Rallying Cry 2

[Famspear]

Steve, I love to split hairs. Regarding your citation to the Butler case and your apparent contention that the power to tax and the power to spend are not "separate," here is the exact quote from the Butler case:

The clause thought to authorize the legislation, the first, confers upon the Congress power 'to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States. ...' It is not contended that this provision grants power to regulate agricultural production upon the theory that such legislation would promote the general welfare. The government concedes that the phrase 'to provide for the general welfare' qualifies the power 'to lay and collect taxes.' The view that the clause grants power to provide for the general welfare, independently of the taxing power, has never been authoritatively accepted. Mr. Justice Story points out that, if it were adopted, 'it is obvious that under color of the generality of the words, to 'provide for the common defence and general welfare', the government of the United States is, in reality, a government of general and unlimited powers, notwithstanding the subsequent enumeration of specific powers.' [footnote omitted] The true construction undoubtedly is that the only thing granted is the power to tax for the purpose of providing funds for payment of the nation's debts and making provision for the general welfare.

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936).

There is actually some grammatical support for your argument that the power to tax and the power to spend are not separate. What I am saying, however, is that (1) the power to tax, (2) the power to spend, and (3) the power to regulate, are three separate powers under Article I, section 8. They are three separate functions of government. Taxing (collecting money) and spending (disbursing money) are two opposite FUNCTIONS.

I believe you are saying the power to tax and the power to spend are one and the same, based at least in part, apparently, on this verbiage in Butler:

The view that the clause grants power to provide [i.e., to spend] for the general welfare, independently of the taxing power, has never been authoritatively accepted.

I think you may be reading this as though the phrase "independently of" were substituted with the phrase "separately from" like this: "The view that the clause grants power to provide [i.e., the power to spend . . . ] SEPARATELY FROM the taxing power, has never been authoritatively accepted."

What the Court was saying in Butler is that BOTH the power to tax AND the power to spend have a limit -- and that the limit is the same for both. The taxing and spending must be done for "the general welfare." The two powers (the two FUNCTIONS, if you will) are "not independent" of one another. That's what the Court means when it says in effect that "the power" (rather than "the powers") to tax and spend must both be for the "general welfare." The power to spend is dependent on the power to tax in the sense that both are limited by the "general welfare" verbiage.

I think you and I are not really disagreeing on the substance of this particular point; we are using terms differently.

At any rate, the issue in Butler was not whether the taxing power and the spending power are one and the same. The issue was whether the "tax" discussed in that case was really a permissible tax or, alternatively, a disguised regulatory power and, if so, a regulatory power not granted to Congress by the Constitution.

Along the way to reaching its conclusion (briefly discussed below), the Court in Butler adopted the Hamilton-Story view that the power to tax is indeed limited by the "general welfare" language in the first enumeration of section 8 (see Article I, section 8, clause 1). The Court thereby rejected the Madison view that the power to tax is limited by the subsequently enumerated legislative fields (see clauses 2 through 18). That means that the power to tax is not limited just to things like interstate commerce (clause 3), post offices (clause 7), science and arts (clause , and so on.

Because the "general welfare" language is so, uh, vague and "general," the power to tax and the power to spend are sort of vague and general. I guess that's part of the reason why you and your fellow posters are now engaged in such a vigorous debate.

Interestingly, the Court in Butler ruled that even under the broad, vague "general welfare" limitation, the "tax" provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 -- which imposed a so-called "processing tax" when the Secretary of Agriculture determined that rental or benefit payments should be made with respect to any basic commodity -- were really blatantly regulatory provisions, and that the Constitution simply did not give Congress that regulatory power.

But, can you clarify something? Here, you wrote, in response to something Judge Roy Bean wrote:

.....unfortunately even the Supreme Court has declared the "general welfare" clause does not include the "local" welfare. [ . . . ] So yes it is the "proper" interpretation of the general welfare provision in the constitution.

What does "it" refer to, as in "it is the 'proper' interpretation"? In other words, can you summarize your view about what the "general welfare" limitation SHOULD mean, in terms of the power to tax and the power to spend? I'm not asking you to say what the law actually is, but rather what you think the law should be.

Maybe it's related to this. You are quoted earlier as saying:

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".

After that post, the thread went on, but after reading it I'm still unclear on why you believe an income tax on working man's non-interstate activity should be unconstitutional (if that's what you're saying). Are you also saying that if the man's earnings are strictly interstate, then the income tax should be OK? The "interstate" issue presumably has to do with "interstate commerce," which in turn has to do with regulation power, not limits on taxing or spending. Since the Butler court specifically adopted the Hamilton-Story view about the power of taxation (which means the power of taxation is limited by the "general welfare clause," but not by the "commerce clause"), and specifically rejected the Madison view, what does an "interstate activity" have to do with the power to tax the working man's non-interstate wages?

A separate question is: Does (or should) the "general welfare" limitation ITSELF somehow make the Federal income tax on a "working man's earnings from work not engaged in interstate activity" unconstitutional?

Still another question: In your view, is there some other constitutional limitation that should also make that tax unconstitutional?

--Famspear

[Famspear]

Weird - how did those emoticons get into my previous post?

[webhick]

Weird - how did those emoticons get into my previous post?

Proximity.

is an 8 and a parenthesis slammed up against one another. phpBB automatically replaces the characters with the cool smiley upon viewing (thinking that it was what you were going for). Throw a space in between the 8 and the ) and you'll trick the system into not doing it.

[Famspear]

OK, thanks webhick!

[Demosthenes]

Or, edit your post, and click on "Disable smilies in post".

[webhick]

Or, edit your post, and click on "Disable smilies in post".

So that's what that checkbox I've blatantly ignored does...

Too easy.

[Famspear]

Dear Demosthenes:

Thanks for your help!

--Famspear

[SteveSy]

Let's take business out of this. A lot of businesses sell product that directly affects interstate commerce. Individual people do not. This is the realm of my argument. I contend that a person making all his earnings within a State directly affects almost entirely intrastate commerce.

So businesses affect interstate commerce but the people working for those businesses do not?

Duke2Earl is right: You're insane.

Boy, that's so smart Dan. So if a guy buying a snickers affects interstate commerce because of his totally indrect affect then certainly ANYTHING the Federal government does affects intrastate commerce and it should be a violation of affecting intrastate commerce.

Please explain how it only works one way....you can't.

[SteveSy]

But, can you clarify something? Here, you wrote, in response to something Judge Roy Bean wrote:

.....unfortunately even the Supreme Court has declared the "general welfare" clause does not include the "local" welfare. [ . . . ] So yes it is the "proper" interpretation of the general welfare provision in the constitution.

What does "it" refer to, as in "it is the 'proper' interpretation"? In other words, can you summarize your view about what the "general welfare" limitation SHOULD mean, in terms of the power to tax and the power to spend? I'm not asking you to say what the law actually is, but rather what you think the law should be.

Maybe it's related to this. You are quoted earlier as saying:

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".

No, that's mixing two seperate issues.


My contention concerning the "general welfare" is that all taxes in part are unconstitutional...I know you're saying whoooa right now. That is easily fixed by congress limiting its appropriations to things that are for the "general welfare". The point of me even bringing this up was not to claim someone shouldn't have to pay because of this. It was to point out that it, at least according to the court, is a very valid point but a federal court will still let it continue. Someone could make a case that until the appropriations violation is remedied taxes in part are unconstitutional. I think we can both agree that some tax revenues are not spent on the "general welfare". Would a federal court address this violation, would they do their job and stop the violations, any violation, if asked....not a frigging chance. They would do whatever it took to avoid the issue all together. Would it be a conspiracy, you tell me. btw, there are far, far more "legal scholars" that would agree the government is violating that provision then there are that say the government is not.

A separate question is: Does (or should) the "general welfare" limitation ITSELF somehow make the Federal income tax on a "working man's earnings from work not engaged in interstate activity" unconstitutional?

Yes but not because of he is "engaged in interstate activity". Again that's a separate issue. The argument concerning "engaged in interstate activity" is wholly founded upon the Supreme Court's Interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. That clause along with the 10th is a double edged sword. It's illogical to claim something interferes with regulation if they do it but if you do the same to them it’s not. In fact to even make such a claim would be proof that the federal courts are nothing but puppets.

Still another question: In your view, is there some other constitutional limitation that should also make that tax unconstitutional?
--Famspear

Really it's only the direct tax clause and in part the right to regulate intrastate commerce. There are many reasons why I believe a general income tax fails but many have already had the Supreme Court knock them down. Such as the 5th amendment, I honestly don't see how anyone can claim requiring everyone to lay out their books and records every year, when they have committed no crime, is not a violation.

I also don't see how anyone can claim the tax is uniform. The word "geographic" does not appear in the constitution and even then they have still violated that interpretation, with the courts approval, with a windfall tax. More importantly, it's only uniform due to classing; another word that does not appear in the constitution. If classing is allowed then certainly the Fourteenth Amendment allows for classing of people and it is in itself a right to treat a group of people unequally under the law which is obviously the exact opposite of the intention of the amendment.

[BBFlatt]

SteveSy wrote:

Really it's only the direct tax clause and in part the right to regulate intrastate commerce. There are many reasons why I believe a general income tax fails but many have already had the Supreme Court knock them down. Such as the 5th amendment, I honestly don't see how anyone can claim requiring everyone to lay out their books and records every year, when they have committed no crime, is not a violation.

Just a question from the sidelines; what would a constitutional amendment have to say, that the 16th doesn't already say, to make our current tax system constitutional?

[Lovin]

Or, edit your post, and click on "Disable smilies in post".

Where's the "Disable stevesy posts" box?

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

Really it's only the direct tax clause and in part the right to regulate intrastate commerce. There are many reasons why I believe a general income tax fails but many have already had the Supreme Court knock them down. Such as the 5th amendment, I honestly don't see how anyone can claim requiring everyone to lay out their books and records every year, when they have committed no crime, is not a violation.

Just a question from the sidelines; what would a constitutional amendment have to say, that the 16th doesn't already say, to make our current tax system constitutional?

Our current tax system is constitutional, just misapplied. That being said to have it constitutional it would have to say something similar to "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect a uniform direct tax on on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Congress already and always had the power to lay a tax on incomes from things that fall within the excise class without apportionment there would be no need to include that in the amendment.

[SteveSy]

Or, edit your post, and click on "Disable smilies in post".

Where's the "Disable stevesy posts" box?

Sorry you don't like opposing opinion.....I realize, for you, it would be much better to have a forum where only one side, your side, is being discussed. It’s much easier to convince someone that your side is the accurate side when it’s that way.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

I think we can both agree that some tax revenues are not spent on the "general welfare".

I would agree that there is a lot of what I would personally view as wasteful spending. I can neither agree nor disagree that some tax revenues are not spent on the "general welfare" as that term is used in the Constitution. Whether a particular item of expenditure is for the general welfare is not for you or me to say. The Congress impliedly makes that determination by legislation. And if someone challenges that implied determination by going to court, the court might or might not decide to decide that issue. It might be considered a non-justiciable -- I don't know, I haven't researched the point. You may well be right that the courts would not second guess the Congress.

SteveSy wrote:

btw, there are far, far more "legal scholars" that would agree the government is violating that provision then there are that say the government is not.

Again I can neither agree nor disagree with your statement -- but I kinda doubt that an objective survey of "legal scholars" would support your statement.

SteveSy wrote:

Such as the 5th amendment, I honestly don't see how anyone can claim requiring everyone to lay out their books and records every year, when they have committed no crime, is not a violation.

The requirement that someone "lay out their books and records every year" -- and by that I presume you mean the requirement to file a tax return disclosing all that personal financial information -- in no way violates the Fifth Amendment. The application of the Fifth Amendment does not depend on whether a person has committed a crime, at least not in the sense you apparently mean. This is a very tricky area of law. The Fifth Amendment does NOT prohibit government from demanding that you disclose financial information.

I'll go a step further. Let's suppose that I am engaged in illegal sales of drugs. Under the IRC, income from illegal sales of drugs is taxable, and I can be convicted and imprisoned for willfully failing to report that income and pay the tax. Suppose I file the tax return, report the income as "drug sales" or "illegal drug sales," and pay the tax. Somebody at the IRS notices the entry, and I am eventually prosecuted for the drug activity (no tax violations, since I filed the return and paid the tax). At trial, I raise as a defense my Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination to keep the evidence derived from my tax return -- which I was of course required to file -- from being introduced against me. Under the Fifth Amendment, do I have a valid defense?

The answer is NO. I can be convicted of the illegal drug activity.

Why? Because I was a dummy and FAILED TO ASSERT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IN THE TAX RETURN ITSELF. The Fifth Amendment does not apply unless you actually ASSERT it. That's the Garner Doctrine. (And by the way, with respect to a Federal income tax return, the mere fact that your income might be from an illegal activity does not allow you to simply refuse to file a return -- that's the Sullivan Doctrine.) All I would have had to have done was report the income on the tax return but label the dollar amount as "FIFTH AMENDMENT" or some similar wording. Instead, silly me, I simply failed to assert the privilege.

Steve Sy also says:

also don't see how anyone can claim the tax is uniform. The word "geographic" does not appear in the constitution and even then they have still violated that interpretation, with the courts approval, with a windfall tax.

I understand that you feel that way. You may want to re-read the relevant case law. At any rate, the "geographic uniformity versus intrinsic uniformity" argument was settled long ago, whether you or I like it or not. I think the case is Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900). I've never understood how anyone could think that "intrinsic uniformity" could make any sense for an excise (indirect tax) anyway. At any rate, my personal belief also happens to be the law of the land on that point. Excises are required to be "geographically uniform."

And regarding the fact that the word "geographic" does not appear in the Constitution -- so what? Lots of words don't appear in the Constitution. That has nothing to do with whether the uniformity clause should mean geographic uniformity or intrinsic uniformity. I think I've been over this before in Quatloos, maybe with another person.

Anyway, thanks for your responses. Again, I think you're better off keeping your arguments in the tone of policy discussions or theory, rather than trying to argue about what the law actually is. "What the law actually is" on a particular point is determined in large by reference to actual court rulings (if any) on that point, not by personalized "logic" arguments.

--Famspear

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

I think we can both agree that some tax revenues are not spent on the "general welfare".

I would agree that there is a lot of what I would personally view as wasteful spending. I can neither agree nor disagree that some tax revenues are not spent on the "general welfare" as that term is used in the Constitution. Whether a particular item of expenditure is for the general welfare is not for you or me to say. The Congress impliedly makes that determination by legislation. And if someone challenges that implied determination by going to court, the court might or might not decide to decide that issue. It might be considered a non-justiciable -- I don't know, I haven't researched the point. You may well be right that the courts would not second guess the Congress.

Hold here, you believe Congress should define its own constitutional limits? Why have a Constitution? More importantly why should anything congress does be subject to scrutiny if they have this ability?
I think your position goes to the heart of our differences. I believe that the constitution was created to protect our life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you place any of that solely in the in the hands of government then there might as well be no constitution at all. In fact we as a nation have no right to exist because we violated that principal long ago when separated from England. It’s not like courts ruled in the favor of the colonists, everything England did was well within its legal power, as they saw it, to do.

btw, there are far, far more "legal scholars" that would agree the government is violating that provision then there are that say the government is not.

Again I can neither agree nor disagree with your statement -- but I kinda doubt that an objective survey of "legal scholars" would support your statement.

So you think a majority of "legal scholars" would agree a statue of Senator Byrd is for the "general welfare" of the nation. The list is VERY long of items that are strictly for the local welfare of a represenative's constituents.

SteveSy wrote:

Such as the 5th amendment, I honestly don't see how anyone can claim requiring everyone to lay out their books and records every year, when they have committed no crime, is not a violation.

The requirement that someone "lay out their books and records every year" -- and by that I presume you mean the requirement to file a tax return disclosing all that personal financial information -- in no way violates the Fifth Amendment. The application of the Fifth Amendment does not depend on whether a person has committed a crime, at least not in the sense you apparently mean. This is a very tricky area of law. The Fifth Amendment does NOT prohibit government from demanding that you disclose financial information.

Heh, so exactly what do you think was intended by the clause then? I mean if congress can create a law requiring the disclosing of records where's the limit? What purpose would that phrase serve if all books and records can be constitutionally retrieved by government on demand. Is it “due process”? Is “due process” met simply by making it legal to do so? If so, then what were the founders thinking when they made it? England had the legal power to do what they did when they demanded the books and records of the colonists; the very same power that prompted the creation of that clause. You do realize what really pissed off the colonists was the fact that England sent tax collectors to the homes of individuals who were thought to be avoiding taxes and demanded their books and records without court order. I'm absolutely sure England had something on the books requiring that the colonists report their sales of taxable goods.

Maybe England should have just required a form be filled out by ALL colonists earning a living requiring them to list all their transactions, trades included, then the colonists would have been happy.

I'll go a step further. Let's suppose that I am engaged in illegal sales of drugs. Under the IRC, income from illegal sales of drugs is taxable, and I can be convicted and imprisoned for willfully failing to report that income and pay the tax. Suppose I file the tax return, report the income as "drug sales" or "illegal drug sales," and pay the tax. Somebody at the IRS notices the entry, and I am eventually prosecuted for the drug activity (no tax violations, since I filed the return and paid the tax). At trial, I raise as a defense my Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination to keep the evidence derived from my tax return -- which I was of course required to file -- from being introduced against me. Under the Fifth Amendment, do I have a valid defense?

No you do not. You never made a claim of immunity. But this is not important to my claim. My claim is based on common sense and not based on the effort to be a textual contortionists as most lawyers appear to be.

Steve Sy also says:

also don't see how anyone can claim the tax is uniform. The word "geographic" does not appear in the constitution and even then they have still violated that interpretation, with the courts approval, with a windfall tax.

I understand that you feel that way. You may want to re-read the relevant case law. At any rate, the "geographic uniformity versus intrinsic uniformity" argument was settled long ago, whether you or I like it or not. I think the case is Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900). I've never understood how anyone could think that "intrinsic uniformity" could make any sense for an excise (indirect tax) anyway. At any rate, my personal belief also happens to be the law of the land on that point. Excises are required to be "geographically uniform."

As I said I do not rely on that argument I merely point out that I see it as flawed on the government's side. btw, it doesn't have to be geographic either due to classing. A tax on just Alaskan oil would not be a violation of the uniformity clause because all oil that falls within the class Alaskan oil is treated the same. Does that make sense to you, do you believe that was the intention of the people who wrote the constitution? Likewise taking the interpritation from the Supeme Court to the extreme taxing you differently would also not be a violation. All they need to do is define your situation or attributes uniquely in the tax code and all people like you, which just happens to be one, are treated the same. In fact considering they can use geographic classification, which they have done multiple times, they could simply just put your address in the tax code.

Do you believe the people that were intent on protecting our rights and liberties from intrusive government would have intentionally created a document where the defined limits are so easily avoided or bypassed?

[LPC]

So if a guy buying a snickers affects interstate commerce because of his totally indrect affect

It's not "indirect." The Snickers bar is manufactured in Illinois and Texas and distributed from those plants to consumers throughout the United States. The Snickers bar does not "affect" interstate commerce, it is **IN** interstate commerce, and buying a Snickers bar is definitely part of interstate commerce.

So you've moved up a notch, from insane to merely dim.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Hold here, you believe Congress should define its own constitutional limits? Why have a Constitution? More importantly why should anything congress does be subject to scrutiny if they have this ability?

Well, whether I believe Congress should be able to define its own limits is a separate issue. Obviously, under our legal system many or maybe even most constitutional issues that are brought before the courts are actually decided by the courts. The political question doctrine (essentially the doctrine that the court does not get involved or second guess the Congress on certain issues), for example, is rarely invoked. So, it's not a question of whether Congress should be able to define its own limits. In large measure, Congress CANNOT just define its own limits -- for the simple reason that the courts are there as a check.

In a case where the court decides that it will NOT second guess Congress, your question is more pertinent. If you are asking me whether I believe Congress SHOULD be able to define its own limits in a particular case, you would have to give me the specific facts of that case. But regardless of what my answer would be, that is a separate question from what the law ACTUALLY IS on that particular point.

SteveSy wrote:

I think your position goes to the heart of our differences

Steve, think about what you're saying. What position of mine are you talking about? What differences are you talking about? Go back and read my commentary. I never said that the Congress SHOULD have the power to do something without being second-guessed by the courts, etc. You still seem to have trouble distinguishing between (A) your personal opinion about what SHOULD be a particular rule and (B) understanding what a particular rule ACTUALLY IS.

As other posters here have pointed out, you seem to want to merge the two concepts in your mind. It's as though you approach your understanding of law from the tack of your own "logic" or your own sense of what's "fair." Law is not based on your personal sense of logic or your personal sense of what's fair. You are just one individual. There are 300 million people in the country and, for example, different people have different ideas of what the "general welfare" should be. The idea that "SteveSy" can somehow objectively determine THE ACTUAL LAW on this point is illogical. It would be like me, Famspear, trying to do the same thing. The way you determine "what the law is" is by performing proper legal analysis, which by definition involves studying court rulings with which you personally disagree, rulings which you consider illogical and unfair. The study of law is based on the study of AUTHORITY and applying rules on the logic of law, not based on applying the rules of "logic of Steve" or "logic of Famspear."

SteveSy wrote:

So you think a majority of "legal scholars" would agree a statue of Senator bird [sic] is for the "general welfare" of the nation.

Whaatttt? Go back and read what I wrote, Steve.

SteveSy wrote:

Heh, so exactly what do you think was intended by the clause then? I mean if congress can create a law requiring the disclosing of records where's the limit? What purpose would that phrase serve if all books and records can be constitutionally retrieved by government on demand. Is it “due process”? Is “due process” met simply by making a law requiring it? If so, then what were the founders thinking when they made it? England had the legal power to do what they did when they demanded the books and records of the colonists; the very same power that prompted the creation of that clause.

Steve, whatever gave you the idea that the Fifth Amendment has ever prohibited government from requiring that someone file financial reports? Where are you coming up with this? What gave you the idea that merely because Congress can create a law requiring the disclosing of records, that this means there is somehow no limit to Congressional power? You are wildly overstating your case.

SteveSy wrote:

My claim is based on common sense and not based on the effort to be a textual contortionists as most lawyers appear to be.

No, Steve, your claim, your argument, is based on your own personal opinion. Some else may disagree. Many people may disagree.

An example of "common sense" would be: "Use windshield wipers when driving your car in a heavy rainstorm." That's common sense. Common sense is what MOST people would agree on, without resort to specialized knowledge, training or skill.

The idea that the cost of putting a statue of Senator Byrd up somewhere is not for the "general welfare" is not "common sense." It may be a valid theory or it may not be. It's just your personal opinion. It doesn't matter how strongly you might feel about it -- it's not a question of "common sense."

SteveSy wrote:

A tax on just Alaskan oil would not be a violation of the uniformity clause because all oil that falls within the class Alaskan oil is treated the same. Does that make sense to you, do you believe that was the intention of the people who wrote the constitution?

Again, when you ask whether that "makes sense" to me -- you need to ask yourself the question, "Why is SteveSy asking Famspear that question?" Are you trying to figure out or argue about what the law actually is, or are you merely asking my opinion about what I personally believe is good or bad policy?

SteveSy wrote:

Likewise taking the interpritation [sic] from the Supeme [sic] Court to the extreme taxing you differently would also not be a violation. All they need to do is define your situation or attributes uniquely in the tax code and all people like you, which just happens to be one, are treated the same. In fact considering they can use geographic classification, which they have done multiple times, they could simply just put your address in the tax code.

Do you believe they created a document where the defined limits are so easily avoided or bypassed?

Steve, you seem to be straining to find problems that don't exist. It sounds like you're trying to say that because Congress can impose a tax on "just Alaskan oil" you're worried that this means Congress could impose a special tax on a person by just putting that person's address in the tax code. Ask yourself why you're coming up with these kinds of arguments. Steve, I detect in your writing that you feel a tremendous amount of EMOTION about these issues.

I am curious: Why are you having such a hard time with tax law? How did your interest in tax law originally come about? Do you have a professional tie to tax law in some way, or have you ever been personally victimized by a Federal or state tax collector in some way (aside from just having to file returns and pay taxes of course)?

--Famspear

[SteveSy]

So if a guy buying a snickers affects interstate commerce because of his totally indrect affect

It's not "indirect." The Snickers bar is manufactured in Illinois and Texas and distributed from those plants to consumers throughout the United States. The Snickers bar does not "affect" interstate commerce, it is **IN** interstate commerce, and buying a Snickers bar is definitely part of interstate commerce.

So you've moved up a notch, from insane to merely dim.

I see. Now please apply that rule on intrastate commerce Dan and see what you come up with, using that absurd logic. Again, we would have to assume, if using your silly logic was valid, that everything the government does directly affects intrastate commerce and thus is unconstitutional or at the minimum allows a state to tax or regulate interstate commerce. For instance Texas should be able to control how stores operates or tax residents that eat snickers in NY because the store sells snickers that passed through Texas intrastate commerce.


Your theory only seems to work one way. The more expansive you interpret the interstate commerce clause you must also expand the intrastate rule also.

It's not direct btw and it certainly affects intrastate commerce far, far more than it does interstate. People do not buy directly from snickers they buy from the retailer who sells snickers. Most likely those snickers are purchased by the wholesaler who wholesales goods within the state. It is then purchased probably from another wholesaler who deals only in Mars brand products within the state. It indirectly affects interstate commerce. If anyone is dim, it's you for making a claim people fall under the interstate commerce clause simply because they purchased some goods that may have been manufactured outside the state. You might as well claim how you raise your children also directly affects interstate commerce because what they feed their children can come from interstate commerce.


Under your absurd theory everything would fall under interstate commerce and therefore the clause is meaningless as it includes everything.

[LPC]

Under your absurd theory everything would fall under interstate commerce and therefore the clause is meaningless as it includes everything.

I can't explain your hallucinations, but my "absurd theory" is that a produce manufactured in one state and shipped to another is in interstate commerce and can be federally regulated.

Meanwhile, you have yet to explain your absurd theory, which is that a business can be engaged in interstate commerce even though its employees are not. You seem to believe that GM or Ford can assemble cars for nationwide distribution, and be therefore be engaged in interstate commerce, but that the workers who are actually assembling the cars are somehow not involved in interstate commerce.

[Cpt Banjo]

I can't explain your hallucinations, but my "absurd theory" is that a produce manufactured in one state and shipped to another is in interstate commerce and can be federally regulated.

Let's face it -- sadly, under the current state of the law, interstate transportation is unnecessary. If Roscoe Filburn's wheat and Angel Raich's and Diane Monson's pot can be federally regulated, there's nothing that's off limits to Congress' economic regulation.

But all this is beside the point, since there is no more connection between the taxing power and the commerce power than there is between the taxing power and the power to establish post offices.