Well this pretty much sums it all up nice and neat, regardless if it is from the IRS' own internal memo or not... and it even mentions the Lucas case, gee-whiz guess I was not "lying" about that quote after all, what a shocker!:
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2018731/f/IRS_Pink_Papers.pdf
From: http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1719
And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
-
Weston White
Re: And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
And just in case you did not like that, I thought I would be kind and let you view the bestest newpaper article of all time!
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.h ... 94649ED7CF
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fr ... 94649ED7CF
And for good meausre followed up with ...
Sources:DIRECT TAXES IN 1787-94.
It is singularly unfortunate that the moot question concerning the meaning of the "direct taxes" of the National Constitution has been left for discussion to lawyers and Judges by the historical writers of America. It is even more unfortunate that this purely historical question should become the battle ground of party passion and sectional strife. As logical results of these two conditions, we have the Hylton and Springer decisions, together with the more recent indecision, which is, if anything, more humiliating to the American bench and people than the erroneous but consistent prior decisions. In explanation, we are told that economists disagree as to what constitutes a direct tax, and that the framers of the Constitution used the words without attaching any clear meaning to them.
As to the economists, since they are still quarreling over the meaning of the words "wealth" and "value," it is idle to waste time on their definitions. But the framers of the Constitution were practical men, and that they used the words with definite meaning can be demonstrated by citing their own evidence.
The eight section of the Constitution declared that "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises * * * but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
In this section, then, four words were used to cover the whole taxing power of the new Government, and three of these were to be "uniform." The nature of these latter was clearly understood. "Imposts" were the equivalent of our customs duties, and were well settled in definition by public discussion. "Excises" were held to be taxes on "consumption," such as on wines, and on manufactured goods of any kind. "Duties" we have clearly explained to us by a member of the convention, (Luther Martin,) who wrote: "The members of the committee were requested to inform us what they meant by the word 'duties' in this section, since the word 'imposts' extended to duties on goods imported, and by another part of the system no duties on exports were to be laid. In answer to this inquiry we were informed that it was meant to give the General Government the power of laying stamp duties on paper, parchment, and vellum." ["Genuine Information Delivered to the Legislature of Maryland. Philadelphia, 1788," Page 45.] Thus it is evident that the words have been most carefully considered and chosen, and that the word "taxes" was the general term employed in this section to cover all assessments of a direct character, clearly showing what the convention meant to include when in Section 2 of the Constitution it employed the term "direct taxes." In corroboration, Gouverneur Morris, in the convention, in proposing the insertion of the word "direct" in this section, distinctly drew the same line by referring to "indirect taxes on exports, imports, and on consumption," to which the rule would be inapplicable. ["Madison Papers," Page 1,080.] Unfortunately, the records of discussion are so fragmentary and meagre that no further evidence of the actual opinions of the framers in convention is extant.
Other evidence of almost equal value is, however, plentiful in the discussion over the adoption of the Constitution, and from a careful study of the whole literature of this epoch, it is not merely evident that the distinctions above noted were well understood, but that furthermore there was practically no confusion of the terms.
The most important of this evidence to study is to be found in the debate in the various conventions which discussed and voted on the adoption of the Constitution. In that of New-York, Hamilton, (a member of the Federal Convention,) after alluding to direct taxes, outlined as indirect taxes the impost and excises, discussing at length excises "on articles of the growth and manufacturer of the United States." ["Debates of the Convention of New-York," Page 118."] Even more specific was John Jay, who cited as direct "a tax of twenty shillings on all coaches." [Ibid, 126.] In the Virginia Convention, George Mason ["Debates in Convention of Virginia," (Elliott,) Page 265,] (a member of the Federal Convention) held land and poll taxes to be direct. Grayson [Ibid, 285,] argued that so, too, would be one on slaves, and Madison [Ibid, 307,] (a member of the Federal Convention) held that that latter tax was no menace to Virgina, because, being direct, it must be apportioned by population, Mason [Ibid, 459,] agreeing with him as to the nature of the tax, but disagreeing as to its possible equalization. In the Convention of North Carolina, Spencer defined a direct tax as "a poll tax, assessment on land or other property." ["Debates in Convention of North Carolina," Page 77."] Luther Martin (a member of the Federal Convention) reported to the Maryland Legislature that the new Government "may proceed to direct taxation on every individual, ether by a capitation tax on their head or an assessment on their property." ["Genuine Information," Page 47.] Finally, the address of the dissenting minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania argued that, under the direct tax clause, Congress may tax "land, cattle, trades, occupation, &c." ["Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution," Page 479.]
Scarcely less important is the controversial literature. In The Federalist [No. xxxvi.] Hamilton divided internal taxes into direct and indirect, and the former into "duties" and "excises on consumption," and argued on the objections to these latter. He then discussed the direct tax, classing in this "real property, houses, and lands, and, in another part of the work, "polls." In the chief anti-Federal publication, The Federal Farmer, [Page 79,] Richard Henry Lee pointed out the danger of direct taxes, including in them taxes on "polls, lands, houses, labor, &c.," and with true prescience urged that they would be employed "unduly to ease some descriptions of men and unduly burden others." Another great anti-Federalist, as also an able jurist, Robert Yates, (a member of the Federal Convention,) distinguished under this head "a poll tax, a land tax, a tax on houses and buildings, on windows and fireplaces, on cattle and all personal property," at the same time carefully classing under the words "duties, imposts, and excises" the several articles to which those could be extended. ["Letters of Brutus," No. V.] John Winthrop advised the passing of an amendment to the Constitution, forbidding to Congress the right to "levy any direct tax on polls or estates." ["Letters of Agrippa." Noah Webster, already more of a philologist than politician, adopted the distinction of the four words intended by the convention. ["Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787," Page 32.] George Clinton argued that under direct taxes there "will be a capitation or poll tax, window lights, &c.," as the great landlords would successfully prevent a direct tax on land. ["Letters of Cato," No. VI.] While the Harrisburg Convention, guided by Albert Gallatin, suggested an amendment dealing with "direct taxes," granting to Congress the power "to assess, levy, and collect the quota" of each State "upon the inhabitants and estates therein, in such manner as they shall by law direct, provided that no poll tax be imposed." [Ford's "Harrisburg Convention of 1788," Page 37.]
So much for contemporary opinion on the meaning of the words "direct taxes" in the Constitution, at the time of its framing. Only seven years later (1794) the first attempt to pass such a tax was made in Congress. Theodore Sedgwick held that "a capitation tax and taxes on land and on property and income generally were a direct charge." ["Annals of Congress," Page 644.] John Nicholas defined direct taxes as such as "are paid by citizens without being recompensed by the consumer." [Ibid, 646.] Madison protested against a carriage tax being considered as anything but a direct tax, and urged that it was a blow at the Constitution to make it anything else. ["Madison Correspondence," II,. 14.]
Such were the opinions of the men who framed, discussed, and established the Constitution. Opposed to their views, as here given, no contemporary opinion has been found in rebuttal. It is therefore both unfair and inaccurate to fasten upon the statesmen of that time the confusion of the economists and jurists of to-day.
The New York Times
Published: May 1, 1895
Copyright The New York Times
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.h ... 94649ED7CF
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fr ... 94649ED7CF
And for good meausre followed up with ...
The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the
Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents
December 12, 1787
After the Pennsylvania Convention ratified the new constitution on December 12, 1787, by a vote of 46 to 23, twenty-one members of the minority signed a dissenting address that ap peared in the Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser on December 18, 1787. The address was subsequently reprinted, often in Pennsylvania and other states, becoming in some way a semi-official statement of anti-federalist objections to the new Constitution. The author of the address was probably the same as the author of "Centinel," Samuel Bryan; at least there are notable similarities between the two works, and Bryan later claimed authorship in letters to Jefferson and to Albert Gallatin.
…
We have before considered internal taxation, as it would effect the destruction of the state governments, and produce one consolidated government. We will now consider that subject as it affects the personal concerns of the people.
The power of direct taxation applies to every individual, as congress, under this government, is expressly vested with the authority of laying a capitation or poll tax upon every person to any amount. This is a tax that, however oppressive in its nature, and unequal in its operation, is certain as to its produce and simple in its collection; it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise, and will be paid, because all that a man hath will he give for his head. This tax is so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments. Some of those who were in the late general convention from this state have long laboured to introduce a poll-tax among us.
The power of direct taxation will further apply to every individual, as congress may tax land, cattle, trades, occupations, etc. in any amount, and every object of internal taxation is of that nature, that however oppressive, the people will have but this alternative except to pay the tax, or let their property be taken, for all resistance will be in vain. The standing army and select militia would enforce the collection.
...
-
Weston White
Re: And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
And here are several very interesting excerpts from numerous early writings:
And when reading the following passages keep the following quotes in mind:
Direct taxes are laid directly on land or real property, or upon persons, in which case they are spoken of as personal, poll, or capitation taxes. Indirect taxes are laid on articles of consumption, whether those articles consist of imports or manufactures.
By duties are generally meant taxes upon goods, imported or exported, though, as we shall see hereafter, the Constitution inhibits a tax or duty on articles exported from any state. Imposts, in a restricted sense, mean taxes on goods imported from, abroad. Excise is an inland tax levied upon various• commodities of home use or consumption, usually while in the hands of the producer or manufacturer.
P. 101
The same rule applies to taxes on income, business of insurance companies, bank circulation, and succession taxes. None of these are direct taxes in the sense of the Constitution.
In addition to the fact that direct taxes were supposed to have reference only to land and persons, this consideration, in the carriage case, was decisive with the court, namely, that no tax could be a direct tax in the sense of the Constitution which was incapable of apportionment according to the constitutional rule.
P. 103
AN EXPOSITION of the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 4th Ed., 1885
http://defendindependence.org/RR/AnExpo ... tution.PDF
In this sense, it is nearly synonymous with" imposts," which is sometimes used in the large sense of taxes, or duties, or impositions, and sometimes in 'the more restrained sense of a duty on imported" goods and merchandise. "Excises" are generally deemed to be of all opposite nature to "imposts," in the restrictive sense [P. 339] of the latter term, and are defined to be an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, or frequently upon the retail sale, which is the last stage before the consumption.
…
It is clear, that capitation taxes, or, as they are more commonly called, poll taxes, that is, taxes upon the polls, heads, or persons, of the contributors, are direct taxes, for the constitution has expressly enumerated them, as such. …
P. 340
The grounds of this decision, as stated in the various opinions of the judges, were; first, the doubt, whether any taxes were direct in the sense of the constitution, but capitation and land taxes, as has been already suggested; secondly, that in cases of doubt, the rule of apportionment ought not to be favored, because it was matter of compromise, and in itself radically indefensible and wrong; thirdly, the monstrous inequality and injustice of the carriage tax, if laid by the rule of apportionment, which would show, that no tax of this sort could have been contemplated by . the convention, as within the rule of apportionment; fourthly, that the terms of the constitution were satisfied by confining the clause, respecting direct taxes, to capitation and land taxes; fifthly, that, accurately speaking, all taxes on expenses or consumption are indirect taxes, and a tax on carriages is of this kind; and, sixthly, (what is probably of most cogency and force, and of itself decisive,) that no tax could be a direct one in the sense of the constitution, which was not capable of apportionment according to the rule laid down in the constitution.
P. 341
… Unless duties, imposts, and excises were uniform, the grossest and most oppressive inequalities, vitally affecting the pursuits and employments of the people of different states, might exist. The agriculture, commerce, or manufactures of one state might be built up on the ruins of those of another; and a combination of a few states in congress might secure a monopoly of certain branches of trade and business to themselves, to the injury, if not to the destruction, of their less favoured neighbors. The constitution throughout all its provisions is an .instrument of checks, and restraints, as well as of powers. It does not rely on confidence in the general government to preserve the interests of all the states. It is founded in a wholesome and strenuous jealousy, which, foreseeing the possibility of mischief, guards with solicitude against any exercise of power, which may endanger the states, as far as it is practicable. If this provision, as to uniformity of duties, had been omitted, although the power might never have been abused to the injury of the feebler states of the Union, (a presumption, which history does not justify us in deeming quite safe or certain;) Jet it would, of itself, have been sufficient to demolish, in a practical sense, the value of most of the other restrictive clauses in the constitution. New York and Pennsylvania might, by an easy combination with the Southern states, have destroyed 'the whole navigation of New England. A combination of a different character, between the New England and the Western states, might have borne down the agriculture of the South; and a combination of a yet different character might have struck at the [P. 342] vital interests of manufactures. So that the general propriety of this clause is established by its intrinsic political wisdom, as well as by its tendency to quiet alarms, and suppress discontents.
P. 343
Commentaries on the Constitution 1833
http://defendindependence.org/RR/Commen ... tution.PDF
… Customs and internal revenue (including the income tax) constitute the chief revenues of the federal government. Unlike the general property taxes, these are not levied upon the main body of wealth held in possession, but upon income as it accrues or upon articles of merchandise in course of trade and upon business activities. Stamps on receipts, checks, deeds, bills of sale, and licenses on the sale of liquor and tobacco are taxes on business acts which are necessary to the acquisition, use, or expenditure of wealth. Goods imported are taxed at the time of entering the country ; domestic products, such as cigars, spirituous or malt liquors, playing cards, and (at times) matches, pig iron, and other products, are taxed usually at the time of exit from the factory. It as already been shown that when the tariff duty prevents the importation of foreign goods and by raising the price encourages domestic manufacture of the article, there [P. 295] is virtually taxation of the consumer to subsidize the private manufacturer. A system of properly adjusted compensatory duties (tariffs and internal duties combined) which would prevent tariff duties from having any prohibitive effect could, in a great country like ours, be made to produce any revenues desired. Such a system, combined with the federal income tax, seems destined to be the chief dependence for the national government. The increasing needs of revenue between 1913 and 1920 led to the development of many forms of federal taxation on business. The most important of these, under the names of the taxes on corporate incomes and excess profits, will be more fully discussed with the income tax, with which, though of a different nature, they have been closely connected in legislative development.
P. 296
Economic Principles Vol. II 1916
http://defendindependence.org/RR/Econom ... s_V-II.PDF
562. The Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 Constitutional.
…
The court also sustained the exemption in the act of corporations, whose income was under $5,000 per annum, and also the exemption of labor, agricultural and other non-business corporations, nor was there any violation of the geographial uniformity required by the constitution.
[1 Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 55 L. Ed. 389 (1911).]
P. 640
The court said the whole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to exclude the source, from which a tax income was derived as the criterion, by which to determine the applicability of the constitutional requirement as to the apportionment of direct taxes.
[Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 60 L Ed 493 (1916).
* Supra, Sec. 560.]
P. 641
Treatise On the Power of Taxation 1917
http://defendindependence.org/RR/Treati ... xation.PDF
From Encyclopedia Britannica:
Main
major direct tax in France before the Revolution of 1789, first established in 1695 as a wartime measure. Originally, the capitation was to be paid by every subject, the amount varying according to class. For the purpose of the tax, French society was divided into 22 classes, ranging from members of the royal family who owed 2,000 livres (basic monetary unit of pre-Revolutionary France) to dayworkers who owed only one livre. The tax became permanent in the early 18th century, with apportionment by an intendant (royal agent) replacing the class system of payment. In practice the capitation was merely an addition to the taille, the long-existing royal tax, falling predominantly on the nonprivileged classes of the French people, who paid the bulk of the taxes. It was abolished with the Revolution.
Assorted References
development ( in France: Tax reform )
...under the goad of immediate need. There were direct taxes, some of which were collected directly by the state: the taille (a personal tax), the capitation, and the vingtième (a form of income tax from which the nobles and officials were...
History » France, 1715–89 » The political response » Tax reform
In 1749–51 Jean-Baptiste de Machault d’Arnouville, then comptroller general of finances, tried to deal with the debts resulting from the just-concluded War of the Austrian Succession by proposing a partial reform of the tax system, his particular concern being to restrict the financial immunities of the church. In 1764 and 1765 another comptroller general, François de L’Averdy, attempted a reform of municipal representation and administration. All royal officials understood the need to reform and rationalize both the imposition and the collection of taxes; many nobles were exempted from taxation, especially in northern France, and many taxes were inefficiently collected by private tax-farmers.
The country’s overall fiscal structure was highly irrational, as it had been developed by fits and starts under the goad of immediate need. There were direct taxes, some of which were collected directly by the state: the taille (a personal tax), the capitation, and the vingtième (a form of income tax from which the nobles and officials were usually exempt). There were also indirect taxes that everyone paid: the salt tax, or gabelle, which represented nearly one-tenth of royal revenue; the traites, or customs duty, internal and external; and the aides, or excise taxes, levied on the sale of items as diverse as wine, tobacco, and iron. All the indirect taxes were extremely unpopular and had much to do with the state’s inability to rally the rural masses to its side in 1789. In the 1740s attempts had been made to amend this system but had foundered on the parlements’ opposition to a more equitable distribution of taxation. By 1770 the swelling debt made it obvious that something should be done. Unpopular measures, such as forced loans, were put into effect. Joseph-Marie Terray, Louis XV’s comptroller general of finances, repudiated a part of the debt.
Some observers, partisans of enlightened despotism—such as Voltaire, who defended it indirectly in his play of 1773 titled Les Lois de Minos (The Laws of Minos)—argued that the French monarchy stood in this particular instance for administrative rationalization and progress. But the current of opinion was already moving against the crown. Many writers saw in Terray a tool of royal despotism, plain and simple, and his ministerial colleague René-Nicolas-Charles-Augustin de Maupeou (1714–92) was even more detested for his destruction of the parlements, which had become the bastion of conservative opposition to royal reform.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... capitation
2. Taxable Snbjecta-What Usually Tued-a. IN GENERAL.Subject to constitutional restrictions, all occupations and callings may be subjected to taxation~ in the discretion of the legislature, which may select some for this purpose, and exempt others.s Such occupations as are taxed as privileges are those other than the ordinary and every-day employments of life, or such as for the exercise of which a franchise is required.• Exemption from these taxes cannot be claimed on the ground that the property employed in the business or occupation is exempt,1 or has been already taxed; II or that the person or corporation pursuing the occupation pays an income tax.s Certain pursuits and privileges are expressr exempted by constitutional provisions in several of the states. An enumeration, however, of some as subjects of taxation, is not a prohibition upon the power of the legislature to tax others.li The statutes imposing these taxes must be construed strictly; only such occupations or privileges as are described clearly can be taxed.1 Where it is the occupation which is taxed, a single act or transaction is not such an engaging in it as will subject the person thus acting to the tax; 2 and one who acts for himself in his own private affairs is not subject to a tax imposed upon an occupation which consists of acts or transactions done for or on behalf of another.s
b. PARTICULAR PURSUITS - (I) Professional Occupations.These taxes are imposed sometimes upon attorneys at law for the privilege of practising, even though they have obtained licenses to practise.4 So the practice of medicine has been subjected to
[This work also defines all classes of indirect taxes as cited above.]
THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH ENCYCLOPIEDIA OF LAW Ed. XXV, 1894
http://defendindependence.org/RR/Americ ... aofLaw.PDF
Note: And of course as you all are already aware Thomas Cooley and Albert Gallatin both quote Dr. Adam Smith within their own writings, so I did not bother to include them here [yet again]. As well their works are included within SCOTUS cases [them meaning Smith, Cooley, and Gallatin].
And when reading the following passages keep the following quotes in mind:
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)Rights, Powers and Duties On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
— James MadisonDo not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
Direct taxes are laid directly on land or real property, or upon persons, in which case they are spoken of as personal, poll, or capitation taxes. Indirect taxes are laid on articles of consumption, whether those articles consist of imports or manufactures.
By duties are generally meant taxes upon goods, imported or exported, though, as we shall see hereafter, the Constitution inhibits a tax or duty on articles exported from any state. Imposts, in a restricted sense, mean taxes on goods imported from, abroad. Excise is an inland tax levied upon various• commodities of home use or consumption, usually while in the hands of the producer or manufacturer.
P. 101
The same rule applies to taxes on income, business of insurance companies, bank circulation, and succession taxes. None of these are direct taxes in the sense of the Constitution.
In addition to the fact that direct taxes were supposed to have reference only to land and persons, this consideration, in the carriage case, was decisive with the court, namely, that no tax could be a direct tax in the sense of the Constitution which was incapable of apportionment according to the constitutional rule.
P. 103
AN EXPOSITION of the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 4th Ed., 1885
http://defendindependence.org/RR/AnExpo ... tution.PDF
In this sense, it is nearly synonymous with" imposts," which is sometimes used in the large sense of taxes, or duties, or impositions, and sometimes in 'the more restrained sense of a duty on imported" goods and merchandise. "Excises" are generally deemed to be of all opposite nature to "imposts," in the restrictive sense [P. 339] of the latter term, and are defined to be an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, or frequently upon the retail sale, which is the last stage before the consumption.
…
It is clear, that capitation taxes, or, as they are more commonly called, poll taxes, that is, taxes upon the polls, heads, or persons, of the contributors, are direct taxes, for the constitution has expressly enumerated them, as such. …
P. 340
The grounds of this decision, as stated in the various opinions of the judges, were; first, the doubt, whether any taxes were direct in the sense of the constitution, but capitation and land taxes, as has been already suggested; secondly, that in cases of doubt, the rule of apportionment ought not to be favored, because it was matter of compromise, and in itself radically indefensible and wrong; thirdly, the monstrous inequality and injustice of the carriage tax, if laid by the rule of apportionment, which would show, that no tax of this sort could have been contemplated by . the convention, as within the rule of apportionment; fourthly, that the terms of the constitution were satisfied by confining the clause, respecting direct taxes, to capitation and land taxes; fifthly, that, accurately speaking, all taxes on expenses or consumption are indirect taxes, and a tax on carriages is of this kind; and, sixthly, (what is probably of most cogency and force, and of itself decisive,) that no tax could be a direct one in the sense of the constitution, which was not capable of apportionment according to the rule laid down in the constitution.
P. 341
… Unless duties, imposts, and excises were uniform, the grossest and most oppressive inequalities, vitally affecting the pursuits and employments of the people of different states, might exist. The agriculture, commerce, or manufactures of one state might be built up on the ruins of those of another; and a combination of a few states in congress might secure a monopoly of certain branches of trade and business to themselves, to the injury, if not to the destruction, of their less favoured neighbors. The constitution throughout all its provisions is an .instrument of checks, and restraints, as well as of powers. It does not rely on confidence in the general government to preserve the interests of all the states. It is founded in a wholesome and strenuous jealousy, which, foreseeing the possibility of mischief, guards with solicitude against any exercise of power, which may endanger the states, as far as it is practicable. If this provision, as to uniformity of duties, had been omitted, although the power might never have been abused to the injury of the feebler states of the Union, (a presumption, which history does not justify us in deeming quite safe or certain;) Jet it would, of itself, have been sufficient to demolish, in a practical sense, the value of most of the other restrictive clauses in the constitution. New York and Pennsylvania might, by an easy combination with the Southern states, have destroyed 'the whole navigation of New England. A combination of a different character, between the New England and the Western states, might have borne down the agriculture of the South; and a combination of a yet different character might have struck at the [P. 342] vital interests of manufactures. So that the general propriety of this clause is established by its intrinsic political wisdom, as well as by its tendency to quiet alarms, and suppress discontents.
P. 343
Commentaries on the Constitution 1833
http://defendindependence.org/RR/Commen ... tution.PDF
… Customs and internal revenue (including the income tax) constitute the chief revenues of the federal government. Unlike the general property taxes, these are not levied upon the main body of wealth held in possession, but upon income as it accrues or upon articles of merchandise in course of trade and upon business activities. Stamps on receipts, checks, deeds, bills of sale, and licenses on the sale of liquor and tobacco are taxes on business acts which are necessary to the acquisition, use, or expenditure of wealth. Goods imported are taxed at the time of entering the country ; domestic products, such as cigars, spirituous or malt liquors, playing cards, and (at times) matches, pig iron, and other products, are taxed usually at the time of exit from the factory. It as already been shown that when the tariff duty prevents the importation of foreign goods and by raising the price encourages domestic manufacture of the article, there [P. 295] is virtually taxation of the consumer to subsidize the private manufacturer. A system of properly adjusted compensatory duties (tariffs and internal duties combined) which would prevent tariff duties from having any prohibitive effect could, in a great country like ours, be made to produce any revenues desired. Such a system, combined with the federal income tax, seems destined to be the chief dependence for the national government. The increasing needs of revenue between 1913 and 1920 led to the development of many forms of federal taxation on business. The most important of these, under the names of the taxes on corporate incomes and excess profits, will be more fully discussed with the income tax, with which, though of a different nature, they have been closely connected in legislative development.
P. 296
Economic Principles Vol. II 1916
http://defendindependence.org/RR/Econom ... s_V-II.PDF
562. The Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 Constitutional.
…
The court also sustained the exemption in the act of corporations, whose income was under $5,000 per annum, and also the exemption of labor, agricultural and other non-business corporations, nor was there any violation of the geographial uniformity required by the constitution.
[1 Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 55 L. Ed. 389 (1911).]
P. 640
The court said the whole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to exclude the source, from which a tax income was derived as the criterion, by which to determine the applicability of the constitutional requirement as to the apportionment of direct taxes.
[Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 60 L Ed 493 (1916).
* Supra, Sec. 560.]
P. 641
Treatise On the Power of Taxation 1917
http://defendindependence.org/RR/Treati ... xation.PDF
From Encyclopedia Britannica:
Main
major direct tax in France before the Revolution of 1789, first established in 1695 as a wartime measure. Originally, the capitation was to be paid by every subject, the amount varying according to class. For the purpose of the tax, French society was divided into 22 classes, ranging from members of the royal family who owed 2,000 livres (basic monetary unit of pre-Revolutionary France) to dayworkers who owed only one livre. The tax became permanent in the early 18th century, with apportionment by an intendant (royal agent) replacing the class system of payment. In practice the capitation was merely an addition to the taille, the long-existing royal tax, falling predominantly on the nonprivileged classes of the French people, who paid the bulk of the taxes. It was abolished with the Revolution.
Assorted References
development ( in France: Tax reform )
...under the goad of immediate need. There were direct taxes, some of which were collected directly by the state: the taille (a personal tax), the capitation, and the vingtième (a form of income tax from which the nobles and officials were...
History » France, 1715–89 » The political response » Tax reform
In 1749–51 Jean-Baptiste de Machault d’Arnouville, then comptroller general of finances, tried to deal with the debts resulting from the just-concluded War of the Austrian Succession by proposing a partial reform of the tax system, his particular concern being to restrict the financial immunities of the church. In 1764 and 1765 another comptroller general, François de L’Averdy, attempted a reform of municipal representation and administration. All royal officials understood the need to reform and rationalize both the imposition and the collection of taxes; many nobles were exempted from taxation, especially in northern France, and many taxes were inefficiently collected by private tax-farmers.
The country’s overall fiscal structure was highly irrational, as it had been developed by fits and starts under the goad of immediate need. There were direct taxes, some of which were collected directly by the state: the taille (a personal tax), the capitation, and the vingtième (a form of income tax from which the nobles and officials were usually exempt). There were also indirect taxes that everyone paid: the salt tax, or gabelle, which represented nearly one-tenth of royal revenue; the traites, or customs duty, internal and external; and the aides, or excise taxes, levied on the sale of items as diverse as wine, tobacco, and iron. All the indirect taxes were extremely unpopular and had much to do with the state’s inability to rally the rural masses to its side in 1789. In the 1740s attempts had been made to amend this system but had foundered on the parlements’ opposition to a more equitable distribution of taxation. By 1770 the swelling debt made it obvious that something should be done. Unpopular measures, such as forced loans, were put into effect. Joseph-Marie Terray, Louis XV’s comptroller general of finances, repudiated a part of the debt.
Some observers, partisans of enlightened despotism—such as Voltaire, who defended it indirectly in his play of 1773 titled Les Lois de Minos (The Laws of Minos)—argued that the French monarchy stood in this particular instance for administrative rationalization and progress. But the current of opinion was already moving against the crown. Many writers saw in Terray a tool of royal despotism, plain and simple, and his ministerial colleague René-Nicolas-Charles-Augustin de Maupeou (1714–92) was even more detested for his destruction of the parlements, which had become the bastion of conservative opposition to royal reform.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... capitation
2. Taxable Snbjecta-What Usually Tued-a. IN GENERAL.Subject to constitutional restrictions, all occupations and callings may be subjected to taxation~ in the discretion of the legislature, which may select some for this purpose, and exempt others.s Such occupations as are taxed as privileges are those other than the ordinary and every-day employments of life, or such as for the exercise of which a franchise is required.• Exemption from these taxes cannot be claimed on the ground that the property employed in the business or occupation is exempt,1 or has been already taxed; II or that the person or corporation pursuing the occupation pays an income tax.s Certain pursuits and privileges are expressr exempted by constitutional provisions in several of the states. An enumeration, however, of some as subjects of taxation, is not a prohibition upon the power of the legislature to tax others.li The statutes imposing these taxes must be construed strictly; only such occupations or privileges as are described clearly can be taxed.1 Where it is the occupation which is taxed, a single act or transaction is not such an engaging in it as will subject the person thus acting to the tax; 2 and one who acts for himself in his own private affairs is not subject to a tax imposed upon an occupation which consists of acts or transactions done for or on behalf of another.s
b. PARTICULAR PURSUITS - (I) Professional Occupations.These taxes are imposed sometimes upon attorneys at law for the privilege of practising, even though they have obtained licenses to practise.4 So the practice of medicine has been subjected to
[This work also defines all classes of indirect taxes as cited above.]
THE AMERICAN AND ENGLISH ENCYCLOPIEDIA OF LAW Ed. XXV, 1894
http://defendindependence.org/RR/Americ ... aofLaw.PDF
Note: And of course as you all are already aware Thomas Cooley and Albert Gallatin both quote Dr. Adam Smith within their own writings, so I did not bother to include them here [yet again]. As well their works are included within SCOTUS cases [them meaning Smith, Cooley, and Gallatin].
-
Weston White
Re: And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
And from more past writtings:
§ 5. The Meaning of Income
At the outset of such a study it is desirable to secure a clear idea of what is meant by income. Income is, of course, to be distinguished from, mere receipts or gross revenue. It is more than that which simply comes in from any economic activity. By income is always meant net income, as opposed to gross income. In other words, from the receipts in any enterprise we must, in the first place, deduct the expenses of the enterprise — that is, the outlay incurred in securing the gross product But, secondly, income as a personal category differs from net product. If a debt has been contracted in order to secure the produce of a given piece of property or of a given enterprise, the interest on the debt must be deducted. Finally, in the outlays or expenses which have been incurred to secure the product, there must also be included a compensation for wear and tear of plant; just as the investor in securities com-putes his actual income by deducting an amortization quota from the annual proceeds. Income, therefore, always means ^C net income.
What has been stated is equivalent to saying that income is that which comes in to an individual above all necessary expenses of acquisition, and which is available for his own consumption. Since the income is a flow of wealth, it must always be estimated for a definite period, so that when we speak of income for purposes of taxation, we really mean
annual income. Strictly speaking, income, as contrasted with capital denotes that amount of wealth which flows in during a definite period and which is at the disposal of the owner for purposes of consumption, so that in consuming it, his capital remains unimpaired.
The history of the general property tax has been told in another place. 1 It will be pertinent, however, to recall some points in this history so far as they bear upon the subject of the present investigation. In the first place, real estate under the feudal system was rarely bought and sold, so that practi-cally the only method of ascertaining the value of the land was by taking account of its rents. The local property tax, so far as real estate was concerned, was therefore a tax on produce rather than on selling value ; and later on, when in some cases the tax was assessed on the selling value, this was reached by capitalizing the rent. In the second place, all movables or personal property were assessed at the selling value, so that the tax became a combination of a tax on prod-uce and on selling value. In the third place, as the expressed effort of the legislator was to reach the faculty of the tax-payer, the recipients of wages or salaries were considered also to possess some taxable ability, even if they had no prop-erty. We therefore frequently find an assessment on such individuals in some rough proportion to their gains. As there were virtually no important professions for a long time during the Middle Ages, this practically meant a tax upon the day laborer. In the case of official salaries, however, the same method was often pursued as in the case of real estate, and the salaries were reduced to a capital sum for purposes of taxation. In the fourth place, as trade and commerce developed, where the gains of the business man could not be approximately determined from the capital invested, we occasionally find as a supplement to the property tax, a tax upon assumed profits of business.
The mediaeval system was therefore really a little more than a general property tax. The overwhelming mass of the revenue came indeed from the tax on personal property and real estate, but this was now and then supplemented by a tax on the faculties of the laborers and sometimes by a tax on the assumed faculties of the business man. Occasionally we find, in addition to the general property tax and even as a part of it, a so-called personal tax, either in the shape of a poll or capitation tax, to reach individuals who had no property, or in the shape of a graduated capitation or class tax, designed to reach certain classes whose gains were not entirely in pro-portion to their property.
…
Thus it is that everywhere the beginnings of direct-l taxation take the form of the poll or capitation tax. ""In a primitive community where private property has but slightly developed or where the differentiation in economic conditions is insignificant, where there are no very rich and no very poor, where every man works and where individual revenue is de-rived almost exclusively from individual exertion, it is indeed true that polls form an approximately satisfactory test of ability in taxation. Wherever we have primitive economic and democratic conditions, whether it be in the early stages of Teutonic civilization or in the beginnings of Puritan New England, we find that the poll tax forms an essential ingredient of the fiscal system.
With the development of private property, however, and with the differentiation of economic classes, a change sets in. The original equality of wealth is followed by an inequality
of possessions. The distribution of ownership, in other words, is now gradually divorced from the mere accumulation of numbers. A poll tax responds less and less well to the de-mands of faculty until it finally becomes, at all events as the sole test of ability, almost wholly a mockery. Efforts may indeed be made to improve the situation for a time by grad-uating the poll tax according to outward signs so that the poll tax in some cases becomes a class tax, the assessment being graded roughly in accordance with the social position of the individual. But this class or classified poll tax, as we find it in the early Middle Ages, is only a makeshift, and be-fore long the poll tax is either supplemented or supplanted by a property tax.
…
There remains one other point which deserves a word of comment. This refers to the question of uniformity. It might be claimed, and in fact it has been claimed, that under the proposed amendment there will be no assurance of uni-formity, for the constitutional provision as to uniformity spe-cifically applies only to "all duties, imposts and excises." Since the amendment, while changing the method of levying the income tax, in so far as it has been held to be a direct tax, leaves unaltered its nature or appellation as a direct tax, it might be contended that the income tax as a direct tax is not necessarily subject to the constitutional inhibition as to uniformity.
This contention, however, is clearly erroneous. The con-stitution gives a double classification of taxes — one according to their nature, the other according to the mode of levy. According to their nature, taxes are divided into the four classes of direct taxes, duties, imposts and excises. Accord-ing to the mode of levy, however, taxes are divided into two classes only — those subject to the rule of apportionment and those subject to the rule of uniformity. If, now, the income tax is by constitutional amendment taken out of the first cate-gory, it necessarily falls into the second. There is no third category into which it could fall. To assume that an income tax could be levied without uniformity would be to make of the tax neither fish nor flesh — to keep it, as it were, suspended in mid-air between the two solid posts of appor-tionment and uniformity. These are the only methods con- templated by the constitution. Every tax, no matter what its , application, must be levied in one of these two ways. If the one way is barred by the constitutional amendment, it must necessarily be levied in the other way. To assume that under the amendment we could have anything but a uniform income tax would be to do violence to every rule of constitutional construction.
Chief Justice Fuller, in the first Pollock case, makes this clear. He says : " Although there have been from time to time intimations that there might be some tax which was not a direct tax when included under the words 'duties, im-positions and excises,' such a tax for more than a hundred years of national existence has as yet remained undiscovered, notwithstanding the stress of particular circumstances has in-vited thorough investigation into sources of revenue." * Is it reasonable to suppose that the couft would fly in the face of the experience of a century in order to create such an abor-tion ? Moreover, any such interpretation of the amendment would lead to a manifest absurdity. For under the existing decisions an income tax levied on business or on professional incomes is still to be classed as an excise or duty, and there-fore subject to the uniformity clause. How, then, could we have a general income tax a part of which should be uniform and a part of which should not be uniform ? Such a tax would indeed be theoretically possible, but is it conceivable that any legislature composed of sane human beings would attempt to enact such a measure? Moreover, apart from any such considerations, it is scarcely open to doubt that the other clauses, such as the fifth amendment, as well as the implied restrictions of the constitution, would avail to prevent any serious derogation from the principles of equality in taxation.
…
' "Capital is a deposit for the purpose of carrying on any business or specu-lation; income is the emolument which arises from it." — Observations an the Income Act; particularly as it relates to the Occupiers of Land : with some Proposals of Amendment. To which is added a Short Scheme for Meliorating the Condition of the Labouring Man. By Francis Newbery. London, 1801, p. 13.
The Income Tax: A Study of the History, Theory and Practice of Income
http://books.google.com/books?id=vJGHrR ... g=RA1-PA41
A personal tax, of the value of three days’ work, was included in the system of personal and moveable contributions voted in 1791. This was immediately subjected to various modifications. … It fixes the tax at the value of three days’ labour. … This personal contribution is due from every French inhabitant, and every foreigner, of either sex, enjoying legal rights, and not a pauper. Even persons under age and who have sufficient means of existence are not exempted from their quotas.
P. 375
The Edinburgh Review
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZfQEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA375
Here too, concern for the citizen’s privacy overrode ascertainment of the taxpayer’s actual personal income. Personal tax affected every domestic and foreign citizen in France, provided he was ‘not notoriously poor’ and ‘in full possession of his rights’. It was a kind of capitation tax, graded according to the value of the taxpayer’s working day. The value of an individual’s working day was fixed according to external indicators and outward appearance within legal limits of 0.5 fr. To 1.5 fr.; the ‘treble value of the working day’ was the amount of tax to be paid monthly. The yield to the Treasury was rather uncertain, owning to the difficulty of actually locating all taxpayers. …
The Cambridge Economic History of Europe: The Development of Economic and Social Policies
http://books.google.com/books?id=VZKkCLs3f90C&pg=PA384
… the Congress may impose duties on every article of use or consumption, on the food that we eat, on the liquors that we drink, on the clothes that we wear, the glass which enlightens our houses, or the hearths necessary for our warmth and comfort. By the power to lay and collect taxes, they may proceed to direct taxation on every individual, either by a capitation tax on their heads, or an assessment on their property. By this part of the section, therefore, the government has power to lay what duties they please on goods imported; to lay what duties they please, afterwards, on whatever we use or consume; to impose stamp duties to what amount they please, and in whatever case they please; — afterwards, to impose on the people direct taxes, by capitation tax, or by assessment, to what amount they choose, and thus to sluice them at every vein as long as they have a drop of blood, without any control, limitation, or restraint; while all the officers for collecting these taxes, stamp duties, imposts, and excises, are to be appointed by the general government, under its directions, not accountable to the states; nor is there even a security that they shall be citizens of the respective states in which they are to exercise their offices. At the same time, the construction of every law imposing any and all these taxes and duties, and directing the collection of them, and every question arising thereon, and on the conduct of the officers appointed to execute these laws, and to collect these taxes and duties, so various in their kinds, is taken away from the courts of justice of the different states, and confined to the courts of the general government, there to be heard and determined by judges holding their offices under the appointment, not of the states, but of the general government.
-- LUTHER MARTIN’S LETTER ON THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787.
It was with the idea that the power of direct taxation should be exercised only in case of “absolute necessity” that the framers of the constitution inserted this clause limiting the taxing powers of Congress. [Documented History Constitution Vol III] The original draft of the instrument did not contain the words “or other direct tax”; this phrase was inserted to avoid any possible misconstruction which would narrow the intention. [Documented History Constitution Vol III] A capitation tax is a direct tax, [Hylton v. United States] but the term “direct taxes” comprehends also taxes on land, and taxes on personal property by general valuation. [Veazie Bank v. Fenno] A tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, real or personal, or of the rents therefrom, which cannot be avoided, is a direct tax; while a tax paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon others, or who are not under compulsion to pay, is an indirect tax. [Pollock v. Farmers’ …]
A tax upon the business of insurance companies is not a direct tax, but a duty or excise, and is valid; [Pacific Ins. Co. V Soule] so also as to a tax upon bank circulation; [Veazie Bank v. Fenno] a stamp tax imposed upon [P. 231] board of trade sales, [Nicol v. Ames] and a tax upon alien passengers from a foreign port. [Head Money Cases] A tax upon carriages is also an excise, and therefore not a direct tax. [Hylton v. United States] A direct tax, however, cannot be taken out of the constitutional prohibition because of the fact that the particular form of tax was unknown at the time the prohibition was mad. [Pollock v. Farmers’ …] All such taxes, whatever the form they assume, must be laid by the rule of apportionment. [License Cases]
A tax upon the income of real or personal property itself. [Pollock v. Farmers’ …] An inheritance tax is not laid upon property but is an excise duty upon the succession or devolution, and so not a direct tax, [Scholey v. Rew] and the fact that such as tax is made a lien upon the property transmitted does not change its character, that being, merely an appropriate means of enforcing its collection. [Scholey v. Rew]
A tax levied upon tobacco by a war revenue act “in lieu of the tax now imposed by law” is not at direct tax within this clause, [Patton v. Brady] Nor is a tax imposed by such an act direct because required to be measured by gross receipts. [Spreckles … v. McClain]
P.232
Notes on the Constitution of the United States
http://books.google.com/books?id=bOM9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA231
A poll tax, as such can never be just: because, it is a tax upon persons without respect to their ability to pay it. Of a like character are taxes upon trades and professions. The trade or profession of one may annually amount to a thousand, and that of another to fifty thousand. Yet both must pay the same tax.
Political and Constitutional Law of the United States of America
http://books.google.com/books?id=5OI9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA292
§ 5. The Meaning of Income
At the outset of such a study it is desirable to secure a clear idea of what is meant by income. Income is, of course, to be distinguished from, mere receipts or gross revenue. It is more than that which simply comes in from any economic activity. By income is always meant net income, as opposed to gross income. In other words, from the receipts in any enterprise we must, in the first place, deduct the expenses of the enterprise — that is, the outlay incurred in securing the gross product But, secondly, income as a personal category differs from net product. If a debt has been contracted in order to secure the produce of a given piece of property or of a given enterprise, the interest on the debt must be deducted. Finally, in the outlays or expenses which have been incurred to secure the product, there must also be included a compensation for wear and tear of plant; just as the investor in securities com-putes his actual income by deducting an amortization quota from the annual proceeds. Income, therefore, always means ^C net income.
What has been stated is equivalent to saying that income is that which comes in to an individual above all necessary expenses of acquisition, and which is available for his own consumption. Since the income is a flow of wealth, it must always be estimated for a definite period, so that when we speak of income for purposes of taxation, we really mean
annual income. Strictly speaking, income, as contrasted with capital denotes that amount of wealth which flows in during a definite period and which is at the disposal of the owner for purposes of consumption, so that in consuming it, his capital remains unimpaired.
The history of the general property tax has been told in another place. 1 It will be pertinent, however, to recall some points in this history so far as they bear upon the subject of the present investigation. In the first place, real estate under the feudal system was rarely bought and sold, so that practi-cally the only method of ascertaining the value of the land was by taking account of its rents. The local property tax, so far as real estate was concerned, was therefore a tax on produce rather than on selling value ; and later on, when in some cases the tax was assessed on the selling value, this was reached by capitalizing the rent. In the second place, all movables or personal property were assessed at the selling value, so that the tax became a combination of a tax on prod-uce and on selling value. In the third place, as the expressed effort of the legislator was to reach the faculty of the tax-payer, the recipients of wages or salaries were considered also to possess some taxable ability, even if they had no prop-erty. We therefore frequently find an assessment on such individuals in some rough proportion to their gains. As there were virtually no important professions for a long time during the Middle Ages, this practically meant a tax upon the day laborer. In the case of official salaries, however, the same method was often pursued as in the case of real estate, and the salaries were reduced to a capital sum for purposes of taxation. In the fourth place, as trade and commerce developed, where the gains of the business man could not be approximately determined from the capital invested, we occasionally find as a supplement to the property tax, a tax upon assumed profits of business.
The mediaeval system was therefore really a little more than a general property tax. The overwhelming mass of the revenue came indeed from the tax on personal property and real estate, but this was now and then supplemented by a tax on the faculties of the laborers and sometimes by a tax on the assumed faculties of the business man. Occasionally we find, in addition to the general property tax and even as a part of it, a so-called personal tax, either in the shape of a poll or capitation tax, to reach individuals who had no property, or in the shape of a graduated capitation or class tax, designed to reach certain classes whose gains were not entirely in pro-portion to their property.
…
Thus it is that everywhere the beginnings of direct-l taxation take the form of the poll or capitation tax. ""In a primitive community where private property has but slightly developed or where the differentiation in economic conditions is insignificant, where there are no very rich and no very poor, where every man works and where individual revenue is de-rived almost exclusively from individual exertion, it is indeed true that polls form an approximately satisfactory test of ability in taxation. Wherever we have primitive economic and democratic conditions, whether it be in the early stages of Teutonic civilization or in the beginnings of Puritan New England, we find that the poll tax forms an essential ingredient of the fiscal system.
With the development of private property, however, and with the differentiation of economic classes, a change sets in. The original equality of wealth is followed by an inequality
of possessions. The distribution of ownership, in other words, is now gradually divorced from the mere accumulation of numbers. A poll tax responds less and less well to the de-mands of faculty until it finally becomes, at all events as the sole test of ability, almost wholly a mockery. Efforts may indeed be made to improve the situation for a time by grad-uating the poll tax according to outward signs so that the poll tax in some cases becomes a class tax, the assessment being graded roughly in accordance with the social position of the individual. But this class or classified poll tax, as we find it in the early Middle Ages, is only a makeshift, and be-fore long the poll tax is either supplemented or supplanted by a property tax.
…
There remains one other point which deserves a word of comment. This refers to the question of uniformity. It might be claimed, and in fact it has been claimed, that under the proposed amendment there will be no assurance of uni-formity, for the constitutional provision as to uniformity spe-cifically applies only to "all duties, imposts and excises." Since the amendment, while changing the method of levying the income tax, in so far as it has been held to be a direct tax, leaves unaltered its nature or appellation as a direct tax, it might be contended that the income tax as a direct tax is not necessarily subject to the constitutional inhibition as to uniformity.
This contention, however, is clearly erroneous. The con-stitution gives a double classification of taxes — one according to their nature, the other according to the mode of levy. According to their nature, taxes are divided into the four classes of direct taxes, duties, imposts and excises. Accord-ing to the mode of levy, however, taxes are divided into two classes only — those subject to the rule of apportionment and those subject to the rule of uniformity. If, now, the income tax is by constitutional amendment taken out of the first cate-gory, it necessarily falls into the second. There is no third category into which it could fall. To assume that an income tax could be levied without uniformity would be to make of the tax neither fish nor flesh — to keep it, as it were, suspended in mid-air between the two solid posts of appor-tionment and uniformity. These are the only methods con- templated by the constitution. Every tax, no matter what its , application, must be levied in one of these two ways. If the one way is barred by the constitutional amendment, it must necessarily be levied in the other way. To assume that under the amendment we could have anything but a uniform income tax would be to do violence to every rule of constitutional construction.
Chief Justice Fuller, in the first Pollock case, makes this clear. He says : " Although there have been from time to time intimations that there might be some tax which was not a direct tax when included under the words 'duties, im-positions and excises,' such a tax for more than a hundred years of national existence has as yet remained undiscovered, notwithstanding the stress of particular circumstances has in-vited thorough investigation into sources of revenue." * Is it reasonable to suppose that the couft would fly in the face of the experience of a century in order to create such an abor-tion ? Moreover, any such interpretation of the amendment would lead to a manifest absurdity. For under the existing decisions an income tax levied on business or on professional incomes is still to be classed as an excise or duty, and there-fore subject to the uniformity clause. How, then, could we have a general income tax a part of which should be uniform and a part of which should not be uniform ? Such a tax would indeed be theoretically possible, but is it conceivable that any legislature composed of sane human beings would attempt to enact such a measure? Moreover, apart from any such considerations, it is scarcely open to doubt that the other clauses, such as the fifth amendment, as well as the implied restrictions of the constitution, would avail to prevent any serious derogation from the principles of equality in taxation.
…
' "Capital is a deposit for the purpose of carrying on any business or specu-lation; income is the emolument which arises from it." — Observations an the Income Act; particularly as it relates to the Occupiers of Land : with some Proposals of Amendment. To which is added a Short Scheme for Meliorating the Condition of the Labouring Man. By Francis Newbery. London, 1801, p. 13.
The Income Tax: A Study of the History, Theory and Practice of Income
http://books.google.com/books?id=vJGHrR ... g=RA1-PA41
A personal tax, of the value of three days’ work, was included in the system of personal and moveable contributions voted in 1791. This was immediately subjected to various modifications. … It fixes the tax at the value of three days’ labour. … This personal contribution is due from every French inhabitant, and every foreigner, of either sex, enjoying legal rights, and not a pauper. Even persons under age and who have sufficient means of existence are not exempted from their quotas.
P. 375
The Edinburgh Review
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZfQEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA375
Here too, concern for the citizen’s privacy overrode ascertainment of the taxpayer’s actual personal income. Personal tax affected every domestic and foreign citizen in France, provided he was ‘not notoriously poor’ and ‘in full possession of his rights’. It was a kind of capitation tax, graded according to the value of the taxpayer’s working day. The value of an individual’s working day was fixed according to external indicators and outward appearance within legal limits of 0.5 fr. To 1.5 fr.; the ‘treble value of the working day’ was the amount of tax to be paid monthly. The yield to the Treasury was rather uncertain, owning to the difficulty of actually locating all taxpayers. …
The Cambridge Economic History of Europe: The Development of Economic and Social Policies
http://books.google.com/books?id=VZKkCLs3f90C&pg=PA384
… the Congress may impose duties on every article of use or consumption, on the food that we eat, on the liquors that we drink, on the clothes that we wear, the glass which enlightens our houses, or the hearths necessary for our warmth and comfort. By the power to lay and collect taxes, they may proceed to direct taxation on every individual, either by a capitation tax on their heads, or an assessment on their property. By this part of the section, therefore, the government has power to lay what duties they please on goods imported; to lay what duties they please, afterwards, on whatever we use or consume; to impose stamp duties to what amount they please, and in whatever case they please; — afterwards, to impose on the people direct taxes, by capitation tax, or by assessment, to what amount they choose, and thus to sluice them at every vein as long as they have a drop of blood, without any control, limitation, or restraint; while all the officers for collecting these taxes, stamp duties, imposts, and excises, are to be appointed by the general government, under its directions, not accountable to the states; nor is there even a security that they shall be citizens of the respective states in which they are to exercise their offices. At the same time, the construction of every law imposing any and all these taxes and duties, and directing the collection of them, and every question arising thereon, and on the conduct of the officers appointed to execute these laws, and to collect these taxes and duties, so various in their kinds, is taken away from the courts of justice of the different states, and confined to the courts of the general government, there to be heard and determined by judges holding their offices under the appointment, not of the states, but of the general government.
-- LUTHER MARTIN’S LETTER ON THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787.
It was with the idea that the power of direct taxation should be exercised only in case of “absolute necessity” that the framers of the constitution inserted this clause limiting the taxing powers of Congress. [Documented History Constitution Vol III] The original draft of the instrument did not contain the words “or other direct tax”; this phrase was inserted to avoid any possible misconstruction which would narrow the intention. [Documented History Constitution Vol III] A capitation tax is a direct tax, [Hylton v. United States] but the term “direct taxes” comprehends also taxes on land, and taxes on personal property by general valuation. [Veazie Bank v. Fenno] A tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, real or personal, or of the rents therefrom, which cannot be avoided, is a direct tax; while a tax paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon others, or who are not under compulsion to pay, is an indirect tax. [Pollock v. Farmers’ …]
A tax upon the business of insurance companies is not a direct tax, but a duty or excise, and is valid; [Pacific Ins. Co. V Soule] so also as to a tax upon bank circulation; [Veazie Bank v. Fenno] a stamp tax imposed upon [P. 231] board of trade sales, [Nicol v. Ames] and a tax upon alien passengers from a foreign port. [Head Money Cases] A tax upon carriages is also an excise, and therefore not a direct tax. [Hylton v. United States] A direct tax, however, cannot be taken out of the constitutional prohibition because of the fact that the particular form of tax was unknown at the time the prohibition was mad. [Pollock v. Farmers’ …] All such taxes, whatever the form they assume, must be laid by the rule of apportionment. [License Cases]
A tax upon the income of real or personal property itself. [Pollock v. Farmers’ …] An inheritance tax is not laid upon property but is an excise duty upon the succession or devolution, and so not a direct tax, [Scholey v. Rew] and the fact that such as tax is made a lien upon the property transmitted does not change its character, that being, merely an appropriate means of enforcing its collection. [Scholey v. Rew]
A tax levied upon tobacco by a war revenue act “in lieu of the tax now imposed by law” is not at direct tax within this clause, [Patton v. Brady] Nor is a tax imposed by such an act direct because required to be measured by gross receipts. [Spreckles … v. McClain]
P.232
Notes on the Constitution of the United States
http://books.google.com/books?id=bOM9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA231
A poll tax, as such can never be just: because, it is a tax upon persons without respect to their ability to pay it. Of a like character are taxes upon trades and professions. The trade or profession of one may annually amount to a thousand, and that of another to fifty thousand. Yet both must pay the same tax.
Political and Constitutional Law of the United States of America
http://books.google.com/books?id=5OI9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA292
-
Tax Man
Re: And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
While you're thinking of quotes from Luther Martin and newspapers from yester-year, think me a cup of coffee and a chocolate donut with some of those little sprinkles on top, will you?Weston White wrote:And from more past writtings:
-
Paul
Re: And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
I see. You're called out because your "quote" can't be found in the Lucas decision, and you can't find the quote in the Lucas decision itself, so you quote some memo that claims to be by the IRS and say that proves you're not lying? The Lucas case is available for anyone to see. Find the quote in that case, or admit it isn't there. Which makes you either an idiot or a liar, and possibly both.Well this pretty much sums it all up nice and neat, regardless if it is from the IRS' own internal memo or not... and it even mentions the Lucas case, gee-whiz guess I was not "lying" about that quote after all, what a shocker!:
Where is the quote in the Lucas decision?
-
FreeTaxTruthPatriot
Re: And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
Yup, that is a real document Weston. I know because I got the following letter from an IRS employee:Weston White wrote:Well this pretty much sums it all up nice and neat, regardless if it is from the IRS' own internal memo or not... and it even mentions the Lucas case, gee-whiz guess I was not "lying" about that quote after all, what a shocker!:
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2018731/f/IRS_Pink_Papers.pdf
From: http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1719
Weston, you are the most objective, reasonable, sane person I have encountered on this site. The way you strive for the "truth", even if it conflicts with your wishes and desires is admirable. Please Weston, keep up your research and I'm sure you will be able to bring the IRS to it's knees!** NOT FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION **
Weston is right, that document is official. There is no way it could be a fake, I mean just look how official it looks. We all know here at the IRS that wages aren't taxable we just scam the American people into thinking that because we will be waterboarded if we don't go along with the con. Only Bannister and a few other IRS agents had the guts to come out and expose the scam, but they were immediately killed afterwards and replaced with holograms. We at the IRS know this and are too afraid to tell the American people. Besides, it's kind of fun to work for the Illuminati.
I know there was even someone on LH that said that document is fake, but that's just because he's really a government shill we planted there. The document is real!
None of that matters though as we have this conspiracy locked up, we have every judge, politician, jury, tax professional and lawyer under our thumb and can crush them at will. That is why they go along with our scam. If anyone fights us first we will try to squeeze more money out of them, then we consider using the corrupt courts to lock them up, or we simply give them a lobotomy in their sleep. We did this to Weston but it seems to have only made him more astute and aware of our plans. Oh this Weson is such a thorn in our side, we have 98% of the American population fooled, but Weston is smarter than all of them.
It is all true, Weston is right, the rest of the world is wrong. He's not even slightly gullible for believing that document was real, because it is real, it really is all just a massive conspiracy.
NWO 4 3V3R!
IRS Conspirator #4273452
-
Weston White
Re: And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
It is in the Certiorari, the Famguardian site has it posted (unless both this letter and Famguardian are purposefully being dishonest)... also to note if you look at the Lucas case as posted on both Justica and Findlaw you will note that they both have different versions posted, one has many items omitted, though both omit the portions posted on Famguardian and in this letter. Now of course you are aware that Justica and Findlaw do not post everything from the case, as many cases posted on Justica and Findlaw contain only a few small paragraphs in size, do you actually believe that was all that was discussed? If so you would be the idiot and not me... or a liar and possibly both.Paul wrote:I see. You're called out because your "quote" can't be found in the Lucas decision, and you can't find the quote in the Lucas decision itself, so you quote some memo that claims to be by the IRS and say that proves you're not lying? The Lucas case is available for anyone to see. Find the quote in that case, or admit it isn't there. Which makes you either an idiot or a liar, and possibly both.Well this pretty much sums it all up nice and neat, regardless if it is from the IRS' own internal memo or not... and it even mentions the Lucas case, gee-whiz guess I was not "lying" about that quote after all, what a shocker!:
Where is the quote in the Lucas decision?
-
Weston White
Re: And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
Tax Man wrote:While you're thinking of quotes from Luther Martin and newspapers from yester-year, think me a cup of coffee and a chocolate donut with some of those little sprinkles on top, will you?Weston White wrote:And from more past writtings:
Yea, it is called historical foundation, baby! Grrrrrr... throw some sprinkles in for me, will ya? And while you are at it though watch out for that MSG it will get you every damn time!
-
Thule
- Tragedian of Sovereign Mythology
- Posts: 695
- Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:57 am
- Location: 71 degrees north
Re: And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
Sure you were lying. You were trying to pass off rejected arguments as the court's ruling. That's lying.Why should this anonymous (and [understatement]most likely[/understatement] faked) letter prove that you weren't lying when you tried to sell the losing arguments as the court's ruling.Weston White wrote: and it even mentions the Lucas case, gee-whiz guess I was not "lying" about that quote after all, what a shocker!:
But oh, no. The letter is posted on the internet. The internet. Well, then it has to be true.
Oh no, our conspiracy. Control of world ... crumbling. Evil scheme ... failing. People gaining ... true freedom. Weston White .... right after al.
But hey, what' this....
Seems the "pink paper" lacks an OMB-number. Oh well, then I guess it´s not valid after all.
Cue sinister laugh.
Survivor of the Dark Agenda Whistleblower Award, August 2012.
-
Weston White
Re: And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
ROFL, that is funny.FreeTaxTruthPatriot wrote:Yup, that is a real document Weston. I know because I got the following letter from an IRS employee:Weston White wrote:Well this pretty much sums it all up nice and neat, regardless if it is from the IRS' own internal memo or not... and it even mentions the Lucas case, gee-whiz guess I was not "lying" about that quote after all, what a shocker!:
http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2018731/f/IRS_Pink_Papers.pdf
From: http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1719
Weston, you are the most objective, reasonable, sane person I have encountered on this site. The way you strive for the "truth", even if it conflicts with your wishes and desires is admirable. Please Weston, keep up your research and I'm sure you will be able to bring the IRS to it's knees!** NOT FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION **
Weston is right, that document is official. There is no way it could be a fake, I mean just look how official it looks. We all know here at the IRS that wages aren't taxable we just scam the American people into thinking that because we will be waterboarded if we don't go along with the con. Only Bannister and a few other IRS agents had the guts to come out and expose the scam, but they were immediately killed afterwards and replaced with holograms. We at the IRS know this and are too afraid to tell the American people. Besides, it's kind of fun to work for the Illuminati.
I know there was even someone on LH that said that document is fake, but that's just because he's really a government shill we planted there. The document is real!
None of that matters though as we have this conspiracy locked up, we have every judge, politician, jury, tax professional and lawyer under our thumb and can crush them at will. That is why they go along with our scam. If anyone fights us first we will try to squeeze more money out of them, then we consider using the corrupt courts to lock them up, or we simply give them a lobotomy in their sleep. We did this to Weston but it seems to have only made him more astute and aware of our plans. Oh this Weson is such a thorn in our side, we have 98% of the American population fooled, but Weston is smarter than all of them.
It is all true, Weston is right, the rest of the world is wrong. He's not even slightly gullible for believing that document was real, because it is real, it really is all just a massive conspiracy.
NWO 4 3V3R!
IRS Conspirator #4273452
-
Weston White
Re: And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
Yea, bloke, try and keep up, can you? Pay attention to the substance of the material, rather then the claim lent to the material itself. Really, who cares if it is from the IRS or not? Oh a memo or policy is not required to obey the PRA. I thought you would have known that? What is important is the cases cited therein.Thule wrote:Sure you were lying. You were trying to pass off rejected arguments as the court's ruling. That's lying.Why should this anonymous (and [understatement]most likely[/understatement] faked) letter prove that you weren't lying when you tried to sell the losing arguments as the court's ruling.Weston White wrote: and it even mentions the Lucas case, gee-whiz guess I was not "lying" about that quote after all, what a shocker!:
But oh, no. The letter is posted on the internet. The internet. Well, then it has to be true.
Oh no, our conspiracy. Control of world ... crumbling. Evil scheme ... failing. People gaining ... true freedom. Weston White .... right after al.
But hey, what' this....
Seems the "pink paper" lacks an OMB-number. Oh well, then I guess it´s not valid after all.
Cue sinister laugh.
The Lucas question was posted here: http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1237
And therein the link to Famguardian was posted, though not surprisingly ignored by your peeps like Famspear.
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/C ... sVEarl.htm
-
Thule
- Tragedian of Sovereign Mythology
- Posts: 695
- Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:57 am
- Location: 71 degrees north
Re: And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
The Illuminati may twist the law any way we please. This particular 'memo' should have a OMB-number, and is invalid, because we say so. But you came close this time. Maybe next time you will successfully topple the IRS:Weston White wrote:? Oh a memo or policy is not required to obey the PRA. I thought you would have known that?
Survivor of the Dark Agenda Whistleblower Award, August 2012.
-
Thule
- Tragedian of Sovereign Mythology
- Posts: 695
- Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:57 am
- Location: 71 degrees north
Re: And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
Kind of cute that one name is marked "Not for public release". The sticker is transparent, so it's no problem to zoom in and read the name Patrick E Rudd.
I guess that would be convicted fraudster Patrick Edwin Rudd...
http://openjurist.org/85/f3d/630/united-states-v-e-rudd
I guess that would be convicted fraudster Patrick Edwin Rudd...
http://openjurist.org/85/f3d/630/united-states-v-e-rudd
Survivor of the Dark Agenda Whistleblower Award, August 2012.
-
Doktor Avalanche
- Asst Secretary, the Dept of Jesters
- Posts: 1767
- Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:20 pm
- Location: Yuba City, CA
Re: And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
When is Westy due for that "come to Jesus" meeting with the IRS again?
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros
-
Famspear
- Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
Poor Weston. The first time I ran across this scam was in December of 2005. Many tax protesters have made the same mistake Weston made regarding Lucas v. Earl. Here is a more extended version of the "quote" that tax protesters falsely try to argue is a statement by the Supreme Court:
Instead, this language is an almost direct quote from page 17 of the Respondent’s brief filed by the taxpayer with the Court in connection with the government's petition for a writ of certiorari. Guy C. Earl, the taxpayer, was the Respondent.
The brief was written by Earl’s attorneys: Warren Olney, Jr., J.M. Mannon, Jr., and Henry D. Costigan. In some versions of the case as reported, this statement and other quotes and paraphrases from pages 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 of the brief are physically re-printed ABOVE the opinion of the Court itself. (For a PDF copy of Mr. Earl's brief, see the University of Cincinnati Law School web site.)
In the case reprints that include this introductory material by Mr. Earl's attorneys (and many reprints don't even show it), these excerpts are not clearly identified as being from Mr. Earl's brief. A non-lawyer like Weston White could easily miss the point that this verbiage, like a headnote or syllabus, is not part of the actual text of the Supreme Court’s opinion. This format is found in some reprints of old Supreme Court cases. The actual opinion of the Court does not begin until you see the words "Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court" or similar words to that effect. The reprints often do not include headings to clearly indicate "this part is from the petitioner's brief" and "that part is from the respondent's brief" and "this part here is the actual text of the Opinion of the Court."
The Supreme Court in Lucas v. Earl rejected these arguments. As every tax lawyer knows, Mr. Earl lost the case.
One of the first things you learn in the first year of law school is how to read legal materials, including how to determine which part of the print of a court opinion is actually the court opinion and which part is headnote, or syllabus, or commentary, or West digest, etc., etc.
Part of the reason people like Weston White fall into this trap is that they simply copy and paste from tax protester web sites, without knowing the true source of the material.
And, of course, this is not from the Court’s opinion in Lucas v. Earl. (If I recall correctly, Irwin Schiff once made this mistake on his web site. We've seen this over and over.)The claim that salaries, wages, and conpensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the U.S. Treasury Department, which either prescribed or permits that compensations for personal services not be taxed as a entirety and not be returned by the individual performing the services. It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services.
Instead, this language is an almost direct quote from page 17 of the Respondent’s brief filed by the taxpayer with the Court in connection with the government's petition for a writ of certiorari. Guy C. Earl, the taxpayer, was the Respondent.
The brief was written by Earl’s attorneys: Warren Olney, Jr., J.M. Mannon, Jr., and Henry D. Costigan. In some versions of the case as reported, this statement and other quotes and paraphrases from pages 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 of the brief are physically re-printed ABOVE the opinion of the Court itself. (For a PDF copy of Mr. Earl's brief, see the University of Cincinnati Law School web site.)
In the case reprints that include this introductory material by Mr. Earl's attorneys (and many reprints don't even show it), these excerpts are not clearly identified as being from Mr. Earl's brief. A non-lawyer like Weston White could easily miss the point that this verbiage, like a headnote or syllabus, is not part of the actual text of the Supreme Court’s opinion. This format is found in some reprints of old Supreme Court cases. The actual opinion of the Court does not begin until you see the words "Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court" or similar words to that effect. The reprints often do not include headings to clearly indicate "this part is from the petitioner's brief" and "that part is from the respondent's brief" and "this part here is the actual text of the Opinion of the Court."
The Supreme Court in Lucas v. Earl rejected these arguments. As every tax lawyer knows, Mr. Earl lost the case.
One of the first things you learn in the first year of law school is how to read legal materials, including how to determine which part of the print of a court opinion is actually the court opinion and which part is headnote, or syllabus, or commentary, or West digest, etc., etc.
Part of the reason people like Weston White fall into this trap is that they simply copy and paste from tax protester web sites, without knowing the true source of the material.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
-
LDE
Re: And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
Hmm, your own document says it's a "moot question." Why do you think that is?It is singularly unfortunate that the moot question concerning the meaning of the "direct taxes" of the National Constitution ...
-
Nikki
Re: And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
If he continues along his current path of Internet research for historical legal citations, Weston's next citation will probably be to the Protocols.
-
LPC
- Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
- Posts: 5233
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Earth
Re: And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
It's not just the Lucas v. Earl quote, the "memo" also has the usual chestnuts from Staples, Connor, Edwards v. Keith, and even Oliver v. Halstead and Lauderdale Cemetery Assoc., many of them with the traditional references to them as Supreme Court decisions (which they are not).
The source of this nonsense is Patrick E. Rudd, who has a failed appeal from the Tax Court and lots of listings in PACER, one of which I picked out and found a gem. After being enjoined from filing false UCC-1s and losing the appeal, Rudd continued to file trash with the court, including the following:
Great stuff.
The source of this nonsense is Patrick E. Rudd, who has a failed appeal from the Tax Court and lots of listings in PACER, one of which I picked out and found a gem. After being enjoined from filing false UCC-1s and losing the appeal, Rudd continued to file trash with the court, including the following:
All typos are in the original.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Questionable)
Plaintiff
v.
patrick edwin; rudd
Defendant
Cr. 5;01 Civ 730-Bo (3)
Filed 6/21/2004
OBJECTION TO BRIEF BY A 'Title of Nobility" MEMBER, per the attached from the Univ. of North Carolina Law School.
Now comes this Defendant, acting propria personna, and not "pro se", as I want to be recognized as a legal, and lawful entity, and not one that is banned by the XIII th Amendment 1819, that was N-0-T Removed, replaced, changed, 1865, when the Emancipation Proclamation, or "Slavery Amendment'' was passed right over the original entity, that is an Exhibit HEREWITH.
According to the laws that I DO follow, the first law, having never been annulled, reddemed, is the law of this land, as the attached Exhibit shows. When Mr. Norman Acker claimed to be an Asst. U.S. Attorney, he misrepresented himself, as a "Title of Nobility" which is barred From doing business in the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, SO HELP ME GOD!!!!
The Notarized Affidavit by Shelby H. Manry, on 10;9/04, stated unequivacably that this Exhibit is an Official Copy of the "Manual of the Laws of N.C. " (Exhibit # 59) THEREFORE expunge from the above cited case the two pages that wer provided by this usurper, fraudulent contributor, and unlawful, and illegal member of the N.C. Bar Assoc. SO HELP ME GOD!!!
Respectfully submitter
patrick edwin; rudd
44 Arch St.
Providence R.I. 02907 401 A/C 751-5606
Great stuff.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
-
Doktor Avalanche
- Asst Secretary, the Dept of Jesters
- Posts: 1767
- Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:20 pm
- Location: Yuba City, CA
Re: And the last Quatpillar hath given away!
Here I had Weston pegged as a Mickey Spillane kind of guy. I had no idea he was into the Classics!Nikki wrote:If he continues along his current path of Internet research for historical legal citations, Weston's next citation will probably be to the Protocols.
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros