Rallying Cry 2

[Famspear]

Regarding Paul's point about SteveSy's monumental misconception about the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination and the requirement for filing of Federal income tax returns, I recall that this was SteveSy's comment:

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 [requiring them to disclose the data on an income tax return], when they have committed no crime, is not a violation [of the 5th amendment].

Posting that comment must have been what the old folks refer to as a "senior moment" for Steve, whose idea seems to have been that requiring "someone who has committed no crime" to file a tax return would somehow violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. I'm still trying to figure that one out. What was he thinking?

Was he thinking that requiring someone to lay out their books is permissible only if that person has committed a crime?

And even if requiring a person to disclose personal financial information by filing an income tax return somehow violated the Fifth Amendment, what difference would it make whether the person had committed a crime or not?

Some tax protesters do seem to have the mistaken idea (and maybe Steve had this idea) that the requirement that a person disclose financial information in a Federal income tax return is akin to a criminal investigation by the government of that person. Of course, it's not. The Federal income tax return filing requirement is not aimed at lawbreakers. In this regard, contrast the results in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927) (Federal income tax return) and Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (1968) (Federal wagering tax return).

[LDE]

I have to partially agree with Steve that the interstate-commerce clause has been horribly abused. In my opinion, the Supreme Court was entirely correct to strike down the Violence Against Women Act on the grounds that violence against women was a state matter.

Of course, in our degraded, ignorant, tabloidized political culture, this is tantamount to making me an advocate for violence against women.

I don't believe the federal government should be getting involved in the minutiae of gun prevention based on "interstate commerce" or in regulating possession of drugs within 1000 feet of a school under the same rationale.

However, I accept that Supreme Court decisions are the law, no matter how far they stretch and tear the intent of the Constitution to achieve their result.

When it comes to taxation and the requirement to keep adequate records and turn that information over to the state, there I don't agree with Steve. Doing business has always involved recordkeeping and (though I hate filling out my rather complicated 1040 as much as anyone) I can't claim it's any more unjust than what the Romans or the Hittites required of their citizens.

[Famspear]

LDE wrote:

I have to partially agree with Steve that the interstate-commerce clause has been horribly abused. In my opinion, the Supreme Court was entirely correct to strike down the Violence Against Women Act on the grounds that violence against women was a state matter.

Yeah, and I see (or at least I hope I see) SteveSy coming slowly toward a begrudging acceptance or realization that a person can understand that a court decision is authoritative on what the law is -- and at the same time believe that the court decision was ill advised, or that the decision was contrary to Founding Fathers' original intent, or that the decision makes for bad public policy, or whatever. In effect, reasonable people can reasonably disagree over whether a particular law, or a particular result in a court case, is a "good" result or a "fair" result.

[natty]

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 simply will not accept (or he does not understand) the ruling made in the Brushaber case. The court held that taxation on income was INHERENTLY an excise. That means taxation on incomes always was and is an excise. That does not mean taxation on incomes is an excise only if it is an excise.

[Famspear]

LDE, regarding your statement:

Of course, in our degraded, ignorant, tabloidized political culture, this is tantamount to making me an advocate for violence against women.

This goes along with a concern that I have about the way in which I think members of the media sometimes report law-related stories. Especially in radio and TV, I think there is a danger of being too superficial, to "result oriented" in reporting, as in -- "the poor little old lady won the case" or "the big corporation won the case." This involves the danger of underreporting the merits, the law and the facts, putting too much emphasis on only one aspect of the result. "The court sided with the little old lady" or "the court sided with the big corporation", while denotatively correct, may have a connotation that does not accurately convey what happened.

I don't have any specific examples to back me up at the moment. Your comment made me think of this (I'm a former news reporter).

Of course, on some channels the reporters do go into quite a bit of depth on the law and the facts, so I'm not making any blanket indictment.