I will let them speak for themselves, but the smart money is on their concurrence. Continuing the gambling terminology, the odds are overwhelming that you haven't a clue what an excise is under current law. Hint: it includes a tax on income received for labor.Harvester wrote:I agree. Careful though, I don't think Famspear & LPC agree with you.Cpt Banjo wrote: And the income tax is an excise, not a direct tax.
"free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
-
- Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
- Posts: 782
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
- Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets
Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
Someone seems to have a severe reading problem: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
But, then again, he sees only what he wants to and listens only to people who agree with him.
But, then again, he sees only what he wants to and listens only to people who agree with him.
-
- Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
- Posts: 6125
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
- Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.
Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
Harvester wrote:Yes LPC, Congress can tax our inalienable right to earn a livelihood, but it must be apportioned (per the Constitution).
You must work at being stupid, because no person could be as stupid as you are and survive infancy. A long string of court cases has held that income taxation is constitutional, that income includes compensation received for what we receive in earning our livelihood, that the 16th Amendment to our Constitution is actually a part of our Constitution, and permits taxation of income without the need for apportionment, without worrying about whether or not an income tax is direct, indirect, an excise or whatever.
But then, you're too much of a gutless, spineless coward to ever admit that you have NO PROOF WHATSOEVER for your (ahahaha) premises, or to come up with genuine evidence supporting them. Instead, you snivel behind a "judicial corruption" whine -- quite forgetting that, if such judicial corruption existed, it would have existed since well before the IRS was created, because that's how far back the evidence goes for the fact that income taxation is constitutional, and you, too, are subject to it.
Last edited by Pottapaug1938 on Thu May 06, 2010 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
-
- Eighth Operator of the Delusional Mooloo
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:09 pm
- Location: Neverland
Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
Is there any particular reason we continue to feed this troll?
My choice early in life was to either be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politican. And to tell the truth there's hardly any difference.
Harry S Truman
Harry S Truman
-
- El Pontificator de Porceline Precepts
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 9:27 pm
- Location: East of the Pecos
Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
What he said.
"My Health is Better in November."
-
- Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
- Posts: 6125
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
- Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.
Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
Speaking of trolls -- there ought to be a new Quatloos rank, specially awarded to people like Harvester, for idiocy below and beneath that of the average TDer....
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
-
- Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
- Posts: 6125
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
- Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.
Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
Or, we could just call them "troll", and perhaps accompany the rank with a picture of one of those awful troll toys which showed up in profusion beginning in 1963....CaptainKickback wrote:Rank: Munchhausean
Just an idea
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
How about "REFUSED FOR CAUSE" in red letters?CaptainKickback wrote:Rank: Munchhausean
Just an idea
-
- Conde de Quatloo
- Posts: 5631
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
- Location: Der Dachshundbünker
Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
Oh I like that one....bmielke wrote:How about "REFUSED FOR CAUSE" in red letters?CaptainKickback wrote:Rank: Munchhausean
Just an idea
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
What about "Refuse; Just Because" with the first word's accent on the first syllable?
Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
Stand corrected on the 6th Amendment.Pottapaug1938 wrote:The leading Supreme Court case on the right to privacy is Griswold v. Connecticut, from 1965. In the words of Justice Douglas, writing for the majority of the Court, the right to privacy can be found in the "penumbras and emanations" of other Constitutional rights; and Justice Goldberg, in his concurring opinion, specifically used the Ninth Amendment to support the Court's holding. Justices Harlan and White, in concurring opinions, said that the right to privacy flows from the Due Process Clause. Justices Black and Stewart dissented.bmielke wrote:I am not disagreeing with you, just curious...Cpt Banjo wrote:
There is no such common-law right.
What about the right to Privacy, it is not mentioned in the Constitution but has been constructed by the courts from several other rights.
What about the right to a lawyer, again not mentioned, but constructed by the courts.
Wouldn't they be "Common Law Rights"? or does that phrase have a specific meaning I am not aware of?
As for the right to a lawyer, it is specifically mentioned in the Sixth Amendment. Successive court decisions, most famously Gideon v. Wainwright from 1963, have defined and expanded the conditions under which this right begins and ends.
![Embarassed :oops:](./images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
ETA: I was once debating someone who kept saying the constitution specifically had a right to an attorney, of course the Sixth Amendment doesn't say Attorney, he was offered a life line with the counsel thing, but was insistant that the word Attorney was in the language. I hit him hard on that. Repeatedly. Ever since I have a mental block when it comes to that particular right.
Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
Hope y'all realize, we're just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic here. Your Federal Reserve scam is going down, then your IRS-run tax scam is going down.
The DOW just dipped below 10,000 before PPT could move in. The dollar's hurtin' for certain. Gold is above $1200. And the mainstream press is catching on: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#36971751
It's all coming down like the house o cards it is. Fammie & LPC, we're working to free you from your masters. You can soon speak your minds freely. If anyone wants to help, just cash-in your retirement, anything denominated in dollars, put it into commodities, gold/silver/whatever, just not an EFT (those are fractional reserve ponzis). And for goodness sake shut off your tax spigot - banksters are the last people anyone should be paying in this climate.
The DOW just dipped below 10,000 before PPT could move in. The dollar's hurtin' for certain. Gold is above $1200. And the mainstream press is catching on: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#36971751
It's all coming down like the house o cards it is. Fammie & LPC, we're working to free you from your masters. You can soon speak your minds freely. If anyone wants to help, just cash-in your retirement, anything denominated in dollars, put it into commodities, gold/silver/whatever, just not an EFT (those are fractional reserve ponzis). And for goodness sake shut off your tax spigot - banksters are the last people anyone should be paying in this climate.
-
- Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
- Posts: 6125
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
- Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.
Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
Harvester, once again you show what a moron you are. If you knew how to read (as opposed to having the nurses read things to you), you'd know that the dip in the market had much more to do with the economy in Greece and the resulting impact on the Euro, plus computer glitches that exacerbated (that means "made worse", to you) the problem, plus the herd mentality of many investors who have no business investing, than it does with us and our economy. BTW -- the U.S. dollar climbed today. In the past week, it's gained several cents on both the Euro and the Canadian dollar.Harvester wrote:Hope y'all realize, we're just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic here. Your Federal Reserve scam is going down, then your IRS-run tax scam is going down.
The DOW just dipped below 10,000 before PPT could move in. The dollar's hurtin' for certain. Gold is above $1200. And the mainstream press is catching on: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#36971751
It's all coming down like the house of cards it is. Fammie & LPC, we're working to free you from your masters. You can soon speak your minds freely. If anyone wants to help, just cash-in your retirement, anything denominated in dollars, put it into commodities, gold/silver/whatever, just not an EFT (those are fractional reserve ponzis). And for goodness sake shut off your tax spigot - banksters are the last people anyone should be paying in this climate.
And, since you're so fond of the mainstream press, here's something worth reading:
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/wealthof ... world.aspx
Last edited by Pottapaug1938 on Thu May 06, 2010 8:45 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
-
- Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
- Posts: 6125
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
- Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.
"CONFUSED FOR CAUSE
We could also say "CONFUSED FOR CAUSE", in the same format....bmielke wrote:How about "REFUSED FOR CAUSE" in red letters?CaptainKickback wrote:Rank: Munchhausean
Just an idea
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
-
- Grand Master Consul of Quatloosia
- Posts: 827
- Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:19 am
- Location: Seattle
Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
With an accent on the "CON" ?Pottapaug1938 wrote:We could also say "CONFUSED FOR CAUSE", in the same format....bmielke wrote:How about "REFUSED FOR CAUSE" in red letters?CaptainKickback wrote:Rank: Munchhausean
Just an idea
-
- Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
No, the state of the economy does not affect the legal validity of the federal income tax, the Federal Reserve System, or the IRS. Neither does the price of gold or the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
No, we're not rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Harvester wrote:
The Federal Reserve SYSTEM has some parts which are governmental entities (such as the Board of Governors) and other parts (such as Wells Fargo Bank, which is a "member bank") which are not governmental entities. What you fail to grasp is that you know little if anything about taxation -- or the banking system.
The only kinds of taxes required to be apportioned by the United States Constitution are (1) capitations, and (2) taxes on property by reason of ownership. No federal income tax is currently classified as either a capitation or a property tax.
Most courts today refer to all federal income taxes as indirect taxes (excises). However, a few courts have referred to the federal income tax as a direct tax. Unfortunately for you and your ilk, for purposes of the apportionment requirement, the Constitution, as amended, does not differentiate between "income taxes considered to be direct taxes" and "income taxes considered to be excises." In 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court in Pollock made the source of the income relevant in determining whether the income tax had to be apportioned. That continued as the rule from 1895 to 1913. In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment overruled the Pollock decision. Since 1913, the source of the income is legally irrelevant in determining whether an income tax must be apportioned. The direct/indirect argument (i.e., the "source" argument) is a legal red herring after 1913.
Read it again:
As I have written before:
Poll-tax. A capitation tax; a tax of a specific sum levied upon each person within the jurisdiction of the taxing power and within a certain class (as, all males of a certain age, etc.) without reference to his property or lack of it. Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1043 (5th ed. 1979).
From Young v. United States:
In Tilley v. United States, the taxpayer made the argument that the Federal income tax was "unconstitutional, since a tax measured by an individual's so-called income is in the nature of a capitation tax and can only be imposed by apportionment [ . . . . ]". That argument was ruled frivolous by the court. The court stated:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has indicated that after the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, whether an income tax is a "capitation or other direct tax" or not, the apportionment restriction (the rule that capitations or other direct taxes must be apportioned by state according to the population of each state) simply does not apply if the tax in question is an income tax:
And as far as David Zuniga is concerned, we’ve already discredited him. He copies and pastes fake quotes. He is a follower of Phil Hart (who is, by the way, another loser who has given up and has reportedly settled with the IRS regarding his own federal income taxes). Zuniga is as clueless as you and Pete Hendrickson.
No, we're not rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Harvester wrote:
Wrong. You're completely wrong, and you cannot tell how warm or cold you are by the number and vigor of "denouncing responses".You know, it's as if I can tell how warm or cold I am by the number and vigor of denouncing responses.
No, I’m not paid. You are a liar. And the point is that your arguments are not acceptable here in Quatloos. You're not in a court of law. You're here. So, whether I (and other Quatloos regulars) accept your arguments is important. More importantly, your arguments would not be acceptable in a court of law, which is where the rubber meets the road.Yes Fammie, calm down I know that's not acceptable to you & your pimp. You're paid to direct everyone back into the taxpayer pen - yawn.
Put a cork in the "free man" rhetoric. We're all free. Yes, whether I (and other Quatloos regulars) accept what you write does matter. Our opinions are the opinions that count here. The fact that you’re posting here shows that our opinions matter to you. This is not a court of law. You're not trying to convince a judge here.Doesn't matter what's acceptable to you - I'm a free man.
Wrong. There are not a "small handful of winners." No one has ever won a court case using the frivolous arguments you have presented.As for winning in court, there's a small handful of winners.....
Wrong again. The IRS is not run "in partnership" with the government. The IRS is part of the government, and the IRS is not a "scam". There is some systemic incompetence at the IRS, just as there is at other large government agencies, but the IRS is not a "scam."What you fail to grasp is that the best scams (Federal Reserve/IRS) are run in partnership with government.
The Federal Reserve SYSTEM has some parts which are governmental entities (such as the Board of Governors) and other parts (such as Wells Fargo Bank, which is a "member bank") which are not governmental entities. What you fail to grasp is that you know little if anything about taxation -- or the banking system.
Wrong again. There is no Constitutional requirement that a tax on your right to earn a livelihood be apportioned among the states according to population. And the federal income tax is not a tax on your right to earn a livelihood. It is a tax on (among other things) income you realize while exercising that right.Yes LPC, Congress can tax our inalienable right to earn a livelihood, but it [the tax] must be apportioned (per the Constitution).
The only kinds of taxes required to be apportioned by the United States Constitution are (1) capitations, and (2) taxes on property by reason of ownership. No federal income tax is currently classified as either a capitation or a property tax.
Most courts today refer to all federal income taxes as indirect taxes (excises). However, a few courts have referred to the federal income tax as a direct tax. Unfortunately for you and your ilk, for purposes of the apportionment requirement, the Constitution, as amended, does not differentiate between "income taxes considered to be direct taxes" and "income taxes considered to be excises." In 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court in Pollock made the source of the income relevant in determining whether the income tax had to be apportioned. That continued as the rule from 1895 to 1913. In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment overruled the Pollock decision. Since 1913, the source of the income is legally irrelevant in determining whether an income tax must be apportioned. The direct/indirect argument (i.e., the "source" argument) is a legal red herring after 1913.
Read it again:
--Sixteenth Amendment (1913).The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
As I have written before:
Capitation tax. A poll tax (q.v.). Black's Law Dictionary, p. 191 (5th ed. 1979).1. The question of whether a particular income tax is ''direct or indirect'' is legally irrelevant to the question of whether the Congress has the power, under the U.S. Constitution as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment, to impose that tax. Congress has the power to impose any income tax, regardless of whether that tax is deemed direct or indirect.
2. The question of whether a particular income tax is direct or indirect is also legally irrelevant to the issue of whether that tax must be apportioned. After the Sixteenth Amendment, no income tax of any kind whatsoever, whether direct or indirect, is required to be apportioned.
3. Under the Constitution as amended, the only important legal relevancy to the question of whether a particular income tax is Constitutionally valid (aside from rules such as the one prohibiting taxes on exports, or the rule that revenue measures must originate in the House, etc.) is probably whether that income tax is imposed with geographical uniformity. That is, an income tax cannot be expressly imposed on, say, just the incomes of people who happen to reside in New York and Montana.
Poll-tax. A capitation tax; a tax of a specific sum levied upon each person within the jurisdiction of the taxing power and within a certain class (as, all males of a certain age, etc.) without reference to his property or lack of it. Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1043 (5th ed. 1979).
From Young v. United States:
---Young v. United States, 2001-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 50,732, fn. 3 (W.D. Ky. 2001) (a Federal income tax case).A capitation is a direct tax based solely on one's status, and is most often epitomized by a poll tax. Considering the large number of cases which consider discrimination settlements "income" subject to taxation within the broad ambit of 26 U.S.C. §61(a), see, e.g., Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323, 115 S.Ct. 2159, 132 L.Ed.2d 294 (1995); United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 112 S.Ct. 1867, 119 L.Ed.2d 34 (1992), the Court finds that the tax withheld by the Internal Revenue Service in this case [i.e., the Federal income tax under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986] is not a "capitation".
In Tilley v. United States, the taxpayer made the argument that the Federal income tax was "unconstitutional, since a tax measured by an individual's so-called income is in the nature of a capitation tax and can only be imposed by apportionment [ . . . . ]". That argument was ruled frivolous by the court. The court stated:
---See Tilley v. United States, 270 F. Supp. 2d 731, 2003-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,594 (M.D.N.C. 2003).Several of the Tilleys' claims are frivolous and fail as a matter of law. In one claim, the Tilleys argue that "the taxes were unconstitutional, since a tax measured by an individual's so-called income is in the nature of a capitation tax and can only be imposed by apportionment." (Compl. ¶VI(d)(3)). The Sixteenth Amendment puts such an argument to rest, stating:
-------------"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has indicated that after the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, whether an income tax is a "capitation or other direct tax" or not, the apportionment restriction (the rule that capitations or other direct taxes must be apportioned by state according to the population of each state) simply does not apply if the tax in question is an income tax:
---Simmons v. United States, 308 F.2d 160, 62-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9713 (4th Cir. 1962) (emphasis added).The power to tax is conferred on Congress by article I, section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution, but other sections of the Constitution impose certain restrictions upon the manner in which the taxing power of the Federal Government may be exercised. In addition to the general limitations placed upon that power by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, Congress is specifically prohibited from laying any tax on the export of goods; whatever indirect taxes it may enact shall be uniform throughout the United States and it may impose a capitation or direct tax only if apportioned among the states according to population. This last restriction, the only one pertinent to the present case [the federal income tax under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954], has been limited in scope by the Sixteenth Amendment which permits taxes "on incomes, from whatever source derived" without regard to the apportionment requirement.
And as far as David Zuniga is concerned, we’ve already discredited him. He copies and pastes fake quotes. He is a follower of Phil Hart (who is, by the way, another loser who has given up and has reportedly settled with the IRS regarding his own federal income taxes). Zuniga is as clueless as you and Pete Hendrickson.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
-
- Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
- Posts: 7668
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
- Location: Texas
Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
From the United States Tax Court:
More from the Tax Court:
And Harvester, don't say the courts are "corrupt" when you don't like the decisions. Instead, look for a court decision that supports your argument.
![Cool 8)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
---from Sortillon v. Commissioner, 38 T.C.M. (CCH) 1097, T.C. Memo 1979-281, CCH Dec. 36,194(M), Docket No. 2108-79 (July 26, 1979).Thus, since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment it is immaterial, with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or an indirect tax.
More from the Tax Court:
---from Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, CCH Dec. 41,031 (1984).Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, it is immaterial with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or indirect tax. The whole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from [the requirement of] apportionment and from [the requirement of] a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.
And Harvester, don't say the courts are "corrupt" when you don't like the decisions. Instead, look for a court decision that supports your argument.
![Cool 8)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
-
- J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
- Posts: 1812
- Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Southern California
Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
The U.S. Supreme Court thinks differently:Harvester wrote:Yes LPC, Congress can tax our inalienable right to earn a livelihood, but it must be apportioned (per the Constitution).
(Bolding added).Steward Machine Co. v. Davis wrote:We are told that the relation of employment is one so essential to the pursuit of happiness that it may not be burdened with a tax. Appeal is made to history. From the precedents of colonial days, we are supplied with [301 U.S. 548, 579] illustrations of excises common in the colonies. They are said to have been bound up with the enjoyment of particular commodities. Appeal is also made to principle or the analysis of concepts. An excise, we are told, imports a tax upon a privilege; employment, it is said, is a right, not a privilege, from which it follows that employment is not subject to an excise. Neither the one appeal nor the other leads to the desired goal.
As to the argument from history: Doubtless there were many excises in colonial days and later that were associated, more or less intimately, with the enjoyment or the use of property. This would not prove, even if no others were then known, that the forms then accepted were not subject to enlargement. ...Our colonial forbears knew more about ways of taxing than some of their descendants seem to be willing to concede. 5
The historical prop failing, the prop or fancied prop of principle remains. We learn that employment for lawful gain is a 'natural' or 'inherent' or 'inalienable' right, and not a 'privilege' at all. But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of less importance. 6 An excise is not limited to vocations or activities [301 U.S. 548, 581] that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)
(Du musst Caligari werden!)
Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
Where exactly does one find the reporter for the Supreme Court of Planet Merrill?Famspear wrote:Instead, look for a court decision that supports your argument.
Re: "free2live" posts "analysis" from "Pablo" re Hendrickson
Haha, lengthy double post, that's more like it. Fammie, you know I love to rattle your cage, sending you back to your archives to dig up those select few quotes which appear to support your side. Thanks for playing!
Herr Dr., there are more SC decisions/quotes that support the side of "activites of common-right are not excisable" than your Steward Machine quote.
The 16th Amendment closed a small loophole but created no new power of taxation, no new classification of tax, nor did it remove the apportionment requirement from direct taxation on activities of common-right. The Supreme Court is clear here. And once again, y'all seem to think income is all that comes in when in reality its only gains/profits derived from excisable activity or property as described in the Revenue Acts of Congress.
Oh Pouttie, you may get a kick outta this non-mainstream item, although he should invest in a new keyboard, his 'M' key appears to be stuck! ....
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/fo ... ead=172649
Herr Dr., there are more SC decisions/quotes that support the side of "activites of common-right are not excisable" than your Steward Machine quote.
The 16th Amendment closed a small loophole but created no new power of taxation, no new classification of tax, nor did it remove the apportionment requirement from direct taxation on activities of common-right. The Supreme Court is clear here. And once again, y'all seem to think income is all that comes in when in reality its only gains/profits derived from excisable activity or property as described in the Revenue Acts of Congress.
Oh Pouttie, you may get a kick outta this non-mainstream item, although he should invest in a new keyboard, his 'M' key appears to be stuck! ....
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/fo ... ead=172649