makes rational discussion with you about the income tax law impossible.

Nonetheless, for the casual observer that might imagine you have any valid claim I have repeatedly made the same points even though you will ignore what has been decided.

[LPC]

I have never claimed my arguments would win in court. In fact I will wholly agree it's almost a guaranteed loser. I will ask you this though, how many tort cases would be won if the company being sued got to appoint and pay the salary of the judge presiding over the case?

Sybil believes that he is more rational, more knowledgeable, and more honest than 100% of all federal judges appointed in the last 100 years.

You would think that I would have gotten used to him after all these years, but the depth of his narcissism is still difficult for me to believe. I keep having to remind myself that he is not kidding, and that what I am reading is not the result of ignorance and misconceptions but the product of a personality disorder.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I have never claimed my arguments would win in court. In fact I will wholly agree it's almost a guaranteed loser. I will ask you this though, how many tort cases would be won if the company being sued got to appoint and pay the salary of the judge presiding over the case? It's not rocket science.

I love the familiar ring of the red-herring bell; when the courts rule against you, it's because of the alleged influence of their "employer." Hint for you, Steve, Federal Judges serve as long as they care to (or live).

I suppose the next stage in this kind of hysterical theory is that they'd fear for their lives if they ruled against the US.

Congress won't even stop using the thousands upon thousands of earmarks, why would congress appoint, or even consider, someone who would potentially cut all that and much more off.

More hysterical nonsense. Congress doesn't appoint Judges, the Senate gets to "advise and consent." And the administration would never appoint someone with the kind of whacko record required to hold tax-law-revisionist theories.

And even if one got through by mistake, which is nearly an impossibility in this day and age, what is the likelihood a judge would put himself up for certain failure and humiliation by his peers on appeal?

You just answered your own question. It won't happen, but not for the specious reasoning you posit. There is sufficient weight of case and appelate law that it would be bordering on absurd for a Judge to dream up, let alone, go along with the kind of crackpot theroies required to argue the matter.

It would be the same as a judge taking the proper view of the general welfare clause, and claiming all appropriations for local projects are unconstitutional. That has lots of merit but will never be considered due to the above.

I love the use of the term "proper" when it's nothing more than your personally-distorted view of court rulings you don't agree with.

When it comes to legal theory, I'd suggest you, individually, are no serious match for dozens, if not hundreds of men and women in the judiciary.

[Famspear]

In referring to SteveSy (Sybil), LPC wrote:

Sybil believes that he is more rational, more knowledgeable, and more honest than 100% of all federal judges appointed in the last 100 years.

You would think that I would have gotten used to him after all these years, but the depth of his narcissism is still difficult for me to believe. I keep having to remind myself that he is not kidding, and that what I am reading is not the result of ignorance and misconceptions but the product of a personality disorder. Sybil believes that he is more rational, more knowledgeable, and more honest than 100% of all federal judges appointed in the last 100 years.

You would think that I would have gotten used to him after all these years, but the depth of his narcissism is still difficult for me to believe. I keep having to remind myself that he is not kidding, and that what I am reading is not the result of ignorance and misconceptions but the product of a personality disorder.

Speaking of narcissistic personality disorder, the following is from Theodore Millon, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology and Director of Graduate Clinical Training, University of Miami, Coral Gables, and former Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Illinois College of Medicine in Chicago:

What the narcissist is unable to work out through fantasy is simply repressed, put out of mind and kept from awareness. Beyond these, narcissists invent alibis, excuses, and “proofs” that seem [to themselves] plausible and consistent, and convince them of their continued stature and perfection. These flimsily substantiated rationalizations are offered with an air of confidence and authority. As noted earlier, however, narcissists may never have learned to be skillful at public deception; they usually said and did what they liked without a care for what others thought. Their poorly conceived rationalizations may, therefore, fail to bring relief and, more seriously, may evoke scrutiny and deprecating comments from others. At these times narcissists may be pushed to the point of employing projection as a defense. Unable to disentangle themselves from lies and inconsistencies, and driven by their need to maintain their illusion of superiority, they may begin to turn against others, accusing the latter of their own deceptions, their own selfishness, and their own irrationalities.

--Theodore Millon, “Disorders of Personality; DSM-III: Axis II,” p. 168 (John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1981).

[Famspear]

Update on Professor Millon: He also taught at Harvard Medical School. Millon is now Dean and Scientific Director at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Personology and Psychopathology at Coral Gables, Florida. Yes, that's right: "personology." That's new word for me.

[SteveSy]

It would be the same as a judge taking the proper view of the general welfare clause, and claiming all appropriations for local projects are unconstitutional. That has lots of merit but will never be considered due to the above.

I love the use of the term "proper" when it's nothing more than your personally-distorted view of court rulings you don't agree with.

When it comes to legal theory, I'd suggest you, individually, are no serious match for dozens, if not hundreds of men and women in the judiciary.

Boy, you're so smart.....unfortunately even the Supreme Court has declared the "general welfare" clause does not include the "local" welfare. Save your ignorance for some other post. So yes it is the "proper" interpretation of the general welfare provision in the constitution. That however will not change the fact that no federal court will rule the unconstitutional appropriation of funds unconstitutional. Not because its the right thing to do but because they will not rock the boat.

[Cpt Banjo]

All you need to be concerned with is a tax on a working man's earnings from working not engaged in interstate activity. That is about the only thing I believe will not be taxable with an "income tax".

Here we go again with the argument that Congress can't tax something unless it can otherwise regulate it, a notion that was rejected by the Supreme Court over 140 years ago in The License Tax Cases.

[SteveSy]

All you need to be concerned with is a tax on a working man's earnings from working not engaged in interstate activity. That is about the only thing I believe will not be taxable with an "income tax".

Here we go again with the argument that Congress can't tax something unless it can otherwise regulate it, a notion that was rejected by the Supreme Court over 140 years ago in The License Tax Cases.

No they don't have to be able to regulate it. However, what the Supreme Court has said about the States taxing interstate commerce should likewise apply to intrastate commerce when it concerns the federal government.

[Cpt Banjo]

All you need to be concerned with is a tax on a working man's earnings from working not engaged in interstate activity. That is about the only thing I believe will not be taxable with an "income tax".

Here we go again with the argument that Congress can't tax something unless it can otherwise regulate it, a notion that was rejected by the Supreme Court over 140 years ago in The License Tax Cases.

No they don't have to be able to regulate it. However, what the Supreme Court has said about the States taxing interstate commerce should likewise apply to intrastate commerce when it concerns the federal government.

And your legal authority for this non sequitur is exactly what, in view of the language of Article I, Section 8, which explicitly comprehends that federal taxation can reach within the States (don't forget the Loughborough case) and in view of Congress' imposing the whiskey and carriage taxes on purely intrastate activities shortly after the adoption of the Constitution?

[SteveSy]

Here we go again with the argument that Congress can't tax something unless it can otherwise regulate it, a notion that was rejected by the Supreme Court over 140 years ago in The License Tax Cases.

No they don't have to be able to regulate it. However, what the Supreme Court has said about the States taxing interstate commerce should likewise apply to intrastate commerce when it concerns the federal government.

And your legal authority for this non sequitur is exactly what, in view of the language of Article I, Section 8, which explicitly comprehends that federal taxation can reach within the States (don't forget the Loughborough case) and in view of Congress' imposing the whiskey and carriage taxes on purely intrastate activities shortly after the adoption of the Constitution?

Sure I believe it the federal government can to a certain degree. States have been able to tax things that go through interstate commerce also but not items that are wholly within. I'm not aware of a case that has strictly dealt with this question concerning federal infringement via taxation on purely local commerce. Mostly it is my belief that congress has the States by the balls concerning funding of state projects that make such a case unlikely. Please provide the full cite for Loughborough. LOUGHBOROUGH v. BLAKE, 18 U.S. 317 (1820)?

As far as citing examples of taxes that have been laid without a case addressing it as unconstitutional does not mean the taxes are in fact constitutional. Unless someone takes the matter to court on that premise and its shot down its inconclusive as to whether it’s constitutional or not.

This discussion is wholly theoretical but I think it logically makes sense. There have been other cases concerning a tax on things wholly within the realm of State authority being unconstitutional. While those were declared unconstitutional due to the fact that they amounted to regulation, there is ample reason to believe congress regulates intrastate commerce through the income tax all the time. In fact its commonly discussed on the news how tweaks in the income tax will increase or decrease production or sale of certain goods and or employment.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

While those were declared unconstitutional due to the fact that they amounted to regulation, there is ample reason to believe congress regulates intrastate commerce through the income tax all the time. In fact its commonly discussed on the news how tweaks in the income tax will increase or decrease production or sale of certain goods and or employment.

I don't follow. How does the income tax regulate intrastate commerce?

[SteveSy]

While those were declared unconstitutional due to the fact that they amounted to regulation, there is ample reason to believe congress regulates intrastate commerce through the income tax all the time. In fact its commonly discussed on the news how tweaks in the income tax will increase or decrease production or sale of certain goods and or employment.

I don't follow. How does the income tax regulate intrastate commerce?

The same way it does when the States attempt to tax interstate commerce. Besides, it's obvious IMO that congress attempts to regulate intrastate commerce all the time with income taxes. You don't think certain deductions, credits and exclusions on certain areas of business have an effect on how that business operates? Likewise you don't think a tax credit or deduction for children and other personal activities has an effect on how people will live their lives?

[Cpt Banjo]

This discussion is wholly theoretical but I think logically makes sense. There have been other cases concerning a tax on things wholly within the realm of State authority being unconstitutional.

I know of only three: Bailey v. Drexel Furniture, Hill v. Wallace, and U. S. v. Constantine, but these cases didn't involve bona fide taxes but rather penalties that were attempts at regulation. It's debatable whether these cases retain much validity in view of later cases such as Sonzinsky v. U.S., 300 U.S. 596 (1937); U.S. v. Sanchez, 340 U.S. 42 (1950); U.S. v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22 (1953), which upheld taxes on firearms dealers, marijuana dealers, and bookmaking.

We're straying from the original point, which is that Congress doesn't need any kind of interstate commerce nexus in order to be able to tax someone's wages.

Btw, the Loughborough cite is 18 U.S. 317 (1820).

[SteveSy]

This discussion is wholly theoretical but I think logically makes sense. There have been other cases concerning a tax on things wholly within the realm of State authority being unconstitutional.

I know of only three: Bailey v. Drexel Furniture, Hill v. Wallace, and U. S. v. Constantine, but these cases didn't involve bona fide taxes but rather penalties that were attempts at regulation. It's debatable whether these cases retain much validity in view of later cases such as Sonzinsky v. U.S., 300 U.S. 596 (1937); U.S. v. Sanchez, 340 U.S. 42 (1950); U.S. v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22 (1953), which upheld taxes on firearms dealers, marijuana dealers, and bookmaking.

Possibly, and granted probably likely. However, does it make any sense at all that there was an intentional limit placed on congress's power to regulate intrastate commerce but the Federal government has interpreted the clause in such a way as to eviscerate any substance to it? At what point do any of us stand back and say wait a minute, that's unacceptable? How nonsensical or illogical does it have to be before that happens…..never, due to fear of what you call “anarchy”?

Does it make sense that if a state taxes only interstate commerce it amounts to regulation, regardless if that's the intention or not, but if the federal government taxes something wholly within intrastate commerce then it's not, even if there are clear indications that they are in fact intending to manipulate it to some degree? How does one reconcile that in their head?

Btw, the Loughborough cite is 18 U.S. 317 (1820).

Loughborough dealt with "exclusive" legislation. I have never made that claim.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

While those were declared unconstitutional due to the fact that they amounted to regulation, there is ample reason to believe congress regulates intrastate commerce through the income tax all the time. In fact its commonly discussed on the news how tweaks in the income tax will increase or decrease production or sale of certain goods and or employment.

I don't follow. How does the income tax regulate intrastate commerce?

The same way it does when the States attempt to tax interstate commerce.

Which is?..... (In otherwords: you'll have to explain. I have a peanut-sized brain.)

Besides, it's obvious IMO that congress attempts to regulate intrastate commerce all the time with income taxes.

Not to this squirrel. Can you give me an example?

You don't think certain deductions, credits and exclusions on certain areas of business have an effect on how that business operates?

How are taxes that affect businesses operations an "attempt to regulate intrastate commerce"?

Likewise you don't think a tax credit or deduction for children and other personal activities has an effect on how people will live their lives?

I really don't see how the child credit is an "attempt to regulate intrastate commerce". Can you explain.

[Famspear]

Yes, Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., the "Child Labor Tax case," is, I understand, deemed to have been effectively overruled by Kahriger, which in turn was overruled on other grounds in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (1968).

Taxing, spending, and regulating are of course three separate powers of Congress. The Congressional power of regulation is more limited than the powers of taxing and spending.

The inter- versus intra- state commerce distinction involves a "regulation" issue, not a "power to tax" issue or a "power to spend" issue.

The power to tax is specifically enumerated in Article I section 8 -- indeed, that power is the very first one on the list.

By contrast, the power to regulate commerce (number three on the list) is limited to regulation of commerce "with foreign Nations, and among the several States [i.e., interstate commerce], and with the Indian Tribes [ . . . ]". As everyone seems to know, the power to regulate interstate commerce has been interpreted very broadly by the courts.

I would just note that if the founding fathers had wanted to limit the power of taxation in the way they limited the power of regulation of commerce (clause 3), they could have provided for that in the taxation clause (clause 1). They did not do so.

Also, you can argue over whether pork barrel projects in a particular state serve the general welfare, but that's a spending issue, not a taxation issue.

[SteveSy]

I don't follow. How does the income tax regulate intrastate commerce?

The same way it does when the States attempt to tax interstate commerce.

Which is?..... (In otherwords: you'll have to explain. I have a peanut-sized brain.)

Any tax by a state on anything related to something within interstate commerce is considered "regulation". For instance a tax on the license to import goods in to a state would be shot down.

Besides, it's obvious IMO that congress attempts to regulate intrastate commerce all the time with income taxes.

Not to this squirrel. Can you give me an example

I already have....the numerous credits and expemtions in the law manipulate/regulate intrastate commerce.

You don't think certain deductions, credits and exclusions on certain areas of business have an effect on how that business operates?

How are taxes that affect businesses operations an "attempt to regulate intrastate commerce"?

If you're affecting how a business operates then you have control or influence in how it operates. That's called regulation.

Regulation

a principle or condition that customarily governs behavior

Likewise you don't think a tax credit or deduction for children and other personal activities has an effect on how people will live their lives?

I really don't see how the child credit is an "attempt to regulate intrastate commerce". Can you explain.

If the government removed the tax credit would it affect how people have children?

Let's try this way because I do not believe you're being sincere. Can you explain how a state allowing the growing of marijuana in a citizen's backyard for personal medical use is regulating interstate commerce? Can you explain why a license fee for importing into a state is regulating interstate commerce? Once you answer those questions you may be able to understand where I'm coming from. Remember states cannot regulate interstate commerce and the federal government cannot regulate intrastate commerce. No special rules for either are defined in the constitution. So it's reasonable to believe that if one entity is doing something unconstitutional by infringing on the other's role then having the other entity do the same exact thing would be just as unconstitutional.

[Cpt Banjo]

If you're affecting how a business operates then you have control or influence in how it operates. That's called regulation.

Even Chief Justice Taft, who wrote the majority opinion in the Drexel Furniture case, knew the difference between regulation and taxation:

Does this law impose a tax with only that incidental restraint and regulation which a tax must inevitably involve? Or does it regulate by the use of the so-called tax as a penalty?

All taxation regulates to some degree. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional.