Ron Paul (again) on Ed & Elaine Brown & the income t

[.]

Wouldn't an audit would be a search of your papers and effects?

I'll guess that Ryan probably also thinks that if the IRS issues a summons to your bank for your records, it's a "search of your papers and effects."

[Randall]

My tax bracket will be considerably higher this year, the last 2 years I qualified for EITC though, I've never claimed it. .

Let me get this straight, you qualify for a deduction that would substantially lessen your tax burden, but you choose not to claim it THEN you complain that you pay too much taxes?!?!?

[The Observer]

My tax bracket will be considerably higher this year, the last 2 years I qualified for EITC though, I've never claimed it. .

Let me get this straight, you qualify for a deduction that would substantially lessen your tax burden, but you choose not to claim it THEN you complain that you pay too much taxes?!?!?

Randall, remember: No one here ever claimed that TPs were very bright - or very honest.

[Weathervane]

Randall, remember: No one here ever claimed that TPs were very bright - or very honest.

No, they're just a bit jaded.

[silversopp]

The terms "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" are not rigid descriptions of actions, and most everyone here should know that. They can be used in at least two ways, the most common are either 1) what the latest court decisions are or 2) what the law should be.

When Ron Paul says that he thinks something is unconstitutional, I believe he is expressing his own interpretation of what the law should be.

The Supreme Court has overturned itself plenty of times, and their decisions have had plenty of dissenting opinions, that it's pretty clear that the meaning of "constitutional" is often a personal opinion up for debate. Law is not rigid like mathematics, the results can change based simply on who the judge(s) is/are.

[Imalawman]

The terms "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" are not rigid descriptions of actions, and most everyone here should know that. They can be used in at least two ways, the most common are either 1) what the latest court decisions are or 2) what the law should be.

When Ron Paul says that he thinks something is unconstitutional, I believe he is expressing his own interpretation of what the law should be.

The Supreme Court has overturned itself plenty of times, and their decisions have had plenty of dissenting opinions, that it's pretty clear that the meaning of "constitutional" is often a personal opinion up for debate. Law is not rigid like mathematics, the results can change based simply on who the judge(s) is/are.

Silversopp, can you really argue that any intelligent person can believe that an income tax is unconstitutional? Sure there are gray areas, but the income tax is not one of them. Never has been and never will be. Now, extending the commerce clause to marijuana....that's a proper constitutional debate.

[SteveSy]

What happens if during an audit I refuse to give the auditor any information or paperwork he requests citing the 4th amendment? Am I punished in some way for upholding my 4th amendment right?

You have no 4th A. right to refuse to give information during an audit. You do have a 4th A. right not to have the auditor break into your house or office without a warrant and take your stuff. That's the "search" part, you see.

Huh?

So as long as they demand to have your records (stuff), with the threat of imprisonment if you don't, all is well? Golly gee wiz Wally, I bet the founders really meant that when the put that in the constitution.

The truth is many of the tax collectors would have died and would have had their homes burned down if the same thing was tried on all working citizens back then. Nothing in the constitution has changed concerning the 4th since then.

[silversopp]

Silversopp, can you really argue that any intelligent person can believe that an income tax is unconstitutional?

No. But I seem to have been mistaken in thinking Ron Paul said that the taxation of income is unconstitutional. It appears that he thinks the methods used by the IRS to collect income taxes are "unconstitutional" (in the sense of how the law should be).

I could see an intelligent person believing that the methods of collecting income taxes are "unconstitutional" and need to be changed. If I remember correctly, in the lates 90s, Congress changed some laws regarding IRS operations in collecting income taxes. This would indicate to me that many Congressmen believed that the IRS wasn't operating with how the law should be.

[silversopp]

So as long as they demand to have your records (stuff), with the threat of imprisonment if you don't, all is well? Golly gee wiz Wally, I bet the founders really meant that when the put that in the constitution.

The IRS does not demand to have your records with the threat of imprisonment if you don't. The IRS can determine your income without your personal records. If you claim a deduction, as the asserter, it is up to you to be able to prove your deduction. If you cannot, the IRS does not put you in jail, they simply do not include the deduction when determining your liability.

Has anyone ever been imprisoned for not keeping a receipt? I don't think so.

The truth is many of the tax collectors would have died and would have had their homes burned down if the same thing was tried on all working citizens back then. Nothing in the constitution has changed concerning the 4th since then.

As I mentioned before, the meaning of the constitution is not rigid. It is based on personal interpretations. What folks in the 1790s would have viewed as "constitutional" may not be what folks today view as "constitutional". Since there are going to be disagreements on what it means, the court system is the method to determine what the constitution means today.

I think it's absolutely fine for you to assert your dissenting opinion, as many judges do. However your opinion, and the opinion of dissenting judges, are not the current law. Seperating the way things are with the way you think things should be is very important. If you don't make that seperation clear, you can appear to be a nutjob.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Huh?

So as long as they demand to have your records (stuff), with the threat of imprisonment if you don't, all is well? Golly gee wiz Wally, I bet the founders really meant that when the put that in the constitution.

Golly gee wiz, Steve, I think you're catching on!

Clue: The Founding Fathers never intended that citizens be immune from having to provide personal financial information to the government. And the purpose of the Fourth Amendment is not to provide some sort of blanket prohibition on the government obtaining personal financial information.

[SteveSy]

So as long as they demand to have your records (stuff), with the threat of imprisonment if you don't, all is well? Golly gee wiz Wally, I bet the founders really meant that when the put that in the constitution.

The IRS does not demand to have your records with the threat of imprisonment if you don't.

Yes they do, you're required to provide your records every year and if you don't they can and will use the DOJ to send you to prison.

The IRS can determine your income without your personal records. If you claim a deduction, as the asserter, it is up to you to be able to prove your deduction. If you cannot, the IRS does not put you in jail, they simply do not include the deduction when determining your liability.

Don't forget about the law the IRS uses requiring you to provide your records every year.

The truth is many of the tax collectors would have died and would have had their homes burned down if the same thing was tried on all working citizens back then. Nothing in the constitution has changed concerning the 4th since then.

As I mentioned before, the meaning of the constitution is not rigid. It is based on personal interpretations. What folks in the 1790s would have viewed as "constitutional" may not be what folks today view as "constitutional". Since there are going to be disagreements on what it means, the court system is the method to determine what the constitution means today.

Blah, blah, blah....

The constitution is "rigid", it was created with the ability to modify it by amendment. If what you say is true there would be no need to have the ability to amend it. 2 + 2 = 4. They wouldn't have needed an amendment banning alcohol, giving women the right to vote etc.

Queue the absurd reply that TV would not be included in freedom of speech.

I think it's absolutely fine for you to assert your dissenting opinion, as many judges do. However your opinion, and the opinion of dissenting judges, are not the current law.

You mean their interpretation of the law....the law doesn't change. No judge or lawyer has a chance in hell of becoming a federal judge if they have ever had the view the income tax has constitutional issues. This is not because of abilities to understand law but because federal judges are accepted based on their likelihood to agree with those in power regardless of what was intended by the law thereby undermining the fundamental protection of an independent judiciary. FDR started the path we're on and it has been f'ed up ever since.

[Imalawman]

The IRS does not demand to have your records with the threat of imprisonment if you don't.

Yes they do, you're required to provide your records every year and if you don't they can and will use the DOJ to send you to prison.

Prove it. Just provide one example.

As I mentioned before, the meaning of the constitution is not rigid. It is based on personal interpretations. What folks in the 1790s would have viewed as "constitutional" may not be what folks today view as "constitutional". Since there are going to be disagreements on what it means, the court system is the method to determine what the constitution means today.

Blah, blah, blah....

The constitution is "rigid", it was created with the ability to modify it by amendment. If what you say is true there would be no need to have the ability to amend it. 2 + 2 = 4. They wouldn't have needed an amendment banning alcohol, giving women the right to vote etc.

So, how about the exclusionary rule? Would you support reading the "rigid" view of the constitution that would allow the government to use illegal evidence against you in court? Of course there are gray areas, its a finite document that encompasses an infinite number of possible situations. It is clear on some points, but others its not. That said, I think some people, like Justice Breyer, take it too far.

[Famspear]

silversopp wrote:

I could see an intelligent person believing that the methods of collecting income taxes are "unconstitutional" and need to be changed. If I remember correctly, in the lates 90s, Congress changed some laws regarding IRS operations in collecting income taxes. This would indicate to me that many Congressmen believed that the IRS wasn't operating with how the law should be.

I agree in the sense that the average intelligent person who is not a lawyer may tend to use the word "unconstitutional" -- incorrectly -- as a rough synonym for the concept of "unfair." For example, the 1998 reform act that changed some of the IRS operations on collecting income taxes was based on hearings where congressmen decided that some IRS practices were, essentially, "unfair" (to put not too fine a point on it). That's a far cry from saying that those unfair practices were somehow "unconstitutional."

The mere fact that something is "unfair" does not necessarily make it "illegal." And the mere fact that something is "unfair" definitely does not necessarily make it "unconstitutional." The basic problem here is misuse of the legal term "unconstitutional."

[RyanMcC]

My tax bracket will be considerably higher this year, the last 2 years I qualified for EITC though, I've never claimed it. .

Let me get this straight, you qualify for a deduction that would substantially lessen your tax burden, but you choose not to claim it THEN you complain that you pay too much taxes?!?!?

Randall, remember: No one here ever claimed that TPs were very bright - or very honest.

I'm starting to remember why I only read these forums for a couple years and never participated. Observer, sorry, but your a douchebag.

When you start calling everyone you disagree with a tax protestor reguardless of how much $ they send the IRS, you are a douchebag.

And Randall, I never complained about how much taxes I paid, I shared the fact, but didn't complain. If you went back and put my words in context you would realize that, but of course your probally too intrested in being a douchebag to be fair.

I guess I'll just read these forums from now on, most of you folks here are anti-social and can't have a discussion without straying off into irrelivant points or trying desperatly to pick out your next DMVP.

[SteveSy]

The IRS does not demand to have your records with the threat of imprisonment if you don't.

Yes they do, you're required to provide your records every year and if you don't they can and will use the DOJ to send you to prison.

Prove it. Just provide one example.

Hmmm...I guess all those failure to file charges were bogus....Of course I always knew they were.

As I mentioned before, the meaning of the constitution is not rigid. It is based on personal interpretations. What folks in the 1790s would have viewed as "constitutional" may not be what folks today view as "constitutional". Since there are going to be disagreements on what it means, the court system is the method to determine what the constitution means today.

Blah, blah, blah....

The constitution is "rigid", it was created with the ability to modify it by amendment. If what you say is true there would be no need to have the ability to amend it. 2 + 2 = 4. They wouldn't have needed an amendment banning alcohol, giving women the right to vote etc.

So, how about the exclusionary rule? Would you support reading the "rigid" view of the constitution that would allow the government to use illegal evidence against you in court?

If the evidence was acquired unconstitutionally, meaning without a warrant, then no. You can’t break the constitution to comply with it.

Of course there are gray areas, its a finite document that encompasses an infinite number of possible situations. It is clear on some points, but others its not. That said, I think some people, like Justice Breyer, take it too far.

We're not talking a grey area here.....it's pretty clear, the government can not get your records without a warrant.

It's also crystal clear that the government can only constitutionally tax and spend for the "general welfare" and not local but that doesn't stop the judiciary from avoiding the issue and congress from doing it.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

You mean their interpretation of the law....the law doesn't change. No judge or lawyer has a chance in hell of becoming a federal judge if they have ever had the view the income tax has constitutional issues. This is not because of abilities to understand law but because federal judges are accepted based on their likelihood to agree with those in power regardless of what was intended by the law thereby undermining the fundamental protection of an independent judiciary

I don't think candidates for Federal judgeship are usually quizzed on their views about the constitutionality of the Federal income tax. In the grand scheme of things, it's pretty much a non-issue. Steve's verbiage above is coded language for: "No judge or lawyer has a chance in hell of becoming a federal judge if he or she is so incompetent or so mentally disturbed that he or she espouse tax protester arguments." That is a correct statement.

And the law changes all the time -- including constitutional law -- even when the text of the constitution itself has not changed. I think we've already had the essence of this discussion in Quatloos in one form or another.

[Famspear]

By the way, Federal courts do on rare occasion still rule Federal taxes UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Can anyone think of a United States Supreme Court decision rendered after January 1, 1998 where the Court unanimously ruled a Federal tax unconstitutional? Hint: It was not the Federal income tax.

[wserra]

When Ron Paul says that he thinks something is unconstitutional, I believe he is expressing his own interpretation of what the law should be.

And he doesn't need me to tell him that he certainly has the right to his opinion.

However, when Paul gives a public speech, he is not speaking as an individual. Nobody is going to pay Ron Paul, private citizen, to BS over a beer. He is speaking as a Congressman. What he says has some public significance - we all know how many whackjobs quote Congressional speeches. So when he calls either the collection of the income tax or the tax itself unconstitutional, in public, he has no business expressing his thoughts on "what the law should be" without being completely clear that that's not what the law is, because his words won't be taken that way.

[Famspear]

wserra wrote:

So when he [Ron Paul] calls either the collection of the income tax or the tax itself unconstitutional, in public, he has no business expressing his thoughts on "what the law should be" without being completely clear that that's not what the law is, because his words won't be taken that way.

Exactly.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

You mean their interpretation of the law....the law doesn't change. No judge or lawyer has a chance in hell of becoming a federal judge if they have ever had the view the income tax has constitutional issues. This is not because of abilities to understand law but because federal judges are accepted based on their likelihood to agree with those in power regardless of what was intended by the law thereby undermining the fundamental protection of an independent judiciary

I don't think candidates for Federal judgeship are usually quizzed on their views about the constitutionality of the Federal income tax. In the grand scheme of things, it's pretty much a non-issue. Steve's verbiage above is coded language for: "No judge or lawyer has a chance in hell of becoming a federal judge if he or she is so incompetent or so mentally disturbed that he or she espouse tax protester arguments." That is a correct statement.

Give me a break. What they wrote 30 years ago is up for debate. No, they don't ask that specific question because no one would even make it that far if they had any statements like that in their past. It's not a tax protestor argument to claim the income tax has constitutional issues. I can quote numerous sources around 1913 and 1909 that made similar claims.

And the law changes all the time -- including constitutional law -- even when the text of the constitution itself has not changed. I think we've already had the essence of this discussion in Quatloos in one form or another.

And...?

Just because you have an opinion and some may agree doesn't mean you're right. They’re a lot of constitutional scholars who reject out of hand the Holmes approach and certainly the theory of a living document. Actually, the living document garbage is just that. Its only purpose is to get something illegal legal by being a verbal contortionist. A method used by the whacko minority elitists to get what they want regardless of the constitution.