Jury Stops IRS!

[Rouser2]

A federal jury in Tennesee Friday found FedEx pilot Vernice Kuglin not guilty of evading income taxes on $920,000.

In a live radio interview today on "Freedom Rings," WRMN, Elgin, Ms. Kuglin explained that what she actually did was to engage the government in a kind of reverse sting operation. Avoiding the frivolous arguments that many so-called tax-protesters often employ, Kuglin simply wrote to the IRS asking exactly what law it was that made her liable for the tax and for the filing of a 1040 tax form. She got no answer, thus settting the trap for what she hoped would be a landmark criminal tax case.


http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/local_news/article/0,1426,MCA_437_2169609,00.html

[Grammatron]

:eek:

[Skeptic]

Avoiding the frivolous arguments that many so-called tax-protesters often employ, Kuglin simply wrote to the IRS asking exactly what law it was that made her liable for the tax and for the filing of a 1040 tax form. She got no answer,

Great! I'll send the justice department a letter asking exactly what law forbids me from killing people if I feel like it! If they don't reply, they are ADMITTING it's legal to kill people, right?

Actually, this so-called "I sent a letter to the IRS" argument is one of the oldest frivolous "tax protestor" arguments. Needless to say, the IRS is not required to personally reply to every crank that "demands" to know what makes him liable for taxes, any more than professors are required to reply to every crank who "demands" to know what is wrong with his theory. The IRS did the right thing: sensing that her question is from a "tax protestor" who isn't asking for information in good faith (but merely looking for some excuse not to file, by scrutinizing whatever answer the IRS would give for "mistakes"), they simply ignored her "demand".

As for her trial, what happened was simple: she was acquitted from the CRIMINAL charge of WILLFUL failure to file. This happened before--all it means is that the jury agreed that, for some reason, she honestly believed she is not required to file, so she could not be convicted of "willful failure", which requires that the prosecution show not only that she did not file, but that she knew she was required to file. However, far from "proving" the income tax is "voluntary", it merely means she dodged having a CRIMINAL convinction in addition to the CIVIL action the IRS is taking against her for a). colleciton of back taxes, b). penalties and interest. As her own lawyer admitted, she is still liable to pay her taxes. The IRS had already placed liens on her property for non-payment, and the next step is probably garnishing her wages.

Some "victory".

[shanek]

I caught that. This is most interesting!

Here's another case, involving someone I've always thought to be a wacko, and that's Irwin Schiff of paynoincometax.com. He says that what most people think of as income doesn't fit the IRS's definition of income. He has posted his 1040 return (http://www.paynoincometax.com/pdf/schiff_1040.pdf) (PDF) online as evidence. He's also written this up in a book called The Great Income Tax Hoax (yeah, you knew he was selling something, right?).

Anyway...they've banned him from selling his book, saying that it encourages people to engage in criminal activity. But he himself posted proof on his website that he himself was engaging in that activity. Here's the question I'd like to have an answer for: If they're banning his book because it encourages illegal activity, then why is he himself not being prosecuted for that activity?

I'm being really cautious about believing this, because I want it to be true so badly I realize my objectivity may be threatened. And I admit, I really didn't give that question much thought until this new case came to light. But this is shocking enough for me to actually dare to ask the question...

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Dare! Dare!

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek

I'm being really cautious about believing this, because I want it to be true so badly I realize my objectivity may be threatened. And I admit, I really didn't give that question much thought until this new case came to light. But this is shocking enough for me to actually dare to ask the question...

Don't get too happy. Imagine, for a second, that this was all true, that the law really did allow you to get away without paying most of the income tax you are owed. If a case actually made it through the courts, if these anti-tax advocates really proved their point, would most people continue to voluntarily pay taxes when their neighbors weren't? I doubt it. Can the government survive without this income? Not for long. So one of two things will happen: the government will dramatically downsize, or they'll just change whatever laws necessary so it will be legal. I'm not sure how anyone can think that the first option is what would really pan out. In other words, if it really was possible to legally get away without paying your taxes, the last thing someone doing that would want is to publicize how to do it, because if it became popular, it could never remain legal. The government would never aquiesce to such a suffocation, and despite the popularity of calls for smaller government, if it came down to it most of the public would NOT want the kind of dramatic downsizing this would necessitate - society relies on too many government programs to be able to deal with them just vanishing.

So now, back to the question of whether or not it's legal. I haven't looked at the details, and I don't plan to bother. But if the options are
1) that the current general perception that taxes are legally obligatory is correct and everything proceeds as normal, or
2) that somehow, almost everyone has overlooked a loophole that will allow you to get away without paying taxes, and this situation can somehow continue without everything blowing up because of some massive IRS conspiracy to fool the masses,
then I really have to say option 1 is more believable. It may not be what you want, but it's much more likely to be what's true.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Gee whiz, Ziggurat. We had Shane half way into the Federal Pen and you had to go spoil it. :mad:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Can the government survive without this income?

As I've pointed out several times, ALL of the Constitutional functions of the Federal government can be paid for with the current levels of tariffs and excises with a surplus left over. The Income Tax is precisely what has allowed them to grow unfettered.

or they'll just change whatever laws necessary so it will be legal.

That, I think, is the biggest problem with the tactics of these tax protestors. What we need to do is to convince people that the Income Tax is unneeded; most people think it's the sole source of the money the Federal government gets, or at least the lion's share. That's the whole point of the Downsize DC (www.downsizedc.org) project—educating people that the Income Tax is unnecessary and only funds worthless unconstitutional boondoggles. We don't need it for a national defense, justice system, post office, or any of the other Constitutional functions of government. If that is successful, then Income Tax will go the way of Prohibition.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Gee whiz, Ziggurat. We had Shane half way into the Federal Pen and you had to go spoil it. :mad:

Hate to tell ya this, but I pay my taxes. My current opinion is that the Income Tax is an abomination, but it's unfortunately a perfectly legal abomination.

Still, there's nothing wrong with asking questions, is there?

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

It was a joke, son. You missed it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
It was a joke, son. You missed it.

Ah...shoulda known by your avatar's smirk. :D

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by shanek


As I've pointed out several times, ALL of the Constitutional functions of the Federal government can be paid for with the current levels of tariffs and excises with a surplus left over. The Income Tax is precisely what has allowed them to grow unfettered.


Question for you shanek, doesn't the WTO, organization to which USA belongs to, prohibits most tariffs as part of global trade agreements?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Question for you shanek, doesn't the WTO, organization to which USA belongs to, prohibits most tariffs as part of global trade agreements?

I'm not sure what the WTO prohibits. I know the US have many tariffs in place; whether or not those violate WTO agreements I have no idea.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by shanek


I'm not sure what the WTO prohibits. I know the US have many tariffs in place; whether or not those violate WTO agreements I have no idea.

My point is, if we can't have tariffs, how will Feds generate income?

[Skeptic]

Here's the question I'd like to have an answer for: If they're banning his book because it encourages illegal activity, then why is he himself not being prosecuted for that activity?

Oh, dear.

Schiff has, in fact, served TWO jail terms for tax evasion (which goes to show how much his advice on how to "legally not pay income tax" is worth). He is not facing charges for tax evasion now for a very simple reason--he files and pays his taxes, and then lies to the morons who buy his nonsense and tells them he found a way to "legally" not pay. Schiff is, simply put, a con man.

Here are some details:

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm

http://www.quatloos.com/quatlosers/irwin_schiff.htm#back

I have to say, Shanek... if you reached a point when you even CONSIDER taking Irvin Schiff and/or the other idiot "tax protestors" seriously... you're in trouble.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Grammatron
My point is, if we can't have tariffs, how will Feds generate income?

To answer your question with a question: If we had free and open trade, what need would we have for the WTO?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by shanek


To answer your question with a question: If we had free and open trade, what need would we have for the WTO?

What need is there for WTO now?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
He is not facing charges for tax evasion now for a very simple reason--he files and pays his taxes, and then lies to the morons who buy his nonsense and tells them he found a way to "legally" not pay.

Just so I'm clear: Your position is that his 1040 on his site is not really the one he filed? He faces a lot worse than tax evasion if that's true, in my opinion.

Still, given his past, it's not out of the question. But I haven't heard the IRS make that claim. They haven't said anything about his (bogus?) return, just that his book is encouraging others to break the law.

If it's true, and the book breaks the law, then he should be put in jail again for tax evasion. If it's not true, he should face charges of fraud.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by shanek


To answer your question with a question: If we had free and open trade, what need would we have for the WTO?

To answers your answer question with a question: If we had freed and open trade, what need would we have for tariffs?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Here's the question I'd like to have an answer for: If they're banning his book because it encourages illegal activity, then why is he himself not being prosecuted for that activity?

Oh, dear.

Schiff has, in fact, served TWO jail terms for tax evasion (which goes to show how much his advice on how to "legally not pay income tax" is worth). He is not facing charges for tax evasion now for a very simple reason--he files and pays his taxes, and then lies to the morons who buy his nonsense and tells them he found a way to "legally" not pay. Schiff is, simply put, a con man.

Here are some details:

http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/cm-taxpr.htm

http://www.quatloos.com/quatlosers/irwin_schiff.htm#back

I have to say, Shanek... if you reached a point when you even CONSIDER taking Irvin Schiff and/or the other idiot "tax protestors" seriously... you're in trouble.


Yep.

I wonder if he was one of the crowd of 8-10 goofs that would stand in front of the Federal Reserve Bank (I worked there) every April 15th? Invariably, a few friendly employees would go outside and try to explain to them that the FRB had nothing to do with the tax system. But they never seemed to get it - the following year they would be right back in the same spot.

I'm sure Rouser2 was one of them!

[Tony]

Two Words: Jury Nullification


If most people believed that income taxes were wrong (which they are), no jury would ever convict a person accused of "tax evasion".

[Tony]

Also, where is the ACLU on this most important civil rights issue?

Income taxes are no different than slavery.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Question for you shanek, doesn't the WTO, organization to which USA belongs to, prohibits most tariffs as part of global trade agreements? Just a comment: From out here, it seems that the USA, and this president in particular, feel they can ignore any WTO or UN rulings or commitments they like without fear or remorse, as and when they it suits them. Comes from being the biggest kid on the block, I suppose, and doesn't set all that good an example, because it does seem unfair to the rest of us little guys who DO conform despite it causing local pain.

FWIW.

[Zep]

Shanek: As I've pointed out several times, ALL of the Constitutional functions of the Federal government can be paid for with the current levels of tariffs and excises with a surplus left over. The Income Tax is precisely what has allowed them to grow unfettered.:eek: Sounds MOST interesting!

Since you are usually quite sincere, Shanek, why hasn't this been made more well known nationally? I can imagine the politicians and the administrators don't want to derail the gravy-train, but surely the US population needs to know this?

Alternatively, why hasn't this super-surplus been turned back into positive programs for the common weal? There's the cost of providing an affordable universal medical health programme in need of some help - surely that's not too much to ask with a bit of the left-over moolah?

Even just paying the military what they are worth would be a start...

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skeptic

>>Needless to say, the IRS is not required to personally reply to every crank that "demands" to know what makes him liable for taxes, any more than professors are required to reply to every crank who "demands" to know what is wrong with his theory.


Needless to say, a jury of 12 sovereign citizens, good and true, felt the defendant was not a "crank," and also felt that when a citiizen asks a question of its government as to the nature of a very confusing law, which nobody, not even you, understands, that citizen is entitled to an answer.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skeptic

>>As her own lawyer admitted, she is still liable to pay her taxes.

Her lawyer "admitted" no such thing. She, herself stated that she would continue to pay all the taxes she is legally "liable" for.

>> The IRS had already placed liens on her property for non-payment...


An impossible action with assets under someone elses' name.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Zep
Just a comment: From out here, it seems that the USA, and this president in particular, feel they can ignore any WTO or UN rulings or commitments they like without fear or remorse, as and when they it suits them. Comes from being the biggest kid on the block, I suppose, and doesn't set all that good an example, because it does seem unfair to the rest of us little guys who DO conform despite it causing local pain.

FWIW.

thread hi-jack

George Bush did indeed ignore the WTO. However, he has good precedence from the EU on this matter:


here (http://www.useu.be/issues/chron0705.html)

I think the EU has been playing "holier than thou" on trade for awhile that they actually are starting to believe it.

(i.e. - I mean George Bush is an economic impearilist. However, our heavy farm subsidies don't hurt the third world. :rolleyes: )

Just like our arms industries far outsold the US to Iraq, however, we all know the US armed Iraq.

[Tmy]

Whast the deal wh everyone wanting to ban taxes. Whats the goverment supposed to run on, the tax evaders sense of self rightiousness???

Is it just INCOME tax that bothers you? Is property tax ok? AT least you can control income tax. Dont work if you dont want to pay it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Grammatron
To answers your answer question with a question: If we had freed and open trade, what need would we have for tariffs?

We've had tariffs for most if not all of the history of this country, even with completely open trade. Tariffs and excises were the way our founding fathers chose to finance the limited Federal government.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
Two Words: Jury Nullification

If most people believed that income taxes were wrong (which they are), no jury would ever convict a person accused of "tax evasion".

And that, apparently, is what happened here. The problem is that judges are telling juries that they have absolutely no right of nullification when they do, so most juries feel they can't vote their conscience and have to convict someone who violated a bad law.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Zep
Since you are usually quite sincere, Shanek, why hasn't this been made more well known nationally? I can imagine the politicians and the administrators don't want to derail the gravy-train, but surely the US population needs to know this?

I think they should. Unfortunately, too many people are dependent on the gravy train and don't want to knock it over. After all, we've got over a trillion dollars in boondoggles to pay for!

There's the cost of providing an affordable universal medical health programme in need of some help - surely that's not too much to ask with a bit of the left-over moolah?

But that's just the kind of unconstitutional boondoggle that's causing the budget to be over $2 trillion instead of less than $200 billion!

[Tmy]

Sounds like your beef is more wh how the taxes are spent rather than how they are collected.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek

But that's just the kind of unconstitutional boondoggle that's causing the budget to be over $2 trillion instead of less than $200 billion!

What do you mean by unconstitutional? Do you mean government programs and functions not specified by the constitution? Or do you mean programs and functions that are actually forbidden by the constitution?

If it's the former, well, that just leads to an ideological debate that you're not going to win, in the sense that the government should be doing what the people want it to do (this being a democracy) within the bounds of the constitution, and most people actually want a lot of the programs that the government funds. For example, I don't think the National Science Foundation is mandated by the constitution, but I think most of the public wants it around. In other words, you need to convince people not only that income tax is not constitutionally necessary, but also that they would be better off without the "unconstitutional" programs and services that the government provides. And I don't see that most people are going to be convinced of that.

If it's the later, then either someone could take the gov't to court to shut the programs down, or else the supreme court doesn't agree with you about what is constitutional.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


And that, apparently, is what happened here. The problem is that judges are telling juries that they have absolutely no right of nullification when they do, so most juries feel they can't vote their conscience and have to convict someone who violated a bad law.

There is no specific right to jury nullification. The term refers to a side-effect of our double jeopardy and trial by jury rights. A guilty verdict can be overturned for lack of evidence, but an aquittal cannot be overturned because of "overwhelming guilt" or some such. As a result, no matter how strong the evidence is, a jury acquittal is the end of the story.

While sometimes this appears to be the refusal to enforce a bad law, there has been no law I am aware of calling this a "right" of the jury to refuse to enforce a bad law. There is a subtle difference between the "power" to do something and the "right" to do something. In a technical sense, a jury that does this is breaking their oath, but there is no enforcement mechanism for that oath, so in effect the jury can't be punished for this sort of misbehaviour. Thus, jury nullification is an accepted concept, and a powerful one for a good defense attorney, but one that can't be overtly sought.

This is why judges instruct juries that if all elements are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury "must" vote for a conviction. Also, if a defense attorney came out and said that his client is guilty but please jury acquit him because the law is stupid, this would be objectionable as irrelevant, grounds for mistrial, and in front of the wrong judge could land the attorney a fine or a night in jail for contempt.

Also, the article shows evidence this wasn't nullification:Juror Barbara Snodgras of Memphis said the jury did not convict because "we all felt that the prosecution didn't prove its case."

Most likely skeptic is correct about this case. Tax evasion is very unusual in that ignorance of the law is an excuse. They likely convinced the jury that he honestly believed he didn't have to pay taxes, using his "I sent letters" story as evidence, and the jury believed him.

However, the "I didn't know the law" excuse is not available in a civil collection action, and neither is "jury nullification" a factor in a civil trial. Ignorance will keep you out of jail for tax evasion, but it won't keep the IRS out of your pocket.

(edited to fix a typo)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Sounds like your beef is more wh how the taxes are spent rather than how they are collected.

My beef is that the Income Tax allows for these boondoggles by enabling the government to take far, far more than what they need. It wasn't until the passage of the 16th Amendment that we started having these problems. Before then, the boondoggles were kept pretty much at bay because the government didn't have the funds to do much beyond its Constitutional functions.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
What do you mean by unconstitutional? Do you mean government programs and functions not specified by the constitution? Or do you mean programs and functions that are actually forbidden by the constitution?

Those two are the same thing. If it isn't a power specifically granted to the Federal government by the Constitution, then the Federal government is prohibited from exercising that power.

(this being a democracy)

This is not a democracy. This is a Constitutional Republic.

For example, I don't think the National Science Foundation is mandated by the constitution,

Article I, Section 8: "Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To...fix the Standard of Weights and Measures..."

I might argue that the NSF/NIST would be better off as a private organization, but it is Constuitutional.

but I think most of the public wants it around.

If it's something most people want around, or even just 10% of the people want around, the free market would provide it. That's what it does.

In other words, you need to convince people not only that income tax is not constitutionally necessary, but also that they would be better off without the "unconstitutional" programs and services that the government provides.

I agree, and I've been doing just that.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
There is no specific right to jury nullification.

Yes, there is. It has been a vital part of the trial by jury system throughout the history of British Common Law, upon which our country and our Constitution is based.

While sometimes this appears to be the refusal to enforce a bad law, there has been no law I am aware of calling this a "right" of the jury to refuse to enforce a bad law.

Then you need to visit this website: www.fija.org

This is why judges instruct juries that if all elements are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury "must" vote for a conviction. Also, if a defense attorney came out and said that his client is guilty but please jury acquit him because the law is stupid, this would be objectionable as irrelevant, grounds for mistrial, and in front of the wrong judge could land the attorney a fine or a night in jail for contempt.

That wasn't the case until the very late 1800s, when corporations kept lobbying the judicial branch because juries kept refusing to convict workers who tried to form unions. Jury nullification was used up through the Civil War by juries who refused to convict people accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek

Those two are the same thing. If it isn't a power specifically granted to the Federal government by the Constitution, then the Federal government is prohibited from exercising that power.


Really? Maybe you should tell the supreme court. They must have a backlog of government programs to declare unconstitutional, so they better get started right away.


Article I, Section 8: "Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To...fix the Standard of Weights and Measures..."

I might argue that the NSF/NIST would be better off as a private organization, but it is Constuitutional.


The NSF has nothing to do with fixing standards, that's purely NIST's job. NIST does a lot of other stuff too. And I'm not sure why you say they'd be better off as private organizations. The NSF provides funding for basic research and for training scientists. Privately run labs do exist that perform basic research, but believe me, they wouldn't be doing it on the level the federal government does, because the payoff is too indirect for private companies to invest in it at the level the federal government is able to. NSF is not replaceable by a free market model - you're only option here is to try to argue that we're better off without it, but I certainly would argue against that claim. And NIST as a private organization would be a disaster - the last thing you want is someone TRYING to suck money out of a basic function like defining units of measurement. That's a recipe for inefficiencies if I ever heard one. Imagine the possibilities: you're in a lawsuit with a supplier over how much of a material they provided you. Did they give you one ton of material or was it less? We'd need a standard for one ton, wouldn't we? A private NIST will testify for you at trial that your scales are properly calibrated. Oh, but first, there's the little mater of a small fee...


If it's something most people want around, or even just 10% of the people want around, the free market would provide it. That's what it does.


Maybe. But unlike you, I don't think the free market is always the pinacle of efficiency. I think there are certain tasks that the government is actually better equipped to perform. "Free" markets are easily abused. I lived through the California energy crisis, and I know that the "invisible hand" doesn't always provide for the consumers. Blind faith in free markets will lead you right off a cliff, just as blind faith in God, government, or space aliens.

And in the shorter term, there's no way the private sector can step in and immediately replace the functions of the federal government that society relies upon.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Yes, there is. It has been a vital part of the trial by jury system throughout the history of British Common Law, upon which our country and our Constitution is based.



Then you need to visit this website: www.fija.org


That wasn't the case until the very late 1800s, when corporations kept lobbying the judicial branch because juries kept refusing to convict workers who tried to form unions. Jury nullification was used up through the Civil War by juries who refused to convict people accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act.

Can you cite a case where an attorney argued explicitly for nullification and a court upheld that right? I think you are confusing what the jury has the "power" to do rather than the "right" to do. I read the "Jurors Handbook" on the site you mention. It explains the power exists, that because of the protection of the right to a jury trial and double jeopardy provisions the power of a jury to "just say no" for any reason is fixed in stone. The author then makes the questionable assumption that this makes nullification a right in itself rather than a byproduct of the enforcement of other rights. The rest of his conclusions rest on that assumption.

He also notes that every jurisdiction agrees with what I am saying, that nullification is a power and not a right. Every court seems to have not found a "nullification" right in the constitution. You like the federalist papers right? How about this one from Federalist #78?
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

The courts say there is no right. That you or someone else doesn't agree with that doesn't change it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Really? Maybe you should tell the supreme court. They must have a backlog of government programs to declare unconstitutional, so they better get started right away.

The SC can only declare something Constitutional if a case is brought before them.

The NSF has nothing to do with fixing standards, that's purely NIST's job.

They're both part of the same organization, though.

And I'm not sure why you say they'd be better off as private organizations.

That's an argument for another thread.

"Free" markets are easily abused.

And government isn't?

I lived through the California energy crisis, and I know that the "invisible hand" doesn't always provide for the consumers.

What happened in California is hardly the fault of the free market. It was a political fiasco.

In Pennsylvania, where proper deregulation has taken place, it has worked extremely well.

And in the shorter term, there's no way the private sector can step in and immediately replace the functions of the federal government that society relies upon.

I've never said that there shouldn't be transitional measures.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Can you cite a case where an attorney argued explicitly for nullification and a court upheld that right?

There are a lot of cases before 1895. Most famously, when John Adams defended John Hancock of smuggling charges in 1771, he said, "It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

But even more recently, in Morissette v United States in 1952, the court said, "Had the jury convicted on proper instructions it would be the end of the matter. But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges... They might have refused to brand Morissette as a thief. Had they done so, that too would have been the end of the matter."

Even the Supreme Court in Duncan v Louisiana said, "If the defendant preferred the common-sense judgment of the jury to the more tutored but less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it."

And several state Constitutions specifically say that juries judge the law as well as the facts.

Jury nullification has been a vital part of the trial by jury system for centuries.

Every court seems to have not found a "nullification" right in the constitution.

Uh, 9th Amendment? It was also certainly intended in the 6th and 7th Amendments when they guaranteed trial by jury, since at that time no one questioned the right of nullification.

You like the federalist papers right? How about this one from Federalist #78?

What does that have to do with jury nullification? That passage just says that the courts have to abide by the Constitution and throw out any unconstitutional laws.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek

The SC can only declare something Constitutional if a case is brought before them.


Many of these programs you view as unconstitutional have been around for a very long time. Are you claiming then that in all this time, nobody decided to bring a case before the supreme court to have one of these programs removed? Hmmm... I can only think of a few possible explanation for why that might happen. Maybe nobody realized these programs were unconstitutional. No, that doesn't make too much sense. Maybe everyone in the country really loved unconstitutional big government programs, and there was no dissent. Getting closer, but still too implausible. Maybe there's a vast conspiracy to prevent such cases from reaching the supreme court. Yeah! That's it! Now we're on to something! Now we just have to find the villain behind the scheme. Keep your eyes out for pro-government advocates twirlling thin black mustaches while grinning maniacally.

Or maybe you're wrong about what's constitutional. Naw, that can't be it. Back to hunting for big-government villain.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Many of these programs you view as unconstitutional have been around for a very long time. Are you claiming then that in all this time, nobody decided to bring a case before the supreme court to have one of these programs removed?

Do you have any idea how difficult and expensive it is to do so? I have to tell you, I had no idea until I got involved with RealCampaignReform.org. It's really mind-boggling.

[Skeptic]

Just so I'm clear: Your position is that his 1040 on his site is not really the one he filed?

Exactly. He's lying to the rubes. Well, either that, or, after filing taxes for years (who said he hasn't learned anything from two stays in the pokey?), he once more reneged, and perhaps even started believing his own bulls--t scam is true.

This isn't rare among con men: after selling an "immortality pill" for fifty years (or a free energy machine, or a "untaxing" scam, or whatever), they might begin to believe it themselves. Sure, they KNOW they made up the whole thing out to scam money, but if SO MANY PEOPLE buy it, they can't all be wrong, can they?

He faces a lot worse than tax evasion if that's true, in my opinion.

Indeed so. As the "Quatloos!" web sites updates show, he is probably going to face criminal fraud charges pretty soon. His con man's idea is simpe: make as much money from suckers before they catch up with him. My bet? Schiff, now in his 60s, is going to die in jail.

Still, given his past, it's not out of the question. But I haven't heard the IRS make that claim. They haven't said anything about his (bogus?) return, just that his book is encouraging others to break the law.

First, the IRS does, repeatedly, mention on its web site(s) that scams such as Schiff's "zero return" are illegal. Second, I'd say that his two jail terms for criminal tax evasion are more than enough to "say" he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. Third, the IRS doesn't have to reply to every crank with a web page that claims he found the "truth about taxes", any more than NASA has to reply to every crank that claims aliens abducted his dog.

[Skeptic]

Income taxes are no different than slavery.

Really? Well, in that case, you can leave (which real slaves, of course, never could) to one of those free countries which have no income tax: Haiti, Sudan... North Korea's weather is nice this time of year... er... what's wrong with THIS picture?

The idea that taxes are the same as slavery is idiotic. Nobody likes taxes, but without them, the government would go bankrupt and anarchy would reign. Those aircraft carriers, govenrment hospitals, and federal highways aren't free, either, I've heard.

[Skeptic]

While sometimes this appears to be the refusal to enforce a bad law, there has been no law I am aware of calling this a "right" of the jury to refuse to enforce a bad law.

How can that be?

Obviously, a jury of twelve honest citizens should have every right to refuse to uphold bad laws, such as the income tax law, that law that make it illegal to drive faster than 55 miles per hour, those intrusive laws that make beating your wife illegal despite what the bible says, that silly law that criminalizes lynching uppity *******, which every red-blooded white man knows is their right to protect their women...

Er... Come to think of it, I think I see the problem with giving the juries a right to ignore the law if they don't feel like obeying it.

Most likely skeptic is correct about this case. Tax evasion is very unusual in that ignorance of the law is an excuse. They likely convinced the jury that he honestly believed he didn't have to pay taxes, using his "I sent letters" story as evidence, and the jury believed him.

Er... it's "she", actually. This, incidentally, is the second such case in history. Once before, the "I didn't know the law" defense worked: when a man named Cheek claimed that he really, truly, actually was stupid enough to believe he didn't have to file income taxes. Of course, he (like this woman) still had to pay taxes and penalties.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


There are a lot of cases before 1895. Most famously, when John Adams defended John Hancock of smuggling charges in 1771, he said, "It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

There are a lot of other things Adams could be referring to. Plus, maybe the prosecutor was a dolt that didn't know a proper objection if it bit him. This proves nothing.

But even more recently, in Morissette v United States in 1952, the court said, "Had the jury convicted on proper instructions it would be the end of the matter. But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges... They might have refused to brand Morissette as a thief. Had they done so, that too would have been the end of the matter."

I just looked this up and this case has nothing to do with nullification. Part of the Court's reasoning from that case: But that isolated fact is not an adequate basis on which the jury should find the criminal intent to steal or knowingly convert, that is, wrongfully to deprive another of possession of property. Whether that intent existed, the jury must determine, nor only from the act of taking, but from that together with defendant's testimony and all of the surrounding circumstances.

What the court was saying is that the judge faied to instruct on all elements of theft, particularly that of "intent to steal or knowingly convert. Here's the passage you ellipsed:They might have concluded that the heaps of spent casings left in the hinterland to rust away presented an appearance of unwanted and abandoned junk, and that lack of any conscious deprivation of property or intentional injury was indicated by Morissette's good character, the openness of the taking, crushing and transporting of the casings, and the candor with which it was all admitted.

Clearly, the "thief" took what was mistaken for abandoned property and lacked intent to steal. The court is saying the judge should have instructed the jury as to the intent element because that was the law. Using a quote from this case to support a right of nullification is at best absurd and at worst totally dishonest.


Even the Supreme Court in Duncan v Louisiana said, "If the defendant preferred the common-sense judgment of the jury to the more tutored but less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it."

This case holds that a person has a right for trial by jury even when the offense was punished by "only" 60 days in jail. The concept of jury nullification is neither mentioned or discussed. The above passage refers to a jury making findings of fact rather than a judge, as was the practice up to that time. I hope you didn't read this case and are quoting it out of some Libertarian propaganda paper, because if you read it and came to the conclusion it supports nullification you have some serious reading comprehension problems.

And several state Constitutions specifically say that juries judge the law as well as the facts.

According to the site your earlier post cited to this is a myth: There is a pervasive myth that three states supposedly allow jury nullification instructions: Georgia, Maryland, and Indiana. See State v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 194 W.V. 163, 175, 459 S.E.2d 906, 918 n.27 (W.V. 1995); Paul Butler, Racially Based Jury Nullification: Black Power in the Criminal Justice System, 105 Yale L.J. 677, 704 n.147 (1995). Some lists also include Oregon. This is presumably because those states have laws or constitutional provisions suggesting that criminal jurors are judges of the law and the facts. But the myth is false. Despite their differing constitutions, all four states have held that a jury has, at most, the power to acquit a guilty man, not the right, and should not be told that it may ignore or nullify the law. See, e.g., Miller v. Georgia, 260 Ga. 191, 196, 391 S.E.2d 642, 647 (Ga. 1990).











Did you even read these cases? Why do you spout myths and vague statements out of context? Your post has given me insight into the quality of your discourse. Are you capable of thought not dictated by the Libertarian Party? Or are you just trying to attract followers with dishonest argument?

[Skeptic]

(Asking where there is a right to jury nullification in the constitution):

Uh, 9th Amendment?

Nonsense. The 9th amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The purpose of this claim--like in the magna carta--is to make sure that the rights granted are not seen as a gift that the government created by the constitution, but merely as already-present natural rights RECOGNIZED by the govenrment.

This allows for the fact that other rights exist which were not specifically mentioned in the constitution. An example of such a right is the right to privacy; in several famous cases, several laws that made conraceptions illegal were declared unconstitutional because the court judged that there is such a thing as a right to privacy which is protected by the constitution under the 9th amendment depite not being explicitly mentioned.

However, the nutcase antigovernment people turn the whole thing on its head. Their logic is: "Jury nullification is not mentioned in the constitution; the 9th amendment says that rights not mentioned are still rights; therefore, jury nullification is a right." According to this "logic", ANYTHING not mentioned in the constitution is a "right"--so apart from a "right" to jury nullification, there is also a "right" to drive without a driver's license, the "right" not to pay taxes if you don't feel like it, etc., etc., etc.

This is of course nonsense. It FIRST has to be a right in order to be protected by the 9th amendment. The mere fact that jury nullification isn't mentioned in the constitution doesn't make it a "right" or give it protection under the 9th amendment; "killing people with a hacksaw" is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution, either, but that hardly means I have the right to do it under the 9th amendment.

In fact, when somebody starts talking about having this or that "constitutional right" under the 9th amendment, this is an admittance on their part that the "right" they seek is NOT, in fact, mentioned in the constitution. Yes, it could (rarely) STILL be a right; but the proud claim we usually here from antigovernment zealots, "See? It ISN'T mentioned in the constitution, that PROVES it is a right protected by the 9th amendment!" is nothing short of absurd.

It was also certainly intended in the 6th and 7th Amendments when they guaranteed trial by jury, since at that time no one questioned the right of nullification.

The problem is, the constitution is not meant for self-determination. One cannot decide for oneself what the constitution "intended" to be a right and what not. This power is reserved to the courts; and, in fact, all the courts who addressed this question in modern times, I believe, did not agree with your view that this was the intention of either amendment.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Exactly. He's lying to the rubes.

Fair enough. I would still think the IRS would want to expose this, though. But maybe it's an issue of keeping his real 1040 private.

Well, either that, or, after filing taxes for years (who said he hasn't learned anything from two stays in the pokey?), he once more reneged, and perhaps even started believing his own bulls--t scam is true.

But again, if that's the case, why isn't the IRS responding to this flagrant failure to pay?

First, the IRS does, repeatedly, mention on its web site(s) that scams such as Schiff's "zero return" are illegal.

Sure, but I was referring to his online 1040 return.

Third, the IRS doesn't have to reply to every crank with a web page that claims he found the "truth about taxes",

They do if they're accusing said crank with a crime and banning his book.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The idea that taxes are the same as slavery is idiotic. Nobody likes taxes, but without them, the government would go bankrupt and anarchy would reign.

Again, we're talking about income taxes here, and I've already shown that the government can function quite well without them.

Let's look at this progression:

You are a servant indentured to the government. With the one exception of being able to leave the country, as long as you are in the country you must work where the government says and they provide your housing, food, etc., but other than that they keep the fruts of your labor. I think anyone would agree that such a person is a slave.

Now, the government realizes that some people are more skilled than others, so it allows people to go where their skills are.

The government then realizes that it's better for worker morale, and hence, production, if they can choose where they work and what they do.

Then, the government realizes that morale would be further bettered by letting people keep a portion of what they make and decide where and how they want to live. They also give them the ability to "opt out" by not working at all.

Now you've ended up with our current situation. So, let me ask you: At which point did it stop being indentured servitude?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Er... Come to think of it, I think I see the problem with giving the juries a right to ignore the law if they don't feel like obeying it.

Can you show that this problem existed in the US before 1895?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
There are a lot of other things Adams could be referring to. Plus, maybe the prosecutor was a dolt that didn't know a proper objection if it bit him. This proves nothing.

:rolleyes:

He was defending John Hancock who was being charged with smuggling and faced fines over three times the value of what was supposedly being smuggled. Adams argued jury nullification, and Hancock got off. This was the event that prompted Britain to deny trial by jury to the Colonies as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. It's a part of history, and you make yourself look like a fool denying it.

I just looked this up and this case has nothing to do with nullification.

Yes, it does. Your further quote did nothing to invalidate their comment. If the jury had chosen to nullify the offence, that would have been the end of it.

What the court was saying is that the judge faied to instruct on all elements of theft, particularly that of "intent to steal or knowingly convert. Here's the passage you ellipsed:

That was part of the previous clause, not the next clause where they supported nullification. That's why I ellipsed it.

This case holds that a person has a right for trial by jury even when the offense was punished by "only" 60 days in jail. The concept of jury nullification is neither mentioned or discussed.

Oh, come on! The above passage makes it CLEAR they considered nullification to be a part of trial by jury!

There is a pervasive myth that three states supposedly allow jury nullification instructions: Georgia, Maryland, and Indiana.

Georgia Constitution, Article I, Paragraph XI: Right to trial by jury; number of jurors; selection and compensation of jurors. (a) The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts.

I'm not even going to bother to look up the others as I only needed one to refute you.

Are you capable of thought not dictated by the Libertarian Party?

When did I mention the LP in this thread? You're showing your own bias and ignorance as well as your desperation.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Nonsense. The 9th amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Right. So it doesn't HAVE to be mentioned in the Constitution to be a right of the people, and any time you see someone make an argument like that it's completely bogus.

According to this "logic", ANYTHING not mentioned in the constitution is a "right"

And that is absolutely the case.

there is also a "right" to drive without a driver's license,

There is. You can drive on your own private road all you want sans license. You only need a license to drive on the government roads.

the "right" not to pay taxes if you don't feel like it,

BS. Taxation is mentioned in the Constitution as a power of the government.

In fact, when somebody starts talking about having this or that "constitutional right" under the 9th amendment, this is an admittance on their part that the "right" they seek is NOT, in fact, mentioned in the constitution.

Nor does it HAVE to be.

I don't see anything in the Constitution that gives us the right to eat food, go to the bathroom, breathe in and out, have friends, get married, watch a movie...

The problem is, the constitution is not meant for self-determination. One cannot decide for oneself what the constitution "intended" to be a right and what not.

Of course you can! When they mentioned "trial by jury," they were clearly referring to the system as it existed at the time—which included jury nullification! The Constitution was build on Common Law.

[shanek]

More on jury nullification:

"[When] a difference in sentiment takes place between the judges and jury, with regard to a point of law... The jury must do their duty, and their whole duty; They must decide the law as well as the fact." —Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, Philadelphia law lectures of 1790

"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." —Supreme Court Justice John Jay, 1789

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." —Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, 1796

"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." —Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1902

And what the heck, I'll go ahead and quote the Maryland Constitution as well, which you claimed was a "myth": "Article 23: In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction."

And I might as well do Indiana too: Article I Section 19: In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

Here's Oregon while I'm at it: Article I Section 16: Excessive bail and fines; cruel and unusual punishments; power of jury in criminal case. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense.—In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases.

Modern courts try to deny it, but jury nullification was always regarded from the founding of our country as a crucial aspect of the trial by jury system.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Tmy
Whast the deal wh everyone wanting to ban taxes. Whats the goverment supposed to run on, the tax evaders sense of self rightiousness???

Is it just INCOME tax that bothers you? Is property tax ok? AT least you can control income tax. Dont work if you dont want to pay it.

What astounding naivete.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Suddenly
[B]


>>He also notes that every jurisdiction agrees with what I am saying, that nullification is a power and not a right.


In the very first jury trial presided over by the Supreme Court, the jury charge, given by Chief Justice John Jay, called it a "right". Get your facts straight.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skeptic

>>Obviously, a jury of twelve honest citizens should have every right to refuse to uphold bad laws, such as the income tax law, that law that make it illegal to drive faster than 55 miles per hour, those intrusive laws that make beating your wife illegal despite what the bible says, that silly law that criminalizes lynching uppity *******, which every red-blooded white man knows is their right to protect their women...


An accurate representation of Jury Nullification would include the refusal of northern juries to convict under the Fugitive Slave Laws. Fortunately, most northern juries at that time did not jump in the lake just because a judge or a Supreme Court or a legislature said so. In those days, the days before widespread brainwashing of the masses in government schools, and controlled media, people could actually think for themselves -- and even refuse to check their brains and their consciences at the court room door.

[Skeptic]

According to this "logic", ANYTHING not mentioned in the constitution is a "right"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that is absolutely the case.

Oh, dear.

Let's take this one from the top.

The libertarian "argument" here is:

PREMISE: There are things not mentioned in the constitution which are rights.
PREMISE: Doing X is not mentioned in the constitution.
-----------------
CONCLUSION: Doing X is a right.

Now, compare this to the following argument:

PREMISE: There are mammals which are dogs.
PREMISE: This cow is a mammal.
---------------
CONCLUSION: This cow is a dog.

Both arguments are invalid for exactly the same reason. Finding out what it is is left as an excercise for the reader...

[Tony]

Originally posted by shanek


Again, we're talking about income taxes here, and I've already shown that the government can function quite well without them.

Let's look at this progression:

You are a servant indentured to the government. With the one exception of being able to leave the country, as long as you are in the country you must work where the government says and they provide your housing, food, etc., but other than that they keep the fruts of your labor. I think anyone would agree that such a person is a slave.

Now, the government realizes that some people are more skilled than others, so it allows people to go where their skills are.

The government then realizes that it's better for worker morale, and hence, production, if they can choose where they work and what they do.

Then, the government realizes that morale would be further bettered by letting people keep a portion of what they make and decide where and how they want to live. They also give them the ability to "opt out" by not working at all.

Now you've ended up with our current situation. So, let me ask you: At which point did it stop being indentured servitude?


Excellent point ShaneK.

This country is in dire need of another revolution or civil war, it's about time this tyranny was thrown off the american people.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek
"According to this "logic", ANYTHING not mentioned in the constitution is a "right""

And that is absolutely the case.


I'm afraid that interpretation puts you in a radical minority. Let's look at a few of the rights that this interpretation would grant you:

The right to torture animals.
The right to dump mercury and other poisons into the groundwater.
The right to traffic in child pornography.
The right to make and sell biological or nuclear weapons.

I'm sure someone else can come up with more. None of these rights are explicitly mentioned in the constitution, and none directly infringes on other people's rights. So by your radical interpretation, we should all have the right to do these things. But most people, including the courts, don't agree with you on this point. I think most people will believe the much more reasonable alternative, which is that although the constitution specifies that the list of rights it gives is not all-inclusive, we are not granted unlimited freedom by it either.

[Skeptic]

An accurate representation of Jury Nullification would include the refusal of northern juries to convict under the Fugitive Slave Laws.

Indeed so. It would also include many other noble acts. The problem is that it becomes up to the jury, not to interpret facts, but to interpret the law. Which is exceedingly dangerous, because it destroys the all-important principle of equal protection under the law: those who juries like, or those of the same race or class as the jurors, essentially get extra rights. The fact that the jury can sympathize or like a defendant for good reason doesn't nullify this fact.

the days before widespread brainwashing of the masses in government schools, and controlled media, people could actually think for themselves

Well, you seem to forget that before the "widespread brainwashing" of government schools, the vast majority of people had very little formal education of any sort.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skeptic
In those days, the days before widespread brainwashing of the masses in government schools, and controlled media, people could actually think for themselves


Yeah! Down with evil government and corporate media! Let's go back to the way it used to be, when it was the church's job to brainwash the masses!

You do not like what popular opinion is today, imagining that you carry some hidden flame of truth, so you invent a myth about how things were better in some distant past and if only things hadn't gone wrong then everybody could see the world as you do. Congratulations, you've brainwashed yourself.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Let's take this one from the top.

The libertarian "argument" here is:

PREMISE: There are things not mentioned in the constitution which are rights.
PREMISE: Doing X is not mentioned in the constitution.
-----------------
CONCLUSION: Doing X is a right.

No, it isn't. It's your strawman version; Here's the REAL argument:

P1: According to the 9th Amendment, rights are still protected even if they're not mentioned in the Constitution.
P2: The right to X is not mentioned in the Constitution.
---------------------
C: The right to X is, nonetheless, a fundamental right.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
This country is in dire need of another revolution or civil war, it's about time this tyranny was thrown off the american people.

I don't think we're at that point yet. If we can get rid of all of these dictatorial ballot access and campaign finance laws, then we could stage an effective revolution using ballots, not bullets.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
those who juries like, or those of the same race or class as the jurors, essentially get extra rights.

That's a problem with jury selection, not nullification.

Well, you seem to forget that before the "widespread brainwashing" of government schools, the vast majority of people had very little formal education of any sort.

Not true. In fact, Alexis de Tocqueville called that educational system "the envy of the world."

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Yeah! Down with evil government and corporate media! Let's go back to the way it used to be, when it was the church's job to brainwash the masses!

Or we could just instill liberty, like our founders wanted.

[Skeptic]

Not true. In fact, Alexis de Tocqueville called that educational system "the envy of the world."

It sure was--compared to what the vast majority of people had in education in early 19th century Europe, the system of education Tcqueville compares it to.

It is of course true that, for Tocqueville, the idea that there is ANY public (or free) education available at all, in particular one that is not clerical; the idea that even poor kids could learn to read, write, and do arithmentic was definitely a wonder.

But to say that this means the education system then was better than it was in government schools in the 20th century is absurd. It is the equivalent of saying that, if medical practice in some contry in the early 19th century was "the envy of the world", it was better not only than other countries' medical services at the time, but of the medical services 100 years later.

The fact that the US system of education then was the wonder of the world shows far more about how awful education was in most of the world at the time for the vast majority of people (by modern standards) than how good it was in the US by modern standards.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
More on jury nullification:

"[When] a difference in sentiment takes place between the judges and jury, with regard to a point of law... The jury must do their duty, and their whole duty; They must decide the law as well as the fact." —Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, Philadelphia law lectures of 1790

"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." —Supreme Court Justice John Jay, 1789

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." —Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, 1796

"The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." —Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1902

And what the heck, I'll go ahead and quote the Maryland Constitution as well, which you claimed was a "myth": "Article 23: In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction."

And I might as well do Indiana too: Article I Section 19: In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

Here's Oregon while I'm at it: Article I Section 16: Excessive bail and fines; cruel and unusual punishments; power of jury in criminal case. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense.—In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases.

Modern courts try to deny it, but jury nullification was always regarded from the founding of our country as a crucial aspect of the trial by jury system.

I didn't claim it was a myth. The website you directed me to said it was a myth that certain states consider nullification a right rather than a power. Plus, guess who gets to say what is a legal right? Modern courts!!! Not past courts, not famous dead guys, not you. I'm not going to comment on your other sources and quotes as your laughable contention that the two cases you earier cited have anything to do with jury nullification makes me hesitant to spend time looking into your claims, as I am convinced you are not here to discuss things rationally.

If you are, and I am mistaken about your intentions, I suggest you go back to those two cases and explain how they support your argument. The first deals with the need to fully instruct a jury. The second deals with the right to a jury in smaller cases. Both are generally pro jury, but neither deals with the specific issue of whether a jury should decide the law. Pulling out general pro-jury quotes just doesn't cut it.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by shanek


No, it isn't. It's your strawman version; Here's the REAL argument:

P1: According to the 9th Amendment, rights are still protected even if they're not mentioned in the Constitution.
P2: The right to X is not mentioned in the Constitution.
---------------------
C: The right to X is, nonetheless, a fundamental right.

Er, Shanek, let's retrace our steps. I think there is a misunderstanding here.

A few posts above, I said PRECISELY THAT--I said that if the right to something is not mentioned in the constituion, it's still a right. I then COMPARED that to the absurd view that the mere fact that something isn't mentioned in the constitution means that it's a "right".

You replied--and claimed that you AGREED with THAT absurd view, by "snipping" everything but it in your reply to me, and adding the words "which is exactly the case" (or something very similar) as your comment.

This greatly surprised me, so I thought you might not see the logical mistake in the absurd argument here, perhaps; so I gave his view of it. If this means you don't really support the absurd argument "if it isn't in the constitution, it's a right", I'm glad.

But the question is now: how do you determine if something that isn't mentioned in the constitution IS in fact a right or not? To repeat, "killing people with a hacksaw" isn't mentioned, and isn't a right.

[Suddenly]

Also, as per Georgia:

[A]lthough ... "the jury does possess a de facto power of nullification, i.e., a power to acquit the defendant regardless of the strength of the evidence against him ... it nonetheless is true that if the **648 evidence proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt it is the jury's duty to convict. [Cit.]" [Cit.] Thus, Miller's sixteenth enumeration of error is without merit.


Miller v. State, 391 S.E.2d 642 (Ga. 1990)(overruled on other grounds by Woodard v. State, 269 Ga. 317 (Ga. 1990) regarding cross examination issue.)

Looks like the Georgia Supreme court thinks it is a myth as well.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
But to say that this means the education system then was better than it was in government schools in the 20th century is absurd.

That wasn't what you said. You were casting aspersions on the 19th century non-government schools as being inadequate without comparing them to modern 20th century schools.

Besides, there are many indications that the improvements in education have come about because of free market advances in technology, mass communication, and the shift to a more professional culture. Government schools (which we had none of until the 1950s, with the Feds getting involved about 15 years later) if anything have stifled them.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
[quote][b]The first deals with the need to fully instruct a jury.

Which included the instruction that they were to judge the law as well as the facts!

The second deals with the right to a jury in smaller cases.

And included the right of that jury to examine the law!

No, they aren't SOLELY about jury nullification, or even primarily about jury nullification, but I don't see why that's such a big point.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
But the question is now: how do you determine if something that isn't mentioned in the constitution IS in fact a right or not? To repeat, "killing people with a hacksaw" isn't mentioned, and isn't a right.

Killing people with a hacksaw isn't something you freely exercise. But now that you've mentioned it, the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to make such an act illegal. The founders wisely left that to the states.

A right is something you freely exercise. Including the right to vote your conscience in a jury room.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Looks like the Georgia Supreme court thinks it is a myth as well.

It's not my fault they're ignoring their own Constitution.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek

But now that you've mentioned it, the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to make such an act illegal. The founders wisely left that to the states.


I don't think I totally agree with that conclusion (though something like murder I will agree is primarily the role of the state). But it brings up an interesting question: do you think state income tax is also unconstitutional? Seems to me like you can't really use the same logic against federal income tax on the state level. Which would in effect just mean that doing away with federal income tax would shift things to the state level - the states would pick up much of the slack of reduced government services, and raise their taxes to fund these. In other words, I don't think you can win this fight. People WANT government to provide services. You can complain all you want about how they're misguided, brainwashed, whatever, but that's still the reality of the situaton, and not likely to change any time soon. Shifting services from the federal to state level won't fundamentally change that reality, and I can imagine plenty of problems that would create. So good luck on your crusade to convince people that the federal government isn't much use, you're going to need it.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Skeptic
An accurate representation of Jury Nullification would include the refusal of northern juries to convict under the Fugitive Slave Laws.

>>Indeed so. It would also include many other noble acts. The problem is that it becomes up to the jury, not to interpret facts, but to interpret the law. Which is exceedingly dangerous, because it destroys the all-important principle of equal protection under the law: those who juries like, or those of the same race or class as the jurors, essentially get extra rights. The fact that the jury can sympathize or like a defendant for good reason doesn't nullify this fact.


The notion of "equal protection of under the law" can mean equal tyranny as well. It can also mean that mitigating circumstances are not taken into account. It is up to the conscience of each juror to decide for him or herself, whether a law is just, whether the punishment is just and whether or not it is moral, and whether or not it is constitutional. Ultimately, the law is not what the legislature enacts; not what the courts decree, not what the prosecution decides to prosecute. The law is, ultimately, what 12 Sovereign Citizens on a jury say it is, or what One single juror says it is not. While plenty of injustices have occurred at the hands of juries, the jury system, imperfect as it is, is a whole lot better than any other system ever tried. And usually, the injustices are not due to unfair juries, but unfair, and unrepresentitive jury "selections". Or rather, to brainwashed jurors who are told they cannot weigh the justness of the law, nor the punishment.

the days before widespread brainwashing of the masses in government schools, and controlled media, people could actually think for themselves

>>Well, you seem to forget that before the "widespread brainwashing" of government schools, the vast majority of people had very little formal education of any sort.

Oh, but that isn't true at all. Before the days of required education, the people of this nation were far more literate than they are today, formal education or not. We know, for example, that the Federalist papers were widely read throughout the colonies. Many of today's college students would find those essays beyond their comprehension. And we know that Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" sold nearly a million copies in a nation of only a few milliion, or nearly one for every three or four families. Today such reading would be beyond the comprehension of most Americans, dumbed down as they are by the mediocrity of the egalitarian government schools.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Yeah! Down with evil government and corporate media! Let's go back to the way it used to be, when it was the church's job to brainwash the masses!

You do not like what popular opinion is today, imagining that you carry some hidden flame of truth, so you invent a myth about how things were better in some distant past and if only things hadn't gone wrong then everybody could see the world as you do. Congratulations, you've brainwashed yourself.


This is not a discussion about "popular opinion" -- whatever that means. Nor is it about myths. Read some history, son.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Which included the instruction that they were to judge the law as well as the facts!



And included the right of that jury to examine the law!

No, they aren't SOLELY about jury nullification, or even primarily about jury nullification, but I don't see why that's such a big point.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, so I looked 'em up again. You are either flat lying or are mistaken.

The first case, The Morrisette case 342 U.S. 246 (1952) (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/morisset.htm) contains no jury instuctions whatsoever. It contains no discussion of jury nullification. The legal question was whether "criminal intent" was an element of a federal theft statute, and if so whether it is a question for the jury or judge. The court found that intent was an element, and that it being a question of fact, was for the jury. No part of this text discusses jury nullification.

I begining to think you know this and are making claims not provable or disprovable by the text. If that is so than your citing that text as authority is quite dishonest.

The second case, the Duncan case 391 U.S. 145 (1968) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=391&invol=145&friend=oyez) also never discusses the right of a jury to examine the law. In fact it says:
In addition, at the heart of the dispute have been express or implicit assertions that juries are incapable of adequately understanding evidence or determining issues of fact, and that they are unpredictable, quixotic, and little better than a roll of dice.

That is the only time it specifically addresses the role of the jury. The rest of the time it is discussing to point that Louisiana must furnish jury trials in "serious cases" and that this was a serious case even though Duncan only got a 60 day sentence.

Lets now deal with No, they aren't SOLELY about jury nullification, or even primarily about jury nullification, but I don't see why that's such a big point.

First, they never even mention jury nullification, or the jury being allowed to appraise the law, or anything remotely close. However, you ask why it is a big point. Here you go.

If a court says something in an opinion that does not directly relate to the question posed to it, that text is called "obiter dicta", or "dicta" for short, and anything said by the court in that text is not binding on future or lower courts.

For example, if a court is asked to say whether a search violates the fourth amendment, if that court goes on to say abortion is illegal, that's dicta. This is an exagerated example, to be sure. However, if while ruling on say, whether intent is an element of a theft statute, or whether the Constitution requres Louisiana to use a trial by jury in serious cases, that court in passing were to mention the jury's role as being an arbiter of law, that mention is not valid precident. It may be an indication of the court's leanings, but it is not in itself a valid statement of what the Court's interpretation of the law is. Of course, that never happened in these cases, but even if it did it wouldn't be a big deal. It is just dicta later discarded by future courts.

That's why the big deal. In those cases no mention is made of either, and it confuses me as to why you continue to say there is. Did you read those cases or just read about them somewhere?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skeptic

>>Obviously, a jury of twelve honest citizens should have every right to refuse to uphold bad laws, such as the income tax law, that law that make it illegal to drive faster than 55 miles per hour, those intrusive laws that make beating your wife illegal despite what the bible says, that silly law that criminalizes lynching uppity *******, which every red-blooded white man knows is their right to protect their women...


An accurate representation of Jury Nullification would include the refusal of northern juries to convict under the Fugitive Slave Laws. Fortunately, most northern juries at that time did not jump in the lake just because a judge or a Supreme Court or a legislature said so. In those days, the days before widespread brainwashing of the masses in government schools, and controlled media, people could actually think for themselves -- and even refuse to check their brains and their consciences at the court room door.

That's not accurate, that's self serving. Jury nullification could be used against a Fugitive slave law. It also could be used to help the KKK get away with lynchings. It cuts both ways. Plus, you have no sources whatsoever to show jury nullification as a result occurs less today. I've won and seen won many cases where this is the only possible reason. The debate here is about whether there is a right to both (or either) have the jury instructed that it can ignore the law or that the defense can overtly argue for nullification in closing.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


It's not my fault they're ignoring their own Constitution.

That hits an important point. By definition a state's highest court is in a practical sense infallable when it comes to what their constitution says. They have the legal power to say what is and what is not.

We may disagree, find their rulings repugnant and absurd, but we have political objections, not legal ones. Legally, the Georgia constitution bestows the rights the Georgia supreme court says it does. If you go into Georgia in a criminal trial and ask for a nullification instruction you won't get it, and if you overtly argue nullification an objection from the prosecution will be sustained, and with repeated such argument a mistrial or contempt charge will follow. That is fact. Those rulings can be appealed, of course, but unless the Georgia supremes say they are wrong, such a ruling will stand, no matter what you or the framers have to say about it.

There is a difference between saying "we should have a right" and "we have a right." One is a statement of political principle, the other is a legal conclusion. As a legal matter it is well settled that jury nullification is a power, in fact as Georgia calls it, a de facto power, and not a right.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
But it brings up an interesting question: do you think state income tax is also unconstitutional?

The word "also" is improper in this sentence, as Federal Income Tax is (unfortunately) constitutional as per the 16th Amendment. As for the states, it would depend on the particular state's Constitution.

Which would in effect just mean that doing away with federal income tax would shift things to the state level - the states would pick up much of the slack of reduced government services, and raise their taxes to fund these.

First of all, given the fact that most Federal programs just give the money right back to the states anyway, after losing at least 20% of it to bureaucracy, there's no reason to believe the overall tax burden would be as much as it is now. Second, you would have one big advantage in that the Feds wouldn't to be able to say to the states things like, "Make the drinking age 21 or no highway funds for you." This would enforce that the Federal government is supposed to be subservient to the states and not vice-versa.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rouser2
And we know that Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" sold nearly a million copies in a nation of only a few milliion, or nearly one for every three or four families.

And don't forget that it flurried through the colonies, getting the people on the side of independence.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
The first case, The Morrisette case 342 U.S. 246 (1952) (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/morisset.htm) contains no jury instuctions whatsoever. It contains no discussion of jury nullification.

"They might have refused to brand Morissette as a thief. Had they done so, that too would have been the end of the matter."

That's point blank. The jury could have refused to convict, even if the elements were proved, and there would have been nothing anyone could have done about it. They were speaking specifically of the jury bringing back a finding contrary to the instructions they were given. You can't weasel out of it.

The second case, the Duncan case 391 U.S. 145 (1968) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=391&invol=145&friend=oyez) also never discusses the right of a jury to examine the law.

"Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. If the defendant preferred the common-sense judgment of a jury to the more tutored but perhaps less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it. Beyond this, the jury trial provisions in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power - a reluctance to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges. Fear of unchecked power, so typical of our State and Federal Governments in other respects, found expression in the criminal law in this insistence upon community participation in the determination of guilt or innocence."

Juries are a check against bad law and against bad law enforcement. That is the essence of jury nullification.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
That hits an important point. By definition a state's highest court is in a practical sense infallable when it comes to what their constitution says. They have the legal power to say what is and what is not.

I'd like to know where you get that from. The Constitution says what it says. If the courts or anyone else can just redefine it whenever they please then it might as well not even exist.

Those Constitutions state it flat out: Juries decide the law as well as the facts.

There is a difference between saying "we should have a right" and "we have a right." One is a statement of political principle, the other is a legal conclusion. As a legal matter it is well settled that jury nullification is a power, in fact as Georgia calls it, a de facto power, and not a right.

That's total BS. Rights aren't something the government condescends to let us have. They aren't even something given to us by our respective Constitutions. They're something we have solely because we are human beings. Slaves still had the right to be free even though government was actively and improperly restricting their exercise of that right. They still had the right. They always did.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
Not true. In fact, Alexis de Tocqueville called that educational system "the envy of the world."
Do you have a cite for that? I'd be interested to read it. Thanks.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


"They might have refused to brand Morissette as a thief. Had they done so, that too would have been the end of the matter."

That's point blank. The jury could have refused to convict, even if the elements were proved, and there would have been nothing anyone could have done about it. They were speaking specifically of the jury bringing back a finding contrary to the instructions they were given. You can't weasel out of it.
Are you serious? First, this isn't even a debate about whether juries in practice nullify verdicts. No one doubts this, and I fail to see how a Court noticing this is relevant. That is if they were saying this, which they are not.

The whole paragraph:


Of course, the jury, considering Morissette's awareness that these casings were on government property, his failure to seek any permission for their removal and his self-interest as a witness, might have disbelieved his profession of innocent intent and concluded that his assertion of a belief that the casings were abandoned was an after-thought. Had the jury convicted on proper instructions it would be the end of the matter. But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges. They might have concluded that the heaps of spent casings left in the hinterland to rust away presented an appearance of unwanted and abandoned junk, and that lack of any conscious deprivation of property or intentional injury was indicated by Morissette's good character, the openness of the taking, crushing and transporting of the casings, and the candor with which it was all admitted. They might have refused to brand Morissette as a thief. Had they done so, that too would have been the end of the matter.

Note that the court is saying the jury could have found that Morissette possibly did not have the required criminal intent to have been guilty of theft under the statute. How you twist this into a statement that the jury is to decide whether they approve of the law is beyond me. Morrisette claimed he believed the ammo to be abandoned. The court says that if the jury believes that they should acquit, and should be instructed thus as that is the law. An acquittal is always the end of the matter. This is true. I have never said otherwise. Nullification happens. There is nothing that can be done about it. However, that doesn't mean it is proper or even a good idea to instruct a jury that they have this power. Perhaps you are missing the detail that if Morrisette never intended to deprive the US of its property, he is not guilty as a matter of law.

As an aside, this is a case used in many first year criminal law books to illustrate the concept of "criminal intent." Be most assured that when the Court says the jury could acquit, it is in the context that they would acquit because they did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that Morrisette had criminal intent. If nothing else, I get a whiff of nostalgia by rereading this case.





"Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. If the defendant preferred the common-sense judgment of a jury to the more tutored but perhaps less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it. Beyond this, the jury trial provisions in the Federal and State Constitutions reflect a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power - a reluctance to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges. Fear of unchecked power, so typical of our State and Federal Governments in other respects, found expression in the criminal law in this insistence upon community participation in the determination of guilt or innocence."

Juries are a check against bad law and against bad law enforcement. That is the essence of jury nullification.

Nice platitudes. You make a big leap and ignore context. This passage, and context of the entire case is that juries are better triers of fact than judges. I cited a passage that indicated this. Nothing above says the jury is a check of bad law. Note the legislature is never mentioned, and since almost all criminal law is by statute, you would think the would throw a mention of them as a power to be feared. Yet they speak of only "prosecutors", "judges or group of judges," and the like. Never discussing laws themselves or the nature of lawmaking Why? This passage says nothing you claim. You are making huge assumptions. The check is against judges. There is no indication in this passage the jury is designed to "check" the lawmaking power.

You are reading something into this case not present in the text.

Also, who cares what the "essense" of jury nullification is? It is a useful loophole for defense lawyers created by the enforcement of the right to a jury and double jeopardy protections.

That was a nice attempt to spin out of the issue. Just let it go. Whoever pointed these cases out to you as authority for jury nullification being a "right" in itself did you a major disservice. They only do so if you make wild assumptions and leaps not supported by the cases.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


That's total BS. Rights aren't something the government condescends to let us have. They aren't even something given to us by our respective Constitutions. They're something we have solely because we are human beings. Slaves still had the right to be free even though government was actively and improperly restricting their exercise of that right. They still had the right. They always did.

OK. Look from the other direction. We have all rights as humans. We via the constitution give government the power to intrude on these rights for the purpose of a better life, common defense, and so on. Courts, by virtue of the judicial power have the power to say what the constitution says. Thus, courts have the power to speak as to what rights are intruded on as a matter of law.

Ergo, if a court says a certain right is abrogated, by the constitution, it is. Just as I said.

As a legal matter slaves were not free. This is obvious. However, many people refused to recognize slavery and helped slaves escape. These people were breaking the law as it was at that time. This is not a moral judgement, this is a simple fact. Some laws may not be deserving of respect. This makes them no less laws, or breaking them any more legal. That is a moral question. They are seperate questions. To mix moral and legal contention is to invite at best confusion, and at worst jail. Of course, jail may be better than following some laws. That is a moral choice.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Rouser2

This is not a discussion about "popular opinion" -- whatever that means. Nor is it about myths. Read some history, son.

I'm not your son. I brought up popular opinion because you claimed that the masses were brainwashed by the government. I contend that you're claiming that merely because most people don't agree with you - the concept that they're all brainwashed provides an excuse for why you're right and everyone else is wrong. Maybe that's not correct, maybe you have some other reason for claiming that the masses are all brainwashed. But my main point is you don't actually have anything to back up that claim. If we're brainwashed now because of public schools, do you seriously think the founding fathers weren't brainwashed because of their churches? And yet they managed to decide that church should be kept out of government. Maybe they weren't brainwashed. And maybe neither are we.

You talk about how people used to be more literate, without providing any actual evidence to that effect. I say you're completely wrong. You say the federalist papers were widely read. I say so what? What do you MEAN by widely read? Do you mean by landowners? Or by every adult? And why is that even a basis for comparison with today? People get their news from a lot of different sources now, not just reading, but that was about it back then, so of COURSE it was widely read, it was a rather important issue at the time. You say that college students now would have a hard time with it. I say that's only because so much larger a proportion of our population actually goes to college, it's not only something reserved for the upper class, but I have every reason to believe the overall level of education has risen compared to two hundred years ago.

During Reagan's administration, there was a government report about how public schools were failing. Here's a nice quote from it:

"The College Board's Scholastic Aptitude Tests demonstrated a virtually unbroken decline from 1963 to 1980."

Sounds like things were going downhill, doesn't it? Except that this is misleading and the conclusion that schools were going downhill completely wrong. What happened was that more and more people were taking the test, because more and more people were going to college. The top students were just as good as before, but now more students who weren't at the top were also talking the tests. This sort of argument is throuwn about a lot. Bashing public schools is a popular pasttime for many. But they're not actually on the decline, they've just been asked to serve more of the population than they were two hundred or even fifty years ago. Here's some more details about the Reagan admin. report and the myths it helped create:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A35329-2003Apr24&notFound=true

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Suddenly


That's not accurate, that's self serving. Jury nullification could be used against a Fugitive slave law. It also could be used to help the KKK get away with lynchings. It cuts both ways. Plus, you have no sources whatsoever to show jury nullification as a result occurs less today. I've won and seen won many cases where this is the only possible reason. The debate here is about whether there is a right to both (or either) have the jury instructed that it can ignore the law or that the defense can overtly argue for nullification in closing.


If the conscience of a community allows lynchings, then no jury instruction is going to stop them. Our system's ethic is, better that 10 murderers go free then one innocent is convicted. There can be no debate about the right of juries to judge the justness of the law and the punishment as well. They have that self-evident right. What the courts have done since circa 1895 is to deny juries knowledge of the right -- a conscious policy of keeping the people ignorant in an attempt to have them leave brains and their consciences checked at the court room door.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Suddenly


That hits an important point. By definition a state's highest court is in a practical sense infallable when it comes to what their constitution says. They have the legal power to say what is and what is not.

We may disagree, find their rulings repugnant and absurd, but we have political objections, not legal ones. Legally, the Georgia constitution bestows the rights the Georgia supreme court says it does. If you go into Georgia in a criminal trial and ask for a nullification instruction you won't get it, and if you overtly argue nullification an objection from the prosecution will be sustained, and with repeated such argument a mistrial or contempt charge will follow. That is fact. Those rulings can be appealed, of course, but unless the Georgia supremes say they are wrong, such a ruling will stand, no matter what you or the framers have to say about it.

There is a difference between saying "we should have a right" and "we have a right." One is a statement of political principle, the other is a legal conclusion. As a legal matter it is well settled that jury nullification is a power, in fact as Georgia calls it, a de facto power, and not a right.


To state that a citizen has the power to do a thing, but not the "right" is Orwellian Doublethink. Jury nullifcation is both a power and right and the very first Supreme Court Chief Justice said so in his charge to the jury trial in Georgia v. Brailsford. Get your facts straight, Counselor.

"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a RIGHT to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of fact; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision."
Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794)

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Suddenly
[B]

>>That hits an important point. By definition a state's highest court is in a practical sense infallable when it comes to what their constitution says. They have the legal power to say what is and what is not.

>>We may disagree, find their rulings repugnant and absurd, but we have political objections, not legal ones. Legally, the Georgia constitution bestows the rights the Georgia supreme court says it does.


The Constitution of a State is supreme over what any court, Supreme or not says. To say that only the courts can interpret or declare what a Constitution says is to surrender Citizen Sovereignty in favor of government tyranny. Every public official swears an oath to uphold their State and Federal Constitution, an act which presumes their own judgement as to what those documents mean and what they say. A Supreme Court can declare there is no right to a Jury Nullification instruction till they're blue in the face, but Juries still maintain the right to both nullificaiton and to knowledge of their right to nullify.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by shanek
[B]

The word "also" is improper in this sentence, as Federal Income Tax is (unfortunately) constitutional as per the 16th Amendment. As for the states, it would depend on the particular state's Constitution. [B/]

Factually incorrect. We've been through this before. The power to tax incomes does not emanate from the 16th Amendment.


"...the 16th Amendment conferred no new taxing power." -- Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 1916.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ziggurat


>>Bashing public schools is a popular pasttime for many. But they're not actually on the decline, they've just been asked to serve more of the population than they were two hundred or even fifty years ago

Two hundred years ago there were virtually no public schools. And the extent of sales of publications such as Common Sense, The Age of Reason and the Federalist essays suggest that reading comprehension of the average citizen was at a very much higher level than it is today. But brainwashing is a whole other point. When a citizen goes into a jury or a grand jury, and does not know his jury rights, and can be conned into checking those rights at the court room door, that factor of ignorance can be traced to the education, or lack thereof in the public (government) school.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Rouser2



To state that a citizen has the power to do a thing, but not the "right" is Orwellian Doublethink. Jury nullifcation is both a power and right and the very first Supreme Court Chief Justice said so in his charge to the jury trial in Georgia v. Brailsford. Get your facts straight, Counselor.

"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a RIGHT to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of fact; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision."
Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 1 (1794)

If the best you can do is find a judge who 210 years ago who used the word "right", well, you see my point. Old does not equal correct, and in law the converse is true. The system evolves, new concepts become clear. What Jay says here is dicta, as the point of the case was regarding debts from the Revolutionary war, and not the question of the role of a jury. This case is not controlling legal authority for that issue.

All this case stands for is that one judge in that case believed the jury had a right to decide a limited question of law. This does not show the establishment of a right, as it is an equally valid conclusion that at that time the question of how to to instruct a jury was left up to the discretion of the judge. Even today, judges have discretion over a great many things, for example, whether jurors can take notes (in many states). To show one judge lets jurors take notes does not prove a "right" exists, as other judges, or even that judge in the future can rightfully not allow jurors to take notes.

You are appealing to a false authority. In that case, on that issue, what Jay says is not controlling authority, as it is a passing comment when deciding a different issue. That he is a "Supreme Court Justice" is a red herring, that he is the "First Chief Justice" doubly so. In this case he is a judge instructing a jury. That he does it the way he does goes to prove nothing but that his methods were at that time acceptable and within his discretion.

To say that power equals right is absurd. The recognition is that a jury disregarding the law violates the oath given them, but there is no way for a court to enforce that oath, thus we say the jury has the "power' to nullify and disregard law. I have the "power" or "ability" to drive 90 M.P.H on the highway. That doesn't mean I have the right. There exists an enforcement apparatus for speeding, but not for a jury disregarding law.

[Skeptic]

It's not my fault they're ignoring their own Constitution.

They're not "ignoring their own constitution". They just disagree with you about whether jury nullification is, or is not, one of the unmentioned "constitutional rights". Since, under the American system, interpreting the laws (up to and including the Constitution) is up to the courts, if the courts rule--consistently--that there is no right for jury nullificiation, then there isn't one.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Courts, by virtue of the judicial power have the power to say what the constitution says.

Show me where in the Constitution the courts are given this power.

As a legal matter slaves were not free. This is obvious. However, many people refused to recognize slavery and helped slaves escape. These people were breaking the law as it was at that time.

Yes, laws can restrict and inhibit the free practice of rights. I said that. But if you were to ask any of those people if they slaves had a right to be free, they would all have said yes. That's why they were doing that. Those rights existed independently of any government.

[Skeptic]

I think Shanek and Rouser are missing the point. Their method is (more or less) as follows. First, they find some old case, preferably early 19th century or before, where the judge agreed that jury nullification is a "right". Then, they ignore all later cases--including the entirety of 20th century case law--by claiming that they are all wrong, part of the evil 100-year-plus government conspiracy to "take away our rights".

This is wrong on at least three counts.

First, it is hypocritical: this method of "proof" is never used to try and argues against a law one LIKES; it is only valid, for some reason, when it's a law you don't like. 200 years ago, judges also ruled that men can beat their wives and that slavery is legal, for example. Yet I don't see Shanek arguing for those laws, despite the fact that the right to own slaves and the right to be a "master of one's house" (as the right to treat your wife and kids any way you please) were far better established, and have much more precedent in law, than the alleged "right" to jury nullification.

Second, it "proves" everything, and therefore "proves" nothing. If one goes far enough in time, one can prove that virtually ANYTHING is a "right". Princes had the right to torture their subjects under the Magna Carta; Lords had the "right of the first night" according to Feudal Law (or at least, so it is told); Hammurabi's laws allowed cutting off arms and legs. So? It doesn't mean anything about the existence of such "rights" today.

Third, it completely misunderstands the structure of law. Law EVOLVES. In the law, it is the LATEST, not the earliest, precedent that matters. It is simply irrelevant if some previous ruling said there is a "right" to jury nullification if later rulings overturned this. The point is that it is up to the courts to interpret the law--including the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land--and that, furthermore, it is the LATER, not earlier, interpretation that matters. So if today (and for the last 100 years) the courts consistently ruled that there is no right to "jury nullification", there IS no such right, regardless of what some court ruled two hundred years ago.

This is not an evil conspitacy to "steal our rights". It's simply the courts doing their job: interpreting the law, with the uniform conclusion that there is no such right. Whether there SHOULD be such a right is something else. But the courts are very clear: jury nullification simply isn't a right.

[Skeptic]

Two hundred years ago there were virtually no public schools. And the extent of sales of publications such as Common Sense, The Age of Reason and the Federalist essays suggest that reading comprehension of the average citizen was at a very much higher level than it is today.

Not really; it merely suggests that the reading level of the small upper ruling class, for whom it was written, was higher than it is today. The education level of the average American, one not of the privildeged upper class, was, by modern standards, horrible.

But brainwashing is a whole other point. When a citizen goes into a jury or a grand jury, and does not know his jury rights, and can be conned into checking those rights at the court room door, that factor of ignorance can be traced to the education, or lack thereof in the public (government) school.

Not really, since most of these "jury rights" that the avergae citizen "doesn't know about"--jury nullification, for instance--are not really "rights", but precisely things the jury is NOT allowed to do. The whining that the juries are "brainwashed into leaving their rights at the courtroom door" is, in reality, a complaint that most juries actually follow the laws that they should, as advised by the judge, and do not violate them in order to please the so-called "libertarians" with rulings that they like.

Frankly, you and Shanek are confusing what you WANT to be a "right" with what IS a right. The fact that you call everybody who disagrees "brainwashed into ignoring their rights" or "out to take away our rights" is nonsense, for the very simple reason that you didn't establish that what you want to be a right (e.g., jury nullification) IS a right in the first place. It isn't, so all the talk about "violating rights" is completely irrelevant.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Factually incorrect. We've been through this before. The power to tax incomes does not emanate from the 16th Amendment.

"...the 16th Amendment conferred no new taxing power." -- Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 1916.

You know, it's amazing how in one post you say how judges misinterpret the Constitution but the document still means what it says, and in the very next post you use a court ruling to defend your interpretation of the Constitution.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
If the best you can do is find a judge who 210 years ago who used the word "right", well, you see my point. Old does not equal correct, and in law the converse is true.

Oh, no you don't! You DON'T get to use that as an argument because what you're trying to do is defend the current status quo! You can't use the simple fact that it has changed as a defense for why it has changed.

So, are you now (finally) acknowledging that jury nullification was considered by our founders to be a fundamental right inclusive of the trial by jury system?

What Jay says here is dicta, as the point of the case was regarding debts from the Revolutionary war, and not the question of the role of a jury. This case is not controlling legal authority for that issue.

This is becoming a canard with you. It obviously must mean something different than what it says. Dicta, dicta, dicta! :rolleyes:

It DOESN'T MATTER what the case was about! It DOESN'T MATTER what the ruling was! Why don't you get that? ALL of these people, and ALL of these cases support the right of a jury to judge the law as well as the facts!

You are appealing to a false authority. In that case, on that issue, what Jay says is not controlling authority, as it is a passing comment when deciding a different issue. That he is a "Supreme Court Justice" is a red herring, that he is the "First Chief Justice" doubly so. In this case he is a judge instructing a jury. That he does it the way he does goes to prove nothing but that his methods were at that time acceptable and within his discretion.

Okay, so how was I using a false authority when I cited the Constitutions of several states, and how were you NOT using a false authority when you said the Supreme Courts didn't agree with them?

The recognition is that a jury disregarding the law violates the oath given them,

Show that any US jury before 1895 swore any oath NOT to determine the merits of the law.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
They're not "ignoring their own constitution". They just disagree with you about whether jury nullification is, or is not, one of the unmentioned "constitutional rights".

Unmentioned? UNMENTIONED????

What the FSCK do you think these are???

Georgia Constitution, Article I, Paragraph XI: Right to trial by jury; number of jurors; selection and compensation of jurors. (a) The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts.

Maryland Constitution, Article 23: In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.

Indiana Constitution, Article I, Section 19: In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

Oregon Constitution, Article I, Section 16: Excessive bail and fines; cruel and unusual punishments; power of jury in criminal case. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense.—In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases.

That looks pretty farking mentioned to me!

I'm getting sick of your usual crap...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
First, it is hypocritical: this method of "proof" is never used to try and argues against a law one LIKES; it is only valid, for some reason, when it's a law you don't like.

This is blatant dishonesty. We are trying to get it through some people's heads that jury nullification was considered a right by our founders and by the courts up to 1895. It is therefore very relevant to cite cases from that time to support that claim.

Further, the claim that we would have "judicial anarchy" with jury nullification is likewise specious since it didn't happen when nullification was openly practiced.

Your argument could be used to justify just about any tyranny the government decides to foist on us.

Law EVOLVES.

Not Constitutional law. If you want to change what the Constitutional law is, you have to amend the Constitution. Our founders made that plain.

The rest of your post is full of your usual pathetic strawman arguments and is therefore not worth responding to.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by shanek
[B]

The word "also" is improper in this sentence, as Federal Income Tax is (unfortunately) constitutional as per the 16th Amendment. As for the states, it would depend on the particular state's Constitution. [B/]

Factually incorrect. We've been through this before. The power to tax incomes does not emanate from the 16th Amendment.


"...the 16th Amendment conferred no new taxing power." -- Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 1916.

Funny. I thought you saidTo say that only the courts can interpret or declare what a Constitution says is to surrender Citizen Sovereignty in favor of government tyranny.

Or is it that courts have the final say only if they agree with you? Because the text of the 16th is rather clear in giving the power to "lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived."

Of course, you are plopping a sentence out of context and giving it an absurd meaning. Law is not a game of pulling a sentence out of context and declaring it to be a simple universal doctrine.

In 1895 the original income tax was tossed out by the Supreme court not because of a lack of power to tax, but because it was an "unapportioned direct tax." Pollack v. Farmer's Loan, 158 US 601. As a legal matter the 16th amendment basically declares an income tax to be an "indirect" tax, and all the Stanton court is saying is that the 16th amendment really doesn't give new powers as much as it declares an income tax to be "indirect", and thus within the powers already had.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Funny. I thought you said

You noticed that too, huh? I was wondering if it was just me.

In 1895 the original income tax was tossed out by the Supreme court not because of a lack of power to tax, but because it was an "unapportioned direct tax." Pollack v. Farmer's Loan, 158 US 601. As a legal matter the 16th amendment basically declares an income tax to be an "indirect" tax, and all the Stanton court is saying is that the 16th amendment really doesn't give new powers as much as it declares an income tax to be "indirect", and thus within the powers already had.

Having been down this road before, and made this exact argument, I'm just going to sit back and watch and see if you have any more success with it than I did...

Actually, there is one question I kept posing but never got an answer for: If the 16th Amendment wasn't necessary and didn't give the government any new powers, then why was it necessary to have a 16th Amendment to begin with?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Show me where in the Constitution the courts are given this power.

OK. Article III. "The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested....

I think we can agree most states have similar if not exact grants of power to courts. The contention would seem to be what "judical power" means. I'm satisfied that we have accepted that power to include the interpretation of the constitution and that Marbury v. Madison has settled the issue. I'll guess you disagree, so by request I bring you Federalist 78 "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."

Seems clear there was some intent to have the courts interpret the constitution.

Yes, laws can restrict and inhibit the free practice of rights. I said that. But if you were to ask any of those people if they slaves had a right to be free, they would all have said yes. That's why they were doing that. Those rights existed independently of any government.

Yes, they would have said the slaves have a moral right to be free. But, as a matter of reality by the laws in force at that time they were not free. This may seem a ticky-tacky distinction, but it becomes more important in grayer cases.

Socrates believed he had a moral right, if not a duty, to pester people about their beliefs. The law at that time disagreed, and Socrates accepted their punishment instead of claiming that moral authority trumped the legal reality. That's the kind of distinction I am making. I am not saying "everything legal is morally and historically correct and good," I'm just saying everything legal is legal, period." This may be a tautology, but that is my point.

[Skeptic]

Unmentioned? UNMENTIONED????

What the FSCK do you think these are???

About the US Constitution of 1787, which never mentions this alleged right. You are quoting several state constitutions.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Oh, no you don't! You DON'T get to use that as an argument because what you're trying to do is defend the current status quo! You can't use the simple fact that it has changed as a defense for why it has changed.

I'm not trying to defend the status quo. I'm saying that as of now it is well settled it is not a right.

So, are you now (finally) acknowledging that jury nullification was considered by our founders to be a fundamental right inclusive of the trial by jury system?
No, I'm saying it may have been acceptable to instruct the jury as to that, and as time went on the inherent absurdity made states and their courts be more precise in their language. That doesn't mean a right was taken away, it just means a practice was abandoned. Unless there is a case specifically dealing with the question of how to instruct a jury there is no law one way or another, just judges doing what they think is right. Sometimes it turns out they've been doing it wrong for a long time, and absent a specific finding that right exists, it is not established. When a court was finally asked the question, the courts have consistantly held no right exists and juries can be instructed that they must follow the law.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure a case says that a court MUST instruct a jury that they must follow the law. I'd not realized that untill now. Of course, that goes with what I am saying, that is a matter of a judge's discretion, not a right. Courts just say that it is not error for juries to be instructed that way, that if they find all elements beyond a reasonable doubt they must convict.


This is becoming a canard with you. It obviously must mean something different than what it says. Dicta, dicta, dicta! :rolleyes:

It DOESN'T MATTER what the case was about! It DOESN'T MATTER what the ruling was! Why don't you get that? ALL of these people, and ALL of these cases support the right of a jury to judge the law as well as the facts!

He cited one case that supports that such an instruction is acceptable. That is far from it being mandantory. Dicta is an important legal concept that contains the court's judicial power. A court has no right (in general) to speak except to decide a case or controversy. When the court makes statements to matters not in controversy they exceed their jurisdiction and the comments carry no force as legal precident.

Okay, so how was I using a false authority when I cited the Constitutions of several states, and how were you NOT using a false authority when you said the Supreme Courts didn't agree with them?

I never said that. I was just saying it appears that you and the Georgia Supreme Court seem to disagree on what rights their constitution provides. Since they have their states judical power, I'm going to take their word for it over yours. I never said you cited "false authority."

In response to the other guy's smug relience on a 210 year old jury charge I said that Jay was not speaking with the force of law when he commented on the jury's "right." He seemed to imply that Jay had special authority as he was "The First Chief Justice of The Supreme Court." I'm just saying his title was irrelevant as that comment did not directly address the issue at controversy, so it is not legal precident. It is evidence that discretion existed, and in fact may exist now. It's now settled that to tell a jury they must follow the law is not error.



Show that any US jury before 1895 swore any oath NOT to determine the merits of the law.

As I explain above, that would prove nothing. The real question is has a court ever found such an oath or instruction telling a jury they must convict if all elements are found beyond a reasonable doubt to be constitutional error. Just because something is a practice doesn't make it a right.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Actually, there is one question I kept posing but never got an answer for: If the 16th Amendment wasn't necessary and didn't give the government any new powers, then why was it necessary to have a 16th Amendment to begin with?

According to the Court's rather prolix and obscure opinions, the 16th amendment declared income tax to be "indirect" rather than "direct." (what that means in substance I have no clue) Earlier, pre 16A opinions found a power for the feds to levy "indirect" taxes. Thus the finding that 16A granted no "new" taxes.

Reminds you of old George Bush #1, eh? No new taxes, just and increase of what is already there.

At least thats the theory.

[Skeptic]

This is blatant dishonesty. We are trying to get it through some people's heads that jury nullification was considered a right by our founders and by the courts up to 1895. It is therefore very relevant to cite cases from that time to support that claim.

The hypocritical part is that you never seem to want to "go through the head" of people in 1789 or 1843 to think what they thought about slave-owning or wife-beating.

The hypocracy is that you look at the past and ignore everything from the last 100 years ONLY when you are trying to "prove" that that something you LIKE is the case. ONLY when it is something you approve of--such as jury nullification--do the last 100 years of the law suddenly become irrelevant. ONLY when it suits you--such as in the case of jury nullification--does the opinion of a court from 200 years ago suddenly more important than the last 100 years of case law.

But when it comes to something you DON'T like--such as slave-holding and wife-beating--then, all of a sudden, all bets are off. All of a sudden, all the cases from the deep past where these two were declared as "rights" (and there are many such cases, of course) are irrelevant, and the modern 100 years of laws and rulings supersede them. Hypocritically, you never claim that slave-ownership or wife-beating should be declared as "rights" today just because 200 years ago somebody thought so.

Why? Because this exposes the absurdity of your position: the weird claim that if anything was, ever, considered a right by anybody, then it IS one for ever and ever, Amen--and all ruling to the contrary, all evolving standards, all later cases, are all "irrelevant" since they "stole" that right. This "argument" sounds really reasonable when the "right" in question is something that seems "good" on the surface (jury nullification), but its absurdity is intantly obvious when used, in the exact same way, to support "rights" we now consider abhorrent (slave ownership, wife beating).

Essentially, you started out from the conclusion--you just KNOW jury nullification IS TOO a right--and then looked at everything any anything that could support it in any way, even if out of context and 200 years old. This looks impressive, but it's merely "cherry picking" (looking at everything that supports your view and ignoring, or dismissing, all negative evidence). You then hypocritically use your "cherry picking" method to support only causes you are sympathetic for, because you know the absurdity of your method would be quickly recognized if applied to disgusting causes.

If you were honest, you would admit that, by your method, owning slaves is a right as well--the Constitution says so--and, therefore, should still be one today. This would force you to either accept that both jury nullification AND slave ownership are rights today (which I hardly believe you would), or to realize that your "cherry picking" method of "supporting" the idea of jury nullification is flawed.

[Skeptic]

By the way, Shanek, all you questions about the "suspected" constitutionality of the federal income tax are answered in great detail here:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Suddenly


>>If the best you can do is find a judge who 210 years ago who used the word "right", well, you see my point. Old does not equal correct, and in law the converse is true.

In matters of the Common Law, custom and usage means old and new. In matters of morality, time and place is not a factor. The basis for the notion that juries have the right to nullify bad law go much further back than 200 years, but to the Trial of Peter Zenger, The Trial of William Penn, the creation of the Magna Carta, and the Biblical account of the Trial of Mary Magdelene with Jesus as Judge and Jury nullifying the law and the punishment. And it courses up to the present day. Custom and usage, counselor -- that principle is timeless as is the concept of Justice and Moralilty -- human principles they've apparently drummed right out of American law schools.

>>The system evolves, new concepts become clear. What Jay says here is dicta, as the point of the case was regarding debts from the Revolutionary war, and not the question of the role of a jury. This case is not controlling legal authority for that issue.

What Jay says here is not dicta, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with any ruliing of the case at hand, but everything to do with his charge to the jury, which he surely knew, as the very first in US history, would bear landmark status as to what trial by jury means for all time, namely, the trial of both fact and law.

>> To say that power equals right is absurd. The recognition is that a jury disregarding the law violates the oath given them, but there is no way for a court to enforce that oath, thus we say the jury has the "power' to nullify and disregard law.

That oath, is, of course, a violation of the rights of both defendant and jury, and thus is not binding on anyone.

>>I have the "power" or "ability" to drive 90 M.P.H on the highway. That doesn't mean I have the right. There exists an enforcement apparatus for speeding, but not for a jury disregarding law. [/B]

More doubletalk. You have neither the power nor the right to break a law, only the ability. Juries have the lawful power and the right to uphold the law -- the common law right of nullifcation.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Skeptic
It's not my fault they're ignoring their own Constitution.

They're not "ignoring their own constitution". They just disagree with you about whether jury nullification is, or is not, one of the unmentioned "constitutional rights". Since, under the American system, interpreting the laws (up to and including the Constitution) is up to the courts, if the courts rule--consistently--that there is no right for jury nullificiation, then there isn't one.


And if the courts rule there is no right of freedom for a fugitive slave, then there is none as well. Zieg Heil!

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skeptic


>>The whining that the juries are "brainwashed into leaving their rights at the courtroom door" is, in reality, a complaint that most juries actually follow the laws that they should, as advised by the judge, and do not violate them in order to please the so-called "libertarians" with rulings that they like


You apparently haven't been around too many courts, or too many extreme cases, nor experienced too many jurors who have wrung their hands and cried their eyes out at unjust verdicts they felt compelled to deliver up due to a judge's jury instructions on the law especially when they found out they really did have a choice, but through ignorance, failed to exercise it.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by shanek


You know, it's amazing how in one post you say how judges misinterpret the Constitution but the document still means what it says, and in the very next post you use a court ruling to defend your interpretation of the Constitution.


There is no inconsistency between the rulings of the SC in the landmark tax cases and the constitution itself. They are very consistent.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Suddenly


>>Funny. I thought you said

>>Or is it that courts have the final say only if they agree with you? Because the text of the 16th is rather clear in giving the power to "lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived."

The key words here, counselor, are the words "source" and "derived" not the word "power. The congress always had the power.


>>f course, you are plopping a sentence out of context and giving it an absurd meaning. Law is not a game of pulling a sentence out of context and declaring it to be a simple universal doctrine.

There is nothing absurd in the landmark tax cases (Brushaber and Stanton). They are crystal clear and comport exactly with the written constitution and with my own summary of their ruling.


>>In 1895 the original income tax was tossed out by the Supreme court not because of a lack of power to tax, but because it was an "unapportioned direct tax."

That tax was not the first income tax ever laid. Nor were income taxes, in a generic sense, ruled unconstitutional but only that particular one, because of the nature of the source from which it was derived.

>>Pollack v. Farmer's Loan, 158 US 601. As a legal matter the 16th amendment basically declares an income tax to be an "indirect" tax...,

BINGO! Counselor, you win the prize! There is still hope for you!


>>and all the Stanton court is saying is that the 16th amendment really doesn't give new powers as much as it declares an income tax to be "indirect", and thus within the powers already had.

Exactly so. Now then, if the income tax must be enforced as an indirect tax, then exactly what is the subject or the object of the tax if not the income itself???????????? I think I'll wait till hell freezes over before getting an answer to that one!

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by shanek
[B]


>>Actually, there is one question I kept posing but never got an answer for: If the 16th Amendment wasn't necessary and didn't give the government any new powers, then why was it necessary to have a 16th Amendment to begin with?


To clarify what kind of tax it was, whether Direct or Indirect. Since it is an Indirect tax, then even if the source of income derivied tends to fall on people or their property, the power is still vested. But it must be laid and collected as an INDIRECT TAX!

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Suddenly


>>According to the Court's rather prolix and obscure opinions, the 16th amendment declared income tax to be "indirect" rather than "direct." (what that means in substance I have no clue)

Just as I suspected.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Skeptic
By the way, Shanek, all you questions about the "suspected" constitutionality of the federal income tax are answered in great detail here:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html


By the way, Skeptic, nothing at that site answers anything. In fact, many of the cases cited prove the opposite of what that web site purports is true. Sending someone off on a computer link bunny trail to someone's cyberspace garbage dump does not serve the cause of rational, point and counterpoint discussion, but merely severs to duck the questions.

[Suddenly]

OK, Rouser2, lets look at your nonsense. I would like to note to shanek that I'm sympathetic to him that he has someone who agrees with him but states his case so poorly. It is frustrating to be sure.

In matters of the Common Law, custom and usage means old and new. In matters of morality, time and place is not a factor. The basis for the notion that juries have the right to nullify bad law go much further back than 200 years, but to the Trial of Peter Zenger, The Trial of William Penn, the creation of the Magna Carta, and the Biblical account of the Trial of Mary Magdelene with Jesus as Judge and Jury nullifying the law and the punishment. And it courses up to the present day. Custom and usage, counselor -- that principle is timeless as is the concept of Justice and Moralilty -- human principles they've apparently drummed right out of American law schools.

Jesus? I at least give shanek some credit when he drags out the framers, but Jesus has nothing to do with this. His words or doings have no legal authority. Notions and traditions are fine. Yippee. When we talk about enforceable rights I'm not talking about "3 bong hits and read Locke and Rousseau" rights, I'm talking about what here and now are accepted by courts as a right. Custom and usage, yep. Currently the custom and usage is that it is not error for a court to instruct a jury they must follow the law. Human Sacrifice has a strong "custom and usage" on this continent. Do you want to bring that back?

I'll put it as a vauge platitude you may understand. "The past is not a suicide pact, nor is it a master of the present. To worship the past as the arbiter of what should be is a fool's errand, as to look back too often while going forward makes you look silly"

OK, I ran low on "poetic" near the end, but you ignore logic and evidence, so I figured I try B.S.

What Jay says here is not dicta, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with any ruliing of the case at hand, but everything to do with his charge to the jury, which he surely knew, as the very first in US history, would bear landmark status as to what trial by jury means for all time, namely, the trial of both fact and law.

Why do you advocate giving the Supreme Court power to by an offhand comment declare law? What you say is absurd. Jay would know what he said wasn't a statement of "what trial by jury means for all time" because Jay understood the concept of dicta, as well as the fact that future courts could decide differently and overrule him. The question of the role of the jury was not in controversy, so Jay lacked jurisdiction to make a statement of law on that issue, and Jay I hope was aware of that.

That oath, is, of course, a violation of the rights of both defendant and jury, and thus is not binding on anyone.

Circular reasoning. The oath is a violation only if there is a right, and you cannot prove a right.

More doubletalk. You have neither the power nor the right to break a law, only the ability. Juries have the lawful power and the right to uphold the law -- the common law right of nullifcation.

You call it doubletalk because you have failed to either follow the thread or educate yourself as to the issue, and you fail to follow the jargon. I define "power to" and "ability to" as the same. These words suggest something someone can do if they feel like it. Right refers to "constitutional rights," those rights that government has no right to abridge or at least a limited power to abridge. You flip "power" to mean "right." Whatever.

Plus, who cares about common law? There are tons of "common law" rights that have been rightfully discarded or ignored when the constitution was drafted, as well as in the years since then. The common law right to beat your wife and kids, for example.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skeptic


>>The whining that the juries are "brainwashed into leaving their rights at the courtroom door" is, in reality, a complaint that most juries actually follow the laws that they should, as advised by the judge, and do not violate them in order to please the so-called "libertarians" with rulings that they like


You apparently haven't been around too many courts, or too many extreme cases, nor experienced too many jurors who have wrung their hands and cried their eyes out at unjust verdicts they felt compelled to deliver up due to a judge's jury instructions on the law especially when they found out they really did have a choice, but through ignorance, failed to exercise it.

I have. Many times. Not im my cases though. A skilled attorney should be able to plant the seed of jury nullification in the jury's mind with little trouble, hidden in a discussion of "the importance of the jury blah blah only you can convict a man, no matter how obvious the evidence blah blah presumption of innocence blah blah acquital is unquestionable blah blah.

This doesn't mean I think as a matter of law a jury should be assisted in usurping the will of the duly elected legislature.

This kind of appeal to emotion is vapid and pointless.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Unmentioned? UNMENTIONED????

What the FSCK do you think these are???

About the US Constitution of 1787, which never mentions this alleged right. You are quoting several state constitutions.

And that's what I was referring to in the post you replied to!

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Rouser2


Exactly so. Now then, if the income tax must be enforced as an indirect tax, then exactly what is the subject or the object of the tax if not the income itself???????????? I think I'll wait till hell freezes over before getting an answer to that one!

Yes, because the question is nonsense and made up nitpicking.

The feds have the power to levy indirect taxes (from earlier decision)

The 16A declares income taxes to be indirect

Therefore, The feds have power to levy income taxes.

end of story, YGHN.

You can obscure this with bizare made up distinctions all you want. This doesn't change what the courts really said. It is just unfortunate that their unclear writing made it easy for people to start cherry picking passages and making up meanings for words in an attempt to confuse and reach absurd conclusions.

Again though. You said:To say that only the courts can interpret or declare what a Constitution says is to surrender Citizen Sovereignty in favor of government tyranny.

Yet you put such faith in a passage from a court case.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
No, I'm saying it may have been acceptable to instruct the jury as to that, and as time went on the inherent absurdity made states and their courts be more precise in their language.

What inherent absurdity? What experience let them to that conclusion? The only effect that really led up to it was the fact that the big powerful corporations weren't having much luck getting juries to convict workers who tried to form unions. What's the "inherent absurdity"?

Unless there is a case specifically dealing with the question of how to instruct a jury there is no law one way or another,

Oh, bull$#!7. A law doesn't not exist just because a court hasn't ruled on it. The founders most definitely had jury nullification in mind when they wrote the Constitution, as they did all of Common Law, and nothing has ever been passed or found taking that RIGHT away. The only thing they have done is to stop the system from informing the juries of that right.

I never said that. I was just saying it appears that you and the Georgia Supreme Court seem to disagree on what rights their constitution provides.

No, the Georgia Supreme Court and the Georgia Constitution disagree on what rights their Constitution provides.

Since they have their states judical power, I'm going to take their word for it over yours.

I've given you no word on anything—I gave you the EXACT WORDS of the Georgia Constitution stating EXPLICITLY that juries shall judge the law as well as the facts!

As I explain above, that would prove nothing.

No? You're claiming that juries at that time who practiced nullification violated their oath. I'm wanting you to back up that assertion by pointing out exactly which oath prohibits them from judging the law.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Suddenly


>>According to the Court's rather prolix and obscure opinions, the 16th amendment declared income tax to be "indirect" rather than "direct." (what that means in substance I have no clue)

Just as I suspected.

I looked it up though. "Direct" means a tax directly on property.

Thus, the 16A just makes an income tax "not a direct tax on property.

It was on the website Skeptic mentions. It has things called "citations" and other things to back up its claims. Not just random sentences pulled at random from various court cases.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The hypocritical part is that you never seem to want to "go through the head" of people in 1789 or 1843 to think what they thought about slave-owning or wife-beating.

When have I ever shied away from these subjects? This is just more of your lies. Many times in these threads you've accused me of ignoring subjects I've dealt with at length. CUT IT OUT! :mad:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
By the way, Shanek, all you questions about the "suspected" constitutionality of the federal income tax are answered in great detail here:

When did I ever say the Constitutionality of the Income Tax was suspect? In fact, several posts ago I said exactly this:

The word "also" is improper in this sentence, as Federal Income Tax is (unfortunately) constitutional as per the 16th Amendment.

Stop lying!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by shanek
[B]To clarify what kind of tax it was, whether Direct or Indirect.

Why do you need an amendment to clarify this? It's either a direct tax or it isn't. And the 16th Amendment doesn't say anything about the definition of Direct Tax or whether or not Income Tax is a direct tax. It just says that government can collect Income Tax. So if the aim was clarification, then why didn't they do anything at all towards actually clarifying it?

Besides, every definition of Direct Tax I've read is a tax paid directly by the person on whom it is levied. So how is Income Tax not a direct tax?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
This doesn't mean I think as a matter of law a jury should be assisted in usurping the will of the duly elected legislature.

Except that the law is not supposed to be a matter of will of the legislature, but of will of the people. That's why we have trial by jury in the first place. The government has to take its case to the people. The government is subservient to the people in this, and if the people (in the form of a jury) want to nullify the law, then there's not a thing government can do about it. The bad part is that they're actually misinforming juries, telling them that they're subservient to the system and have to rule a certain way when they don't.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
The 16A declares income taxes to be indirect

Where?

Article. XVI

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.

I don't see it anywhere.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I looked it up though. "Direct" means a tax directly on property.

I did a Google search on "direct tax" definition and here's what I came up with:

http://money.msn.com/taxes/glossary/glossary.asp?TermID=99

Direct Tax
A tax that you pay directly, as opposed to indirect taxes, such as tariffs and business taxes. Direct taxes include income and property taxes.

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/direct+tax

Definition: [n] a tax paid directly by the person or organization on whom it is levied

http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getword.cgi?4879

If tax is levied directly on personal or corporate income, then it is a direct tax. If tax is levied on the price of a good or service, then it is called an indirect tax.

http://members.cox.net/frdmftr/direct.htm

In Pollock v. Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 15 Sup. Ct. 673, 39 L. Ed. 759, it was said that in order to determine whether a tax be direct within the meaning of the constitution it must be ascertained whether the one upon whom, by law, the burden of paying it is first cast, can thereafter shift it to another person. If he cannot, the tax would then be direct, and hence, however obvious in other respects it might be a duty, impost or excise, it cannot be levied by the rule of uniformity and must be apportioned.

Direct taxes include those assessed upon property, person, business, income, etc., of those who pay them; while indirect taxes are levied upon commodities before they reach the consumer, and are paid by those upon whom they ultimately fall, not as taxes, but as part of the market price of the commodity.

http://dict.die.net/direct%20tax/

n : a tax paid directly by the person or organization on whom it is levied

http://define.ansme.com/words/d/direct_tax.html

direct tax (noun) - 1. a tax paid directly by the person or organization on whom it is levied

http://www.realdictionary.com/D/dir/directtax.asp

1) n :a tax paid directly by the person or organization on whom it is levied

That's all from the first page of results. Words have meanings, except where government is concerned. Wasn't that the essence of newspeak?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


What inherent absurdity? What experience let them to that conclusion? The only effect that really led up to it was the fact that the big powerful corporations weren't having much luck getting juries to convict workers who tried to form unions. What's the "inherent absurdity"?

I was speculating, pointing out other outcomes that can be arrived at from the evidence presented. I thought that was clear from the context. Maybe what led up to it was failure of southern whites to convict lynchers. Maybe not. Perhaps what you say is correct. So what? Saying you like nullification or that it has good (to you) uses is seperate from proving it as a right.

By inherent absurdity I was meaning along the lines that if juries can decide law, why even have judges and legislators?



Oh, bull$#!7. A law doesn't not exist just because a court hasn't ruled on it. The founders most definitely had jury nullification in mind when they wrote the Constitution, as they did all of Common Law, and nothing has ever been passed or found taking that RIGHT away. The only thing they have done is to stop the system from informing the juries of that right.

You assume this. All you have shown is that it was perhaps a common practice in the past. This is not showing it as a right.

No, the Georgia Supreme Court and the Georgia Constitution disagree on what rights their Constitution provides.

According to you. Not according to them.

I've given you no word on anything—I gave you the EXACT WORDS of the Georgia Constitution stating EXPLICITLY that juries shall judge the law as well as the facts!

Emerson- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." You seem stuck on denying the possiblility that what appears to you as obvious may be less so in the minds of others who are more experienced in the field. You say that is what it says. They say differently. Unless you can find out why and argue with that then you are engaging in uneducated speculation. Go look up some Georgia cases and see if they explain it. Maybe they do. Perhaps if you had on open mind you might agree.

No? You're claiming that juries at that time who practiced nullification violated their oath. I'm wanting you to back up that assertion by pointing out exactly which oath prohibits them from judging the law.

I may have been unclear. I was, and am, talking about the here and now, that if such an oath is given, etc.. It may have not been clear that my assumption was the oath was to decide the facts faithfully according to law, but I was speaking of a modern jury.
If I said otherwise I either mispoke or have no real basis for what I said, or both.

Plus, as I have said in a recent post, I'm not sure there is law prohibiting a judge from instructing a jury as you speak. I think it violates the seperation of powers as it usurps the power of the legislature, but that is my opinion, not legal fact. I haven't researched that issue. It is a collateral issue however, as such facts do nothing to establish a constitutional right to have a jury be instructed that they have a "right" to ignore the law.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Where?



I don't see it anywhere.

Neither do I. But that is what the Court says. It made sense to me after I read a few cases.

I agree it is an obscure and bizzare logic by the courts, but in the end the result is the same for you and me. You from the plain text, for me by the courts.

The trouble is those that try to jumble the courts and text to reach a tortured result.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


I did a Google search on "direct tax" definition and here's what I came up with:

http://money.msn.com/taxes/glossary/glossary.asp?TermID=99



http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/direct+tax



http://www.investorwords.com/cgi-bin/getword.cgi?4879



http://members.cox.net/frdmftr/direct.htm





http://dict.die.net/direct%20tax/



http://define.ansme.com/words/d/direct_tax.html



http://www.realdictionary.com/D/dir/directtax.asp



That's all from the first page of results. Words have meanings, except where government is concerned. Wasn't that the essence of newspeak?

Or you could look at it that when the question "Is the federal income tax a direct tax" is raised, the Constitution as interpreted by the supreme court says no, and that answer trumps Webster.

I can't defend the mess. Why the need to go a full 360 and torture the heck out of the 16th just to arrive at a definition equal to its plain text I don't get either.

I have a feeling somebody got rich off the details though.

[Skeptic]

Exactly so. Now then, if the income tax must be enforced as an indirect tax, then exactly what is the subject or the object of the tax if not the income itself????????????

Your argument seems to be that the income tax must be considered a "direct tax" because it is collected "directly" from the taxpayer (or from the taxpayer's income) instead of "indirectly' from (say) the goods he made or the services he gave to earn this income.

This is incorrect, and based on a misunderstanding of what "direct" and "indirect" means in the constitution. To quote the tax protestor FAQ (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#direct) again, my emphasis in bold:

Although the meaning of "direct tax" has often been questioned, it was always understood that taxes imposed by Congress could apply to, and be collected from, individual citizens.

In Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), the Supreme Court was unanimous in its opinion that Congress could impose a tax on a citizen of Virginia for carriages held for personal use. Of the four justices who heard the case, three were members of the Constitutional Convention that drafted the Constitution, and presumably knew what it meant. (So much for the "they distorted the meaning of the Constitution" tax protestor BS--Skeptic)

Since the Hylton decision, no judge in the United States has ever suggested that the federal government cannot impose a tax on individual citizens.

(Snipping cases proving this--Skeptic)

The mistake made by tax protesters is in assuming that the phrase "Capitation, or other direct, Tax" in the Constitution is a reference to any tax that is collected directly from the person on whom it is imposed, while "indirect" taxes such as "Duties, Imposts and Excises" are collected on goods during manufacture, or in transit, and the ultimate burden is passed along to someone else (usually the consumer). However, this is not the meaning of "direct" and "indirect" that has been applied by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Constitution divides all taxes into two groups. One is any "Capitation, or other direct, Tax" (usually referred to as "direct taxes") and the other is "Duties, Imposts and Excises" (usually referred to as "indirect taxes"). The difference between the two is that "direct taxes" must be apportioned among the states based on the census of the population, while "indirect taxes" need only be uniform throughout the U.S.

(Snipping cases agreeing with this--Skeptic)

So, a "direct" tax is a tax on the ownership of property, while an "indirect" tax is a tax on a transaction or transfer of money or property.

And these interpretations are consistent with the meaning of "direct taxes" in the Federalist Papers, which show that "direct taxes" were taxes on wealth (i.e., the value of property), while "indirect taxes" were taxes on commerce.

(snipping quotes from the Federalist Papers and more court decisions--Skeptic)

Unfortunately, the majority opinion in one of the Pollock decisions introduced some confusion about the meaning of "direct tax" and "indirect tax" through the following statement:

"The first question to be considered is whether a tax on the rents or income of real estate is a direct tax within the meaning of the constitution. Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes. Nevertheless, it may be admitted that, although this definition of direct taxes is prima facie correct, and to be applied in the consideration of the question before us, yet the constitution may bear a different meaning, and that such different meaning must be recognized." Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558 (1895).

There are several problems with the meaning of "indirect taxes" as "all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else" and "direct taxes" as taxes "the payment of which cannot be avoided":

There is no support for those meanings in the words of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or any writings of the authors of the Constitution. As noted above, both the Federalist Papers and the opinions of the justices in the Hylton decision (who were members of the Constitutional Convention) support the conclusion that a "direct tax" means a tax on the value of property.

There is no support for those definitions in any previous (or later) decision of the Supreme Court.

In the Pollock case, the Supreme Court admitted, in the very next sentence, that "the constitution may bear a different meaning." As explained previously, the Supreme Court has consistently held that a tax on incomes is not a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution. The Pollock court itself held that a tax on incomes from "professions, trades, employments, or vocations," is not a "direct tax" without ever discussing whether the tax was one "the payment of which cannot be avoided." (158 U.S. at 637.) The above definition of "direct tax" is therefore inconsistent with the decisions of the justices who wrote the the definition.

(In other words, the Pollock decision is the only decision, ever, to consider income a "direct" tax--Skeptic.)

The meaning of "direct tax" urged by many tax protesters (and a few mistaken legal commentators) as a "tax imposed directly on someone who cannot shift the burden to someone else" would trivialize the Constitution, because it reduces the constitutional definition of "direct tax" to a mere question of how the tax is collected. So, if the U.S. were to impose a tax on employees for the wages they receive, that would be a "direct tax" according to the tax protester definition, but if the U.S. were to impose a tax on employers for wages paid (or tax on banks for the payment of interest, or on corporations for the payment of dividends), that would be an "indirect tax" and constitutional, even though the net effect would be exactly the same (i.e., the employees or depositors or shareholders would bear the burden of the tax).

The meaning of "direct tax" that has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court is much more sensible (as well as consistent with the known intent of the framers of the Constitution), because it focuses on what is being taxed (the value of property, but not transfers of property) rather than on how the tax is collected.

(Skeptic: OK, so the Pollock decision sucked. Does this give the tax protestors a legal loophole? No, first because this was the ONLY case that ever decided so an all other cases disagreed, including cases that were later than Pollock; and second, because...)

In any event, the argument is all academic, because the 16th Amendment plainly states that Congress can impose taxes on incomes without apportionment, so it is constitutional to require individuals to pay a tax directly on their incomes, regardless of what the Constitution previously said.

And the federal courts have consistently refuted the argument that an income tax is a "direct tax" because it is collected directly from taxpayers:

" position can fairly be reduced to one elemental proposition: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens and thus such citizens are not subject to the federal income tax laws. ... We hardly need comment on the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition. For over 75 years, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized the Sixteenth Amendment's authorization of a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens residing in the United States and thus the validity of the federal income tax laws as applied to such citizens." In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir., 1989).

"[W]e have rejected, on numerous occasions, the tax-protester argument that the federal income tax is an unconstitutional direct tax that must be apportioned. See, e.g., Lively v. Commissioner, 705 F.2d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam)" United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993).

"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: .. .. (3) the income tax is a direct tax which is invalid absent apportionment, and Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S.Ct. 673, 39 L.Ed. 759, modified, 158 U.S. 601, 15 S.Ct. 912, 39 L.Ed. 1108 (1895), is authority for that and other arguments against the government's power to impose income taxes on individuals.. .." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

A final note:

That some courts refer to the income tax as a "non-apportioned direct tax" is unfortunate, because it suggests that the income tax is a "Capitation, or other direct, Tax" that does not need to be apportioned, a suggestion that was explicitly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brushaber. [B]As explained above, a "direct tax" must be apportioned, while an "indirect tax" must be uniform. The question was raised in Brushaber as to whether the 16th Amendment created a type of tax that need be neither apportioned nor uniform, and the court rejected that possibility, stating (in a rather convoluted sentence):

"[T]hat the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class." Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

The court then went on to hold that the income tax satisfied the requirement of geographical uniformity imposed by the Constitution, even though the rate of tax was not uniform on all incomes.

Did the court in Becraft, quoted above, mean to say that the income tax is a "non-apportioned direct tax" that need not be uniform? No, because the question of uniformity was not raised with the court. This is merely confusion in terminology, the court using the word "direct" to describe a tax that is imposed and collected by the government directly from the taxpayer.

Simply put: income tax, whether before or after the 16th amendment, was always an "indirect" tax as meant by the constitution, as is constitutional as long as it is geographically uniform, which it is. And taxing income is has always been an "indirect" tax in the manner meant by the constitution. The fact that it was collected directly from taxpayers doesn't make it a "direct" tax.

The 16th amendment was meant to clear up the confusion about this created by the unfortunate Pollock decision, the one decision, ever, which made it seem that the income tax was a "direct" as opposed to "indirect" tax, which would require a census, etc. before collecting it.

The 16th amendment created no new powers of taxation (Congress already had the right to create both direct and indirect taxes of this nature), but merely cleared up a confusion; in essence, it is a decleration that, in case it was not an indirect tax before, from now on income tax is an indirect tax.

It doesn't matter ifincome tax was "unconstitutional" before--first because it wasn't, as all these cases make clear, it being simply one of many indirect taxes; and second, even if it was, the 16th Amendment AMENDED the constitution, therefore CHANGING what is and is not constitutional, declaring once and for all that tax on income is a constitutional, indirect, tax (hence the "without appropriation" part of that amendment).

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Or you could look at it that when the question "Is the federal income tax a direct tax" is raised, the Constitution as interpreted by the supreme court says no, and that answer trumps Webster.

But then we're back to newspeak again. How can you have a coherent rule of law when the government can rewrite the dictionary whenever it suits them?

[Skeptic]

But then we're back to newspeak again. How can you have a coherent rule of law when the government can rewrite the dictionary whenever it suits them?

Er, Shanek, if you would check the tax protestor FAQ I quote from above, you'd see that the "eeeeevil gubirmint" had been using the SAME definition of "direct" and "indirect" taxes in EXACTLY the same sense for the last two hundred years, and even more. "Direct tax" NEVER meant "tax collected directly from individuals"; it ALWAYS meant (roughly) "tax collected from commerce".

If there is anybody using "newspeak" here, it is the tax protestors, who claim not to understand that "direct tax" doesn't mean what they really, really, want it to mean, and instead insist their new, invented defition of "direct tax" (which, just by PURE COINCIDENCE, "means" that they don't have to pay income tax) is correct.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Er, Shanek, if you would check the tax protestor FAQ I quote from above, you'd see that the "eeeeevil gubirmint" had been using the SAME definition of "direct" and "indirect" taxes in EXACTLY the same sense for the last two hundred years, and even more. "Direct tax" NEVER meant "tax collected directly from individuals"; it ALWAYS meant (roughly) "tax collected from commerce".

Well, the way our Founders intended it, and the way they meant it when they drafted the Constitution, is a tax that cannot be passed on to someone else. An excise is not a direct tax because the cost of it can be passed on to consumers. This was an important concept for the founders, since direct taxes had natural limitations. If the taxes were too high, then fewer people would buy the product since it's too expensive.

Within the constitutional debates, the term, 'direct tax' seems to have had a very broad meaning, usually including all taxes except for customs duties. Customs duties were called the 'impost' in the Constitution debates. The impost was assigned exclusively to the federal government, but 'direct taxes' were taxes like the state taxes in which the federal and the existing state government had overlapping jurisdiction.

Within the debate the important distinction was between 'external' taxes, meaning the 'impost' or duties on imports, and 'internal' taxes, meaning direct taxes. The Anti-Federalists generally conceded the impost to the federal government. In 1781 and 1783, under the Articles of Confederation, Congress had passed a 5 percent federal impost. Eleven of the 13 states had approved the impost in each case, but the Articles of Confederation required unanimity, so that even a tax perceived overwhelmingly as necessary could not be passed. Under some estimates, the 5 percent impost would have been sufficient to pay the federal government's peacetime expenses. The defeat of the imposts, by a small minority of states, generated the financial crises that motivated the Constitution.

The distinction between internal and external taxes also carried over into the constitutional debates from Revolutionary War rhetoric. Benjamin Franklin and others had argued in the 1760s that the Crown might be allowed the power to lay external taxes or customs duties, even without representation for the Colonies, but not internal taxes (such as a stamp tax). In the constitutional debate, 'impost' was considered a legitimate federal tax because it could be collected without interfering with the internal police of the states.

While largely conceding the impost to the federal government, the Anti-Federalists argued vigorously against Congress having 'direct' or 'internal' taxes. Congress might use a power to lay direct taxes to inconceivable excess, they argued, 'swallowing up every object of taxation and consequently plundering the several states of every means of support .' 'The power of DIRECT TAXATION,' they said, 'will further apply to every individual as congress may tax land, cattle, trades, occupations &c to any amount, and every object of INTERNAL TAX is of that nature, that however oppressive, the people will have but this alternative, either to pay the tax, or let their property be taken, for all resistance will be in vain.' Direct taxes take hold of every species of property,' the Anti-Federalists argued, 'and come home to every man's house and packet. . . . Direct taxes are so oppressive as to grind the face of the poor, and render the lives of the common people a burden to them.' To enforce direct taxes, they argued, the Congress would send the militia of some other state 'to cut your throats, destroy your plantations, drive away cattle and horses, abuse your wives, kill your infants, ravish your daughters and live in free quarters until you get in good humour and pay all that they think proper to ask of you.' To render the Congress 'safe and proper,' Anti-Federalist James Monroe argued, 'I would take from it one power only -- I mean that of direct taxation.'

Within the debate, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists used 'internal tax' as a synonym for 'direct tax' and used 'indirect tax' as synonymous with the 'impost.'

Equating 'direct taxes' with state taxes means that the scope of 'direct taxes' is very wide. The states, as shown by Treasury's inventory of 'direct taxes,' taxed a wide scope of items. The core of the tax system in every state were taxes on land and improved real estate, but the states taxed income and trades and uses of goods and personal items.

All above quotes from Johnson, Calvin H. (Professor of Law at the University of Texas), The Constitutional Meaning of 'Apportionment of Direct Taxes', 80 Tax Notes 591, Doc 98-24225.

http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson/80tn591.htm

[Edited to add link]

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


But then we're back to newspeak again. How can you have a coherent rule of law when the government can rewrite the dictionary whenever it suits them?

It's not like people make this stuff up out of thin air. There are terms of art, there are mislabeled terms. Once a decent mastery of the field is achieved, it isn't a big deal. I don't have a problem with it. Statutes usually define words to try to eliminate ambiguity, because the "plain meaning" can be different to different people. Language is fluid. Like you said back in our interstate commerce discussions, that "commerce" then doesn't mean what it does now. "Plain meaning" often isn't a matter of looking to the dictionary, as who the heck writes that? Why conclude the dictionary is assumed correct anyway? Does Websters have power over the Courts? What if I bribed all dictionary publishers to define "prison" as "Aruba?" Would my clients be getting a free trip to the islands?

The government can't just rewrite the dictionary. There is no room full of people that decide that this week up means down. What happens is that a word gets turned into a term of art with a meaning other than that found in the dictionary. Then the process of law can distort further. This isn't newspeak, this kind of stuff has been going on in law for centuries. It's just a hazzard of the defects of language.

(edited to fix some typos)

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Suddenly


>>The question of the role of the jury was not in controversy, so Jay lacked jurisdiction to make a statement of law on that issue, and Jay I hope was aware of that.

Jay had jurisdiction to make a statement as to jury rights, and he certainly was aware of that.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That oath, is, of course, a violation of the rights of both defendant and jury, and thus is not binding on anyone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



>>Circular reasoning. The oath is a violation only if there is a right, and you cannot prove a right.


Of course I can. Since every person has the right to life and liberty, then every person has the right to be judged not only as to the law, but as to the justness of the law. If the law says you are a Jew and therefore you are guilty of being a Jew and must therefore, lawfully go to the Nazi extermination camp, that defendant has a natural right to be judged not just on the facts, but on the justness of the law itself. I could have used other examples. They are legion. Fugitive slave laws already mentioned. People rotting away in prisons for mere possesion of a weed or mediciinal herb; Japanese Americans incarerated during WWII in California, etc., etc., etc. The contemporary examples as well as the historical examples are legion.




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More doubletalk. You have neither the power nor the right to break a law, only the ability. Juries have the lawful power and the right to uphold the law -- the common law right of nullifcation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



>>You call it doubletalk because you have failed to either follow the thread or educate yourself as to the issue, and you fail to follow the jargon. I define "power to" and "ability to" as the same.

A convenient use of more double talk. The power to do a thing in the law means the right to do that thing, not the mere ablility.

?? These words suggest something someone can do if they feel like it. Right refers to "constitutional rights," those rights that government has no right to abridge or at least a limited power to abridge.

Bunk. There are all kinds of rights. The Constitution only mentions a few which are natural rights which do not derive their authority from any Constitution, but from Nature.


>>Plus, who cares about common law? There are tons of "common law" rights that have been rightfully discarded or ignored when the constitution was drafted, as well as in the years since then. The common law right to beat your wife and kids, for example.

Obviously, you cannot care about the Common Law because it defeats your argument. But you know very well that the Common Law is still very much a part of Law itself, in America and elsewhere.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Suddenly

>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2


Exactly so. Now then, if the income tax must be enforced as an indirect tax, then exactly what is the subject or the object of the tax if not the income itself???????????? I think I'll wait till hell freezes over before getting an answer to that one!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



>>Yes, because the question is nonsense and made up nitpicking.

A question the Supremes spent thousands of words to explain, and explain and explain. But your non-answer was ever so predictable.


>>The feds have the power to levy indirect taxes (from earlier decision)
The 16A declares income taxes to be indirect
Therefore, The feds have power to levy income taxes.
end of story, YGHN.

They indeed do have the power. But not to lay the tax Directly on incomes, for then it would be a Direct tax. But I speak to a deaf and dumb bricik wall of impenetrable brainwash.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Suddenly


I looked it up though. "Direct" means a tax directly on property.

Thus, the 16A just makes an income tax "not a direct tax on property.

It was on the website Skeptic mentions. It has things called "citations" and other things to back up its claims. Not just random sentences pulled at random from various court cases.


A Direct Tax is a tax on a person (capitation) or on property. The garbage dump Skeptic adheres to backs up claims with court cases that are the opposite of its claims. Garbage dumps in cyber space are for people who cannot think for themselves, nor debate point by counter point.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by shanek
[B]


>>Besides, every definition of Direct Tax I've read is a tax paid directly by the person on whom it is levied. So how is Income Tax not a direct tax?

You need to read what the Supremes have said on the subject.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skeptic

>>Your argument seems to be that the income tax must be considered a "direct tax" because it is collected "directly" from the taxpayer (or from the taxpayer's income) instead of "indirectly' from (say) the goods he made or the services he gave to earn this income.

No, you've got it all wrong. And there's no point in responding to the rest of your spamming dissertation, which is filled with confusion and obsfuscation.


Rouser


"When the student is ready, the teacher appears." -- Confuscious

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Rouser2



A Direct Tax is a tax on a person (capitation) or on property. The garbage dump Skeptic adheres to backs up claims with court cases that are the opposite of its claims. Garbage dumps in cyber space are for people who cannot think for themselves, nor debate point by counter point.

Actually, these cites often supply something called authority. This is what reasonable people use to back up their claims, not appeals to emotion through reference to the Nazis, to which you have refered twice. Your inabilty to debate without insults shows your desperation to cling to your dogma. Your arguments have been refuted by those that have taken the time to respond to your claims. In return, you have no authority or explaination, just bombast and scorn. You should be thankful those with actual knowlege take the time to debate with you. Instead, you just ignore valid points and make the same tired unsupported allegations.

Of course you won't respond to Skeptic's points. You can't. She patiently showed how you are mistaken. I fear you have "think for yourself" mixed up with "just make stuff up." Some of us like to have a basis for our claims.

Your idea of an "debate" is insult and made up claims. Feel free to blather on. I shall not be answering save the unlikely chance you happen to say something with substance. I doubt that. I do suspect you will respond with something insulting. I will read that with great interest and amusement.

[Skeptic]

Well, the way our Founders intended it, and the way they meant it when they drafted the Constitution, is a tax that cannot be passed on to someone else

Actually, no. This exact point is addressed by the "Tax Protestor FAQ". To repeat what it says:

1). First, the founding fathers COULDN'T possibly have meant simply that a direct tax is one that "cannot be passed to someone else". Not only does the FAQ quote lenghty passages from the Federalist Papers and other sources to prove this, it shows that your definition would have been completely unworkable and would make a mockery of the direct/indirect distinction in the constitution. The founding fathers couldn't have intended that!

2). It doesn't matter; the founding fathers also intended slavery and wife-beating to be legal, which doesn't mean they are (or should be). The American system gives the work of interpreting the laws (including the constitution) to the COURTS, not to private individuals, no matter how certain they are that they "know" what the founding fathers "really meant". And (virtually) ALL court decisions made the "direct/indirect" distinction according to the "commerce/property" distinction, not the "passed on to someone else/not passed on to someone else" distinction.

3). Even if it DID matter what the founding fathers intended, and the founding fathers meant what you say they meant by "direct tax", it STILL wouldn't matter for income tax, since the 16th Amendment made it quite clear that the income tax is an INDIRECT tax that could be collected "without appropriation". Since amendments, by definition, change what the constitution says, the constitution now says that income tax is an indirect tax--regardless of what the founding fathers believed or intended.

[Skeptic]

A question the Supremes spent thousands of words to explain, and explain and explain.

Indeed so. And, as they explained, the income tax is an indirect tax since:

a). "indirect" tax always meant (roghly) "tax on commerce", not merely a tax that is collected directly from an individual; and

b). in case there was any doubt, the 16th Amendment says PRECISELY this--that Congress has the power to treat income tax as an indirect tax, e.g., to collect it "without appropriation" or a census, as long as it is geographically uniform (which it is).

That's it, really. The income tax was and is an indirect tax. It is constitutional since it satisfies the constitutional requirement of an indirect tax--that it be uniform throughout the states.

The truth, "rouser2", is that you just don't WANT to believe this rather simple point, because you just WANT it to be the case that there is some magic word you can write on your 1040 that will make you not liable for income tax.

Forget it. There is no such thing. There are literally DOZENS of "untaxing theories" promoted by con men claiming that they found the "secret reason" why the income tax is unconstutional, or applies only to aliens, or to those living in Washington D.C., or does not include income from work, etc.--in short, that they found the "secret reason" why YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY TAXES--if only you will pay them a small fee for their booklet/ tapes /website substcription/ "untaxing package"/ "legal" advice. Hey, would they lie to you?!

The "income tax is really a direct tax" nonsense is simply one of those. None of these "theories" work--and none of them, ever, had saved anybody a dime in taxes--for the very simple reason that none of them are correct. All they are is a money-making scam for the con men who promote the "theories", at the expense of the suckers who believe them. Not only do the suckers pay through the nose for the "untaxing information", they then face fines, late fees, foreclosures, liens, and occassionally prison time for not paying their taxes. And do you think the "untaxing" guru then pays their fine or serves their time? Get real. He won't even refund their money.

Of course, the suckers who believe the theories stop paying their taxes and the IRS prosecuted them. Sometimes, this also appens to an "untaxing" guru (in the rare cases that those gurus actually believe their own bulls--t and don't pay their taxes; the REAL reason most of these gurus are not in jail for tax evasion is not that they "defeated the IRS", but that they PAY THEIR TAXES on the profits they get from selling their "untaxing" books, and then lie to the rubes and say the IRS is "afraid" of them). Then, they all whine "CONSPIRACY!!! FASCISM!!!", as if finally suing somebody that deliverately stopped paying their taxes, usually for years, after repeated warnings is some sort of gestapo tactic.

But the "tax protestors", in reality, have only themselves to blame for believing the stupid "untaxing" theory in the first place. They forgot the simple rule, the #1 rule to avoid scams and con men: IF IT SOUNDS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE, IT IS.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Folks, when "debating" this issue with Rouser2, keep in mind that he believes that the moon landing was a hoax.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Folks, when "debating" this issue with Rouser2, keep in mind that he believes that the moon landing was a hoax.

:eek: Oh that's hillarious! :D Thanks for the info, that does sort of put things in perspective. I guess I was closer to the mark than I thought when I said he had brainwashed himself.:rolleyes:

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ziggurat

>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Folks, when "debating" this issue with Rouser2, keep in mind that he believes that the moon landing was a hoax.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> Oh that's hillarious! Thanks for the info, that does sort of put things in perspective. I guess I was closer to the mark than I thought when I said he had brainwashed himself.

Hilarious, but untrue. Mr. or Ms. Central, like a lot of other mental giants on this board, cannot debate issues, but instead resort to lies, insults and spamming obsfucations. It is a claim Central Scrutinizer cannot back up. Just like Counselor Suddenly cannot back up his claims, and thus, when cornered as to his own Orwellian contradictions, calls it "nitpicking". Mr. Central Scrutinizer was a lurker on previous thread on the JFK murder. His/her lone contribution was to continually ask the same dumb question which was not worth my time to answer. Now he/she simply lies about it. I commend him/her to slither back under the rock and slime from whence he/she came.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Suddenly

>>Actually, these cites often supply something called authority. This is what reasonable people use to back up their claims, not appeals to emotion through reference to the Nazis, to which you have refered twice.

I've referred to the tyranny of Nazis and the tyranny of Americans. That may be uncomfortable for those whose legalistic views allow for such tyranny.


>> Your inabilty to debate without insults shows your desperation to cling to your dogma.

On the contrary, it is you who has trouble answering specific points in honest debate, and thus must sink to insults as in this paticualr diatribe which shows your own desperation in clinging to your unsupportable dogma.

>> Your arguments have been refuted by those that have taken the time to respond to your claims.

They have not been refuted. To say they have been refuted does not make it so. I'm still waiting for you, Skeptic, or anyone to find the object of an income tax if not the "income" itself. Your answer is "that's nitpicking". I don't blame you for wanting to hide under your desk.

>>In return, you have no authority or explaination, just bombast and scorn.

All I've done is cite authorities. All you have done is cite cyber-space garbage dumps, filled with authorities that contradict your own claims.

>>You should be thankful those with actual knowlege take the time to debate with you. Instead, you just ignore valid points and make the same tired unsupported allegations.

That would be something for you to take up with that fellow pictured in your bathroom mirror.


>>Of course you won't respond to Skeptic's points. You can't.


Of course you won't respond to my points, because your can't. Skeptic doesnt' have any points. Only the copying of spam from someone else's propaganda.


>>She patiently showed how you are mistaken. I fear you have "think for yourself" mixed up with "just make stuff up." Some of us like to have a basis for our claims.

Oh, yeah? Then what is the basis for your "nitpicking" claim? I can't seem to find that "authority" anywhere.

>>Your idea of an "debate" is insult and made up claims. Feel free to blather on. I shall not be answering


You'll not be answering because you can't answer, a predictibable end to the debate. Nuff said.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skeptic


>>A question the Supremes spent thousands of words to explain, and explain and explain.

>>Indeed so. And, as they explained, the income tax is an indirect tax since...

You don't have to explain to my why the tax is indirect. That's what I have been saying all along and finally got you and Counselor Suddenely, kicking and screaming all the way, to agree. It is an Indirect tax, and thus must be laid and collected as such. What you and your cyber-space aliens do not address is what actually is an Indirect tax, with SC authorities to back it up. An Indirect Tax is a tax on a revenue taxable ACTIVITY, EVENT OR PRIVILEGE.

"It is therefore well settled... that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of the taxation is found in the income." -- Flint v Stone Tracy, 220 U.S. 107 (1911).

"A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax." -- Tyler v U.S. 281, U.S. 497, (1930)

Thus the question is very simple. John Doe works for General Motors as an auto mechanic. Uncle Sam taxes John's income, taking it right out of his paycheck each week. The question is, if the Feds do not have the right to tax John's income directly, as in a Direct Tax, then exactly what revenue taxable activity, event or privilege by LAW is John enagaged in that makes him liable for the tax. No need to go to your Tax Protestor site for the answer to that question because it isn't there. As in the case of Counselor Suddenly, I'm sure I'll be waiting for an answer to this simple question till hell freezes over. Post with cited Authorities, please. And no spamming, please.

-- Rouser

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, the way our Founders intended it, and the way they meant it when they drafted the Constitution, is a tax that cannot be passed on to someone else

Actually, no.

Then explain all the references I found stating otherwise. Explain why it was treated as exactly that in the debates following the Articles of Confederation and up to the adoption of the Constitution. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists both agreed on what it meant.

2). It doesn't matter; the founding fathers also intended slavery and wife-beating to be legal,

Blah blah blah. I've already refuted that ridiculous response before.

since the 16th Amendment made it quite clear that the income tax is an INDIRECT tax

Show me where the 16th Amendment says that. Not where other people say it says that; show the 16th Amendment itself saying that.

Besides, what does an amendment passed 124 years after the ratification of the Constitution have to do with what the founders intended?

[shanek]

Originally posted by shanek
All above quotes from Johnson, Calvin H. (Professor of Law at the University of Texas), The Constitutional Meaning of 'Apportionment of Direct Taxes', 80 Tax Notes 591, Doc 98-24225.

Does no one have a response to this source? It's far more authoritative than anything anyone else in this thread has come up with, from a law professor no less, and someone who didn't even mention "tax protestors" or anything. It's clear what the founders meant by "direct" (or "internal") and "indirect" taxes, and it's clear than Income Tax falls under "direct." You could argue that the 16th Amendment gave the Federal government to levy the Income Tax and I won't disagree one bit. But I don't understand the reason for all of this legal wrangling trying to make the Income Tax into something it clearly isn't.

[Skeptic]

You don't have to explain to my why the tax is indirect. That's what I have been saying all along

Good. So you admit it's an indirect tax, and as such, not subject to the "appropriation" or "census" claims of tax protestor nuts. We're getting somewhere.

What you and your cyber-space aliens do not address

Says the man who keeps saying that those who disagree with him "cannot debate in anything but insults"...

An Indirect Tax is a tax on a revenue taxable ACTIVITY, EVENT OR PRIVILEGE.

Nope. Your language (and your quoting of Flint in support) shows that your view is that income tax is not only an indirect tax, but an excise tax (generally speaking, correct)--which you interpret as a tax on an "activity, event, or priviledge" such as "doing business" (inaccurate, to say the least) and conclude that since ordinary workers who live on a salary do not "engage in business" and do not ask for "priviledges", they are not liable for income tax (completely wrong).

The tax protestor FAQ, once more, discussed in great detail this nonsense argument--and why it is worthless. Here is what it says, complete with court cases, and my comments or highlights in bold type:



Tax protestor argument: Congress can only tax the exercise of "privileges" or the income from "revenue taxable activities" or "taxable excise activities" such as the sale of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, or from interstate commerce.

This argument is usually presented in one of two different ways.

One argument is based on quotations taken out of context from unrelated court decisions. The tax protester first quotes from a court decision that refers to the income tax as an "excise" (usually a decision declaring that the income tax is constitutional because it is not a "direct tax" that must be apportioned), then quotes from a very different court decision that refers to an "excise" as a tax on the exercise of a "privilige" (usually an old, pre-16th Amendment decision upholding a tax on incomes from certain activities), then quotes from a third very different court decision that states that the freedom to contract for employment is a right and not a "privilege" (usually a labor law case) and then mashes the three unrelated decisions together to form the conclusion that an income tax can only be imposed on income from the exercise of a "privilege" that can be granted or denied by the government, but that an income tax cannot be imposed on income earned through the exercise of a fundamental right, such as through a contract for employment.

(Sounds familiar, "Rouser"?--Skeptic)

(Snipped a second argument that is irrelecant here; from now on this is the FAQ refers to the above as the "first argument": )

Th[is] argument was squarely rejected by the Supreme Court in Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937):

(You wanted quotes? You got them.--Skeptic)

"But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities 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." 301 U.S. at 580-1 (footnote omitted).

(Snipped the refutation of the "second argument" that is not relevant to Rouser's claims. Rouser's argument, however, was also rejected elsewhere by other courts, and the supreme court refused to hear an appeal, that is, accepted the court was correct in its decision: )

"Plaintiff appears to argue that according to the Sixteenth Amendment, federal income tax is not a direct tax on wages or salaries of individuals, but that it is an excise tax on the privilege of engaging in some privileged or regulated activity. Therefore, according to plaintiff, this 'indirect excise tax' can only be imposed on the income of corporations and the dividend income of stockholders. Despite plaintiff's many case citations allegedly supporting his argument, the Sixteenth Amendment, valid as described above, clearly authorizes Congress to levy a direct income tax upon individuals who are United States citizens. In addition, as described above, plaintiff's wages and gambling earnings are clearly within the I.R.C.'s definition of 'income,' and are properly subject to taxation." Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 294-296 (1998)


"[Peth] argues that he is not a "person liable" to pay taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 6001. The argument is this: the tax imposed by Title 26, according to plaintiff, is "not unapportioned direct tax," because any such tax 'would be in conflict with the apportionment restriction of direct taxes contained in [Article I of the Constitution].' Moreover, he finds that there are no apportioned taxes imposed by Title 26. Thus, any tax under Title 26 must be an indirect tax, that is, a tax upon some right, privilege, or corporate franchise. Plaintiff says he is not a privileged person, nor has he taken any corporate franchise. Therefore, so the argument goes, Title 26 has no application to him. The argument has no merit. See U.S. Const. amend. XVI; Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-19, 60 L. Ed. 493, 36 S. Ct. 236 (1915)." Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50 (E.D.Wis. 1985), 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21509, 85-1 U.S.T.C. ¶9321, 55 AFTR2d 1280.

"[P]etitioner argues that the income tax is an excise tax and that petitioner did not engage in any taxable excise activities during 1996, 1997, and 1998. The contentions made by petitioner in his petition and on brief are appropriately termed 'tax protester rhetoric and legalistic gibberish', and we shall not dignify such arguments with any further discussion." Heisey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-41 (tax deficiencies affirmed, along with penalties for failure to file and failure to pay estimated taxes, and an additional penalty of $2,000 was imposed for filing a frivolous petition), aff'd 2003 TNT 66-47, No. 02-72675 (9th Cir. 3/20/2003), ($1,500 penalty imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).



So, there you have it, Rouser. An excise tax, like the income tax, CAN tax income, as the 16th amendment--and even before--clearly said. Your argument has no merit.

Just out of curiousity: the biggest promoter of the "Salary is not a priviledge" is the con man Otto Skinner. Are you one of his followers? In that case, get your money back. NOBODY, EVER, including Skinner himself, who used this argument EVER saved a dime in taxes. Here is more information about Skinner--complete with yet another debunking of his stupid theory:

http://www.quatloos.com/quatlosers/otto_skinner.htm

Even Irwin Schiff, the twice-incarcerated tax cheat and scam man, figured out that Skinner's argument is wrong. That should tell you something...

[Rouser2]

Shanek wrote;

>>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by shanek
All above quotes from Johnson, Calvin H. (Professor of Law at the University of Texas), The Constitutional Meaning of 'Apportionment of Direct Taxes', 80 Tax Notes 591, Doc 98-24225.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does no one have a response to this source?

In the realm of rational argument and debate, one does not respond to a "source" unless a point it made. Do you have a point?


>> It's far more authoritative than anything anyone else in this thread has come up with, from a law professor no less, and someone who didn't even mention "tax protestors" or anything.

In the realm of rational debate as to the meaning of "law", one's primary sources are the law itself, the Supreme Court interpretations of that a law and the Constitution. Anyone can come up with a "professor" with "credentials" but that hardly addresses the law.

>>It's clear what the founders meant by "direct" (or "internal") and "indirect" taxes, and it's clear than Income Tax falls under "direct."

Oh, so your point is that the tax is properly construed as a Direct Tax? Is that your point? Didn't you recently state the opposite? Do you know what your point or position is?

>> You could argue that the 16th Amendment gave the Federal government to levy the Income Tax and I won't disagree one bit.

But that is exactly what the Court did NOT say. Expressly declaring that the Amendment conferred No New TAxing Power (Stanton v. Baltic Mining, Brushaber,etc.) Again, I repeat do you have a point? And if so, what is it?

>>But I don't understand the reason for all of this legal wrangling trying to make the Income Tax into something it clearly isn't.

No, you surely don't understand -- even as to your own position. So what is it?

[Skeptic]

Central Scrutinizer was a lurker on previous thread on the JFK murder. His/her lone contribution was to continually ask the same dumb question which was not worth my time to answer.

TRASLATION:

"I am not only a tax protestor, I am also stupid enough to believe in the 'JFK assassinated by the CIA (or whomever)' myth, and in the 'moon hoax' silliness.

Central Scrutinizer kept asking me why, if it was such a huge conspiracy involving hundreds of people, not ONE of them came forward in FOURTY YEARS to admit the truth about the JFK assassination, and ALL the 'evidence' we've got is from kooky conspiracy theorists who never had the least connection with either JFK or the CIA.

I can't answer that, so I'll try to insult him".

Got it about right, "Rouser"?

Of course, the truth is that the SAME people who killed JFK also conspired to create the illegal income tax and fake the moon missions--the shape-shifting reptilians!

(evil laughter)

Muahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Does no one have a response to this source? It's far more authoritative than anything anyone else in this thread has come up with, from a law professor no less, and someone who didn't even mention "tax protestors" or anything. It's clear what the founders meant by "direct" (or "internal") and "indirect" taxes, and it's clear than Income Tax falls under "direct." You could argue that the 16th Amendment gave the Federal government to levy the Income Tax and I won't disagree one bit. But I don't understand the reason for all of this legal wrangling trying to make the Income Tax into something it clearly isn't.

I'd try to respond but I'd have to read it. Do you have a link for the source in its complete form? If so I'll read it.

I don't see how it can be more authoritative than anything else in this tread, but let's skip that point. I would like the whole article however.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skeptic

>>An Indirect Tax is a tax on a revenue taxable ACTIVITY, EVENT OR PRIVILEGE.
>>>>Nope. Your language (and your quoting of Flint in support) shows that your view is that income tax is not only an indirect tax, but an excise tax (generally speaking, correct)--which you interpret as a tax on an "activity, event, or priviledge" such as "doing business" (inaccurate, to say the least) and conclude that since ordinary workers who live on a salary do not "engage in business" and do not ask for "priviledges", they are not liable for income tax (completely wrong).

My language is the language of the Supreme Court and the cases cited therein. Your language is the language of DoubleThink and DoubleTalk. That an Indirect Tax is a tax on an activity, event or privilege is beyond dispute, and well settled in the law.

>>The tax protestor FAQ, once more, discussed in great detail this nonsense argument--and why it is worthless. Here is what it says, complete with court cases, and my comments or highlights in bold type:

>>Tax protestor argument: Congress can only tax the exercise of "privileges" or the income from "revenue taxable activities" or "taxable excise activities" such as the sale of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, or from interstate commerce.

My comment: The FAQ author has a problem with the Supreme Court, not with any tax protestor quoting cases from the Supreme Court.

>>This argument is usually presented in one of two different ways.
One argument is based on quotations taken out of context from unrelated court decisions.


That's BS. There is no way to quote the germane declarations of the SC unless quoting from out of context. The alternative is to quote the entire opinion. This is nothing but sophomoric argument. All of the quotes from the SC by FAQ author are also taken out of context.

>>The tax protester first quotes from a court decision that refers to the income tax as an "excise" (usually a decision declaring that the income tax is constitutional because it is not a "direct tax" that must be apportioned), then quotes from a very different court decision that refers to an "excise" as a tax on the exercise of a "privilige" (usually an old, pre-16th Amendment decision upholding a tax on incomes from certain activities)


Any legal brief is replete with cases, each of which are different. Another sophomoric argument.


>>then quotes from a third very different court decision that states that the freedom to contract for employment is a right and not a "privilege" (usually a labor law case)


An argument you havn't heard from me. But then, you haven't shown yourself capable of addressing the arguments I have made, only the responses others have made to other people's arguments.


>>and then mashes the three unrelated decisions together to form the conclusion that an income tax can only be imposed on income from the exercise of a "privilege" that can be granted or denied by the government, but that an income tax cannot be imposed on income earned through the exercise of a fundamental right, such as through a contract for employment.


Another argument which I have not made. Try addressing the argument I HAVE made, namely, if the tax is indirect, then what then is the object of the tax? As I previously warned you, you will not find that answer on your Tax Protestor site.

Th[is] argument was squarely rejected by the Supreme Court in Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937):

(You wanted quotes? You got them.--Skeptic)

"But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities 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." 301 U.S. at 580-1 (footnote omitted).

Comment:
Still continuing with another argument which I have not made.


"Plaintiff appears to argue that according to the Sixteenth Amendment, federal income tax is not a direct tax on wages or salaries of individuals, but that it is an excise tax on the privilege of engaging in some privileged or regulated activity. Therefore, according to plaintiff, this 'indirect excise tax' can only be imposed on the income of corporations and the dividend income of stockholders. Despite plaintiff's many case citations allegedly supporting his argument, the Sixteenth Amendment, valid as described above, clearly authorizes Congress to levy a direct income tax upon individuals who are United States citizens.


So here we have a court declaring the tax to be Direct when the landmark cases in 1916 declared it to be Indirect. But where do you stand? Do you have a stand?


>>In addition, as described above, plaintiff's wages and gambling earnings are clearly within the I.R.C.'s definition of 'income,' and are properly subject to taxation." Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 294-296 (1998)

Ah, now you switch to another case which is NOT a SC case at all. Talk about mixing cases and cutting and snipping.


"[Peth] argues that he is not a "person liable" to pay taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 6001. The argument is this: the tax imposed by Title 26, according to plaintiff, is "not unapportioned direct tax," because any such tax 'would be in conflict with the apportionment restriction of direct taxes contained in [Article I of the Constitution].' Moreover, he finds that there are no apportioned taxes imposed by Title 26. Thus, any tax under Title 26 must be an indirect tax, that is, a tax upon some right, privilege, or corporate franchise. Plaintiff says he is not a privileged person, nor has he taken any corporate franchise. Therefore, so the argument goes, Title 26 has no application to him. The argument has no merit. See U.S. Const. amend. XVI; Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-19, 60 L. Ed. 493, 36 S. Ct. 236 (1915)." Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50 (E.D.Wis. 1985), 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21509, 85-1 U.S.T.C. ¶9321, 55 AFTR2d 1280.

The very case the court cites (Brushaber) contradicts the opinion of this lower appellant court case. But then, you don't really know what their point is.

>>"[P]etitioner argues that the income tax is an excise tax and that petitioner did not engage in any taxable excise activities during 1996, 1997, and 1998. The contentions made by petitioner in his petition and on brief are appropriately termed 'tax protester rhetoric and legalistic gibberish', and we shall not dignify such arguments with any further discussion."


Sounds just like Counselor Suddenly. These court officer guys all stick together. But not addressing the issue will not make it go away. No does it answer the very real arguments. Do you have any other lower court cases which refuse to address the issue?

>> So, there you have it, Rouser. An excise tax, like the income tax, CAN tax income, as the 16th amendment--and even before--clearly said. Your argument has no merit.

So now you say it is an excise tax? An excise is an Indirect tax? Do you have any clue at all as to what the hell you are talking about?

>>Just out of curiousity: the biggest promoter of the "Salary is not a priviledge" is the con man Otto Skinner. Are you one of his followers? In that case, get your money back. NOBODY, EVER, including Skinner himself, who used this argument EVER saved a dime in taxes. Here is more information about Skinner--complete with yet another debunking of his stupid theory:

http://www.quatloos.com/quatlosers/otto_skinner.htm

>>Even Irwin Schiff, the twice-incarcerated tax cheat and scam man, figured out that Skinner's argument is wrong. That should tell you something...


Oh, there is no challenge to citing "losers" who end up in jail for their beliefs. You can cite them till you're blue in the face. They must include people like St. Paul, Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King. But such examples only prove that tyranny is still alive and well and thoroughly infected the American Body Politic and betrays the desperation of those who cannot rationally defend their position any other way but to commit the "Appeal to Force" fallacy. But again, do you have a position?


-- Rouser

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by shanek

Blah blah blah. I've already refuted that ridiculous response before.


Ummm...
The founders certainly thought that the individual states had the right to institute slavery and control their "domestic institutions." They also made allowances for fugative slaves to be delivered up.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
So, there you have it, Rouser. An excise tax, like the income tax, CAN tax income,

Without resorting to appeals to authority, how, logically, is an income tax a form of excise?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ziggurat

>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Folks, when "debating" this issue with Rouser2, keep in mind that he believes that the moon landing was a hoax.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
Mr. Central Scrutinizer was a lurker on previous thread on the JFK murder. His/her lone contribution was to continually ask the same dumb question which was not worth my time to answer. Now he/she simply lies about it. I commend him/her to slither back under the rock and slime from whence he/she came.


-- Rouser

Well it really does not take that much time. "Yes I believe the moon landing was a hoax." or "No I do not believe the moon landing was a hoax."

Put me down for the latter.;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rouser2
In the realm of rational argument and debate, one does not respond to a "source" unless a point it made. Do you have a point?

Yes, the point is that the founding fathers had a very broad idea of what was considered a direct tax, and a very specific idea of what was considered an indirect tax, and that this is contrary to the claims of Skeptic, the Tax Protestor FAQ, and those Supreme Court rulings.

In the realm of rational debate as to the meaning of "law", one's primary sources are the law itself,

Well, it would be great to have that question answered, too. No one at all has pointed out to me where the 16th Amendment says that Income Tax is an indirect tax. It just says that the government can collect it.

Oh, so your point is that the tax is properly construed as a Direct Tax? Is that your point? Didn't you recently state the opposite?

I don't ever recall stating the opposite... If I have, feel free to point out where and I'll be happy to clear up any misunderstanding.

But that is exactly what the Court did NOT say.

Well, I know that...

Again, I repeat do you have a point? And if so, what is it?

My point is that without the 16th Amendment the government would have no power to tax income. Sorry, but I just don't buy into the "no new power" crap, and I have yet to hear a logical justification for it other than "The Supreme Court said so!"

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly


I'd try to respond but I'd have to read it. Do you have a link for the source in its complete form? If so I'll read it.

I'm very sorry; I thought I included that.

http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson/80tn591.htm

I don't see how it can be more authoritative than anything else in this tread, but let's skip that point. I would like the whole article however.

I'm not interested in what's "authoritative." I'm interested in what the founders actually thought.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Ummm...
The founders certainly thought that the individual states had the right to institute slavery and control their "domestic institutions." They also made allowances for fugative slaves to be delivered up.

So? What does that have to do with what they believed a Direct Tax to be?

[Skeptic]

My comment: The FAQ author has a problem with the Supreme Court, not with any tax protestor quoting cases from the Supreme Court.

Not really. His problem is tax protestor idiots quoting the supreme court out of context and pretending this "proves" they don't have to pay taxes.

That's BS. There is no way to quote the germane declarations of the SC unless quoting from out of context.

Nonsense. You can also, of course, quote something IN CONTEXT instead. It's not as if "quoting out of context" or "quoting the whole thing" are the only two possiblities.

At least you admit you are quoting the SC out of context, though. That's a start.

All of the quotes from the SC by FAQ author are also taken out of context.

No, they aren't, unless you define "out of context" simply as "not quoting the whole thing". They are in context because, unlike your out-of-context quotes, they don't distort the meaning of the SC's decisions.

Try addressing the argument I HAVE made, namely, if the tax is indirect, then what then is the object of the tax?

The object of the tax is your INCOME (duh.) That's why it's called "income tax".

As I previously warned you, you will not find that answer on your Tax Protestor site.

Of course not--for the same reason you won't find the claim that 1+1=2 in most math books. The reason is that it's so obvious it doesn't merit a special mention.

So here we have a court declaring the tax to be Direct when the landmark cases in 1916 declared it to be Indirect.

Not really.

The court here simply means that the tax can be collected directly from individuals (like most taxes are). It doesn't mean the income tax is a "direct tax" in the constitutional sense of the word. As the 16th amendment itself says, it is an indirect tax--that is, one that can be level "without appropriation".

Yes, the income tax is an "indirect tax" that is collected directly from individuals. This is not a contradiction, because "direct tax" in the constitutional sense is NOT the same thing as a tax that's collected directly from individuals, and "indirect tax" is NOT the same as a tax that is not collected directly from individuals.

To repeat, when the courts call something an "indirect tax", they mean (roughly) a tax that is in some way a tax on commercial activity (including getting a salary from a job), as opposed to a tax on property. The manner of the tax's collection doesn't enter into it. An indirect tax can be collected directly from an individual: most taxes, after all, are collected "directly" from SOMEONE in the end.

But where do you stand? Do you have a stand?

Yes. The income tax is an indirect excise tax, whose object is your income, and is collected directly from you. Simple, really.

The very case the court cites (Brushaber) contradicts the opinion of this lower appellant court case.

No, it doesn't.

In both Brushader and Flint--as in most SC cases the tax protestor present as "proofs" of their position--the tax protestors (and ONLY them) claim that the SC decision "means" one thing, while ALL court decisions, whether in lower courts or the SC's, agree that it actually means something else.

Put in its simplest terms, the tax protestors claim that (for this or that odd reason) the Supreme Court in Brushader (or whatever) "said" that they don't have to pay taxes, while the lower courts (and the supreme court itself in the case above) repeatedly say the exact opposite: that the tax protestors do, too, have to pay taxes.

Well, SOMEBODY is wrong. Either the tax protestors are right and the lower court's understanding of what the SC meant in Brushader (or any other SC case the tax protestors quote) is wrong, or the courts are right and the tax protestor's understanding of what the SC meant in Brushader is wrong.

Now, let's put it this way. In all these cases, the tax protestor appealed the decision, saying the lower court was wrong in understanding the Supreme Court's decision. In NONE of these cases did the Supreme Court agree to hear the appeal, and therefore the supreme court let the lower court's decision stand.

If the lower court "contradicted" the supreme court so terribly, why did the SC refuse to hear the tax protestor's appeal and set the record straight, in ALL the literally HUNDREDS of tax protestor cases involving this argument, ALL of whick were lost by the tax protestors?

The reason, of course, is that the lower courts did NOT contradict the SC's views in Brushader (or in any other SC case quoted by the tax protestors to "prove" their hare-brained ideas). The supreme court, by refusing to hear the cases, agreed that the lower court's decision is correct--that is, that the lower court's interpretation of the SC's intention in Brushader (and all other cases) IS the correct one, and the tax protestor's interpretation of Brushader (and all other cases) is the wrong one.

Sounds just like Counselor Suddenly. These court officer guys all stick together.

In typical tax protestor fashion, Rouser has no problem appealing to the authority of the courts... as long as it is a decision, like Brushader, which he mistakenly thinks supports his view. The moment he is faced with a court decision that disagrees with him, however, it is a case of an evil "conspiracy" by the courts, who "stick together" to "hide the truth".

The real reason the courts lost patience with this argument is that it is totally frivolous, and was repeatedly refuted by previous decisions. The court has no obligation to waste its time refuting once more the same old frivolous argument: instead, the court simply referred the reader to some of the many, many previous cases where this argument was dismissed.

But not addressing the issue will not make it go away.

It DID address the issue. It referred the readers to some of the many previous decisions where the tax protestor's argument was refuted in detail, instead of re-refuting it himself all over again, which was unnecessary.

No does it answer the very real arguments.

Only tax protestors consider these idiotic, frivolous arguments "very real". Certainly, no court has ever called them anything other than "frivolous" or simply "wrong".

So now you say it is an excise tax? An excise is an Indirect tax?

Yes. An excise is one kind of indirect tax. Tariffs, for instance, are another type of indirect tax.

Do you have any clue at all as to what the hell you are talking about?

Yes.

Oh, there is no challenge to citing "losers" who end up in jail for their beliefs. You can cite them till you're blue in the face. They must include people like St. Paul, Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King.

You mean you're actually stupid enough to follow the advice of a "tax guru" WHO WENT TO JAIL FOR TAX EVASION???

(shrug) Be my guest.

But such examples only prove that tyranny is still alive and well

Nononononononono. You're wrong again. (Big surprise).

If Schiff and the other idiots had claimed FROM THE START that they are going to fight the income tax law and are willing to go to jail to stop this evil law, THEN you might have a point. However, they started out by saying that they could "beat the system" and that if you follow them, you will AVOID TAXES AND NOT BE PROSECUTED.

They lied. They, themselves, and most of the followers dumb enough to follow their advice, went to jail. ONLY then did they change their tune and claim that they are really "martyrs" against the "tyrannical" government.

To continue your analogy of Jesus, it's as if Jesus had started selling kits saying "how to avoid crucifixion", or St. Paul a book published a book "how to be successful in converting the jews", only to tell everybody AFTER both these attempts failed that the book is really correct, but it's all the "evil goburnmenit's" fault that the opposite had happened.

Tyranny? No, simply a con man fleecing the rubes.

[Skeptic]

Yes, the point is that the founding fathers had a very broad idea of what was considered a direct tax, and a very specific idea of what was considered an indirect tax, and that this is contrary to the claims of Skeptic, the Tax Protestor FAQ, and those Supreme Court rulings.

(Shrug) Strangely enough, Shanek, I trust the supreme court's (repeatedly-expressed) view of what "direct" and "indirect" taxes mean, over your personal and amateur interpretation of the Constitution.

Do you really suppose that the supreme court was unaware of, or deliberately ignored, the sources you give to support your view about the direct/indirect distinction--almost all of them from some of the most famous writings in American History--when they made their decisions about this issue?

Of course not. The difference is that, unlike you, they probably considered ALL of the history of the subject, and the TOTAL of what the founding fathers and others have said on the subject, instead of "cherry picking" like you do and looking only at quotes that support one view over the other. Looking at it, they reached a conclusion oppostite to yours.

I know, I know: it's incredibly irrational on my part to believe that (say) the hon. jus. Holmes or Black on the Supreme Court knew more about the what the Constitution means and what the framers intended than Mr. Shanek, but we are all allowed are little insanities, are we not?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
(Shrug) Strangely enough, Shanek, I trust the supreme court's (repeatedly-expressed) view of what "direct" and "indirect" taxes mean, over your personal and amateur interpretation of the Constitution.

:rolleyes:

I quoted the founders saying what they meant. I quoted a law professor saying what they meant. That's hardly my "personal and amateur interpretation."

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


I'm very sorry; I thought I included that.

http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/calvinjohnson/80tn591.htm



I'm not interested in what's "authoritative." I'm interested in what the founders actually thought.

To continue the non-argument

a) You said it was authoritative
b) In other words, the founding fathers (use the word "framers" around tweedy types) are authoritative. :p

But, to the point. The article.

The constitution requires apportionment for direct taxes. However, it appears they immediately realized this was a bad idea, for the reason that the assumption that level of population would directly proportion wealth was unfounded. More people does not equal more money. Thus the Hylton decision, where Jay tortures the language and allows carriage tax to not be apportioned.

Here is a sentence that seems to be helpful:
In 1795 when the Founders, sitting as Justices, saw that apportionment functioned unreasonably, they interpreted the Constitution by cy pres, defining 'direct tax' strategically so as to avoid the nonsense.

dictionary.com says "cy pres" means

The legal doctrine that allows a court freedom in interpreting the terms of a will or gift if carrying out the terms literally would be impracticable or illegal. At the same time, the general intent of the testator or donor is supposed to be observed as closely as possible.


In other words, the framers realized that their original "direct requires apportionment" compromise between feds and antifeds didn't work in practice. Thus, like the courts that came later, they simply redefined "direct" to mean something other than what it means.

The "founders" weren't against twisting language to avoid absurd result.

However, in 1895 the court in Pollock declared the income tax to be a direct tax, which violated the founder's deeper intent but was faithful to the dictionary meaning in the constitution. The author calls this the "Dred Scott decision of government revenue."

The 16th amendment, according to the author simply reversed Pollock.

Thus, from this article it appears there is a non-standard definition for "direct vs. indirect" in tax law. The irony is that this "newspeak" as you refered to it in your "I Googled 'direct tax' post ("strategic definition" according to the article), and i'm gonna go bold on you here: WAS FIRST DEVELOPED BY THE FOUNDERS according to the article you cite. I mean, the "authoritative" article you cite. :)

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by shanek

My point is that without the 16th Amendment the government would have no power to tax income. Sorry, but I just don't buy into the "no new power" crap, and I have yet to hear a logical justification for it other than "The Supreme Court said so!"


The cases are there for anyone to read. At your local law library or at Findlaw.com or many other online sources. Perhaps your poor brain is conditioned to only "hear" what other people say, and not to actually read and think for yourself. Some of the cases are long and involved like Brushaber and Pollack. Others, like Stanton, are short and sweet. The logical justification is there. But only for those who can read and comprehend. Fact is, a careful reading of the 16th Amendment will reveal that it '"amends" nothing. There was nothing in the Constitution prior to the 16th Amendment prohibiting a tax on income, but provisions allowed that do indeed grant the power to tax, both directly and indirectly. "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises..." -- Art I, Sec. 8.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
a) You said it was authoritative
b) In other words, the founding fathers (use the word "framers" around tweedy types) are authoritative. :p

Well, if it's authoritative to cite the founding fathers as evidence of what the founding fathers meant...

In other words, the framers realized that their original "direct requires apportionment" compromise between feds and antifeds didn't work in practice.

Which is why they used the phrase "direct...without apportionment." It was still well-defined.

The "founders" weren't against twisting language to avoid absurd result.

No, they put that language into the Constitution!

The 16th amendment, according to the author simply reversed Pollock.

Which I think is the most reasonable case.

Thus, from this article it appears there is a non-standard definition for "direct vs. indirect" in tax law. The irony is that this "newspeak" as you refered to it in your "I Googled 'direct tax' post ("strategic definition" according to the article), and i'm gonna go bold on you here: WAS FIRST DEVELOPED BY THE FOUNDERS according to the article you cite. I mean, the "authoritative" article you cite. :)

No, you can only get that by completely twisting the definition I was responding to. I was using those definitions to support my claim—and those definitions fit the ones cited in the article. It's perfectly clear that the founders considered income tax a direct tax. The later shifting of that definition after the passage of the 16th Amendnment, when the court ruled that Income Tax was indirect after all (in contradiction to previous Supreme Court rulings), that was the newspeak.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rouser2
The cases are there for anyone to read.

IOW, "The Supreme Court said so!" Have you no opinions or conclusions of your own on the matter?

At your local law library or at Findlaw.com

If you recall, I posted the definition of "direct tax" from FindLaw.com and it supported my conclusion.

There was nothing in the Constitution prior to the 16th Amendment prohibiting a tax on income,

THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE!!!! If it's not in the Constitution, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO IT!!! It MUST be in the Constitution to be a power of the Federal Government! What's it going to take to get that through people's heads???

but provisions allowed that do indeed grant the power to tax, both directly and indirectly. "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises..." -- Art I, Sec. 8.

But then in Section 9 it says, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skeptic

>>The object of the tax is your INCOME (duh.) That's why it's called "income tax".

Then your position is, that the tax is a Direct Tax in contravention to the landmark Supreme Court cases (Brushaber and Stanton). Or do you still not have a position?


>>The court here simply means that the tax can be collected directly from individuals (like most taxes are). It doesn't mean the income tax is a "direct tax" in the constitutional sense of the word. As the 16th amendment itself says, it is an indirect tax--that is, one that can be level "without appropriation".

You still don't get the point. Every tax must have a taxing object. If the taxing object of an income tax is income, then it is being laid as a Direct Tax.

>>To repeat, when the courts call something an "indirect tax", they mean (roughly) a tax that is in some way a tax on commercial activity (including getting a salary from a job),


Oh, fine, Then surely you can find that in the law as in "There shall be a tax laaid on the commercial activiity of working for a living" or some such? Of course, there is no such law.

But where do you stand? Do you have a stand?

>>Yes. The income tax is an indirect excise tax, whose object is your income, and is collected directly from you. Simple, really.

Just as simple as 2 plus 2 equalsl 5. Apples are really oranges and the lawful power for a jury to nullify bad law is unlawful. You have placed yourself, along with Counselor Suddenly, in the strange and tortured mental warp of Orwellian Doublethink. If the tax is indirect, its object cannot be the income.

The very case the court cites (Brushaber) contradicts the opinion of this lower appellant court case.

>>No, it doesn't.

Oh, but you just affirmed Brushaber, while denying the obvious consequence of their Indirect Tax ruling. And the lower court case you cited called the tax "Direct."

>>Put in its simplest terms, the tax protestors claim that (for this or that odd reason) the Supreme Court in Brushader (or whatever) "said" that they don't have to pay taxes, while the lower courts (and the supreme court itself in the case above) repeatedly say the exact opposite: that the tax protestors do, too, have to pay taxes.

Utter nonsense. The arguments have nothing to do with the obligation to pay taxes, only as to how they are to be laid and collected.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by shanek [/i]

>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
The cases are there for anyone to read.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>IOW, "The Supreme Court said so!" Have you no opinions or conclusions of your own on the matter?

If you are going to exclude the Supreme Court from arguments concerning the law, you are excluding yourself from any rational discourse.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At your local law library or at Findlaw.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>If you recall, I posted the definition of "direct tax" from FindLaw.com and it supported my conclusion.

Findlaw.com is where you may find entire cases published, not just mere definitions of words. If actually readiing these cases too difficult for you, then perhaps you'd be more comfortable propounding your beliefs on the paranormal board.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was nothing in the Constitution prior to the 16th Amendment prohibiting a tax on income,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE!!!! If it's not in the Constitution, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO IT!!! It MUST be in the Constitution to be a power of the Federal Government! What's it going to take to get that through people's heads???


Quite so. And the authority is granted right there in Art. I, Sec. 8.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but provisions allowed that do indeed grant the power to tax, both directly and indirectly. "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises..." -- Art I, Sec. 8.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



>>But then in Section 9 it says, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Again, quite so. And you and the rest of the mental giants on this board might be careful to note that this section was never amended. All Direct taxes must still be apportioned.

-- Rouser

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek

No, you can only get that by completely twisting the definition I was responding to. I was using those definitions to support my claim—and those definitions fit the ones cited in the article. It's perfectly clear that the founders considered income tax a direct tax. The later shifting of that definition after the passage of the 16th Amendnment, when the court ruled that Income Tax was indirect after all (in contradiction to previous Supreme Court rulings), that was the newspeak.

Yes. The 16th amendment put in a what you call a "newspeak" definition of "indirect tax." I agree in principle, although I'd be more partial to the "strategic definition" lingo applied by the author of the piece you cited. "Newspeak," "strategic definition", whatever. The board up my butt doesn't prevent me from agreeing in principle.

As an aside, I think we may almost agree. The plain text of the 16th authorizes an income tax. Why didn't they just make it simple?

The founders defined indirect as you say, originally. The article agrees. I agree at this point. However, the other shoe droppeth:
In 1795 when the Founders, sitting as Justices, saw that apportionment functioned unreasonably, they interpreted the Constitution by cy pres, defining 'direct tax' strategically so as to avoid the nonsense.

According to this dude, the law professor whose article you described as "authoritative," the group of "founders" on the Court "newspeaked," or "applied a strategic definition to" "indirect tax" because the constitution's plain text was unworkable because the premise underlying it (that population = wealth) was false and silly.

The article says the Pollock case was "The Dred Scott decision of government revenue." This is an artful way of saying "This was a really stupid decision by dolts who were likely paid off" as far as I'm concerned. You said in reference to Pollack:Which I think is the most reasonable case.

Ergo, I don't think you want to cite this guy as agreeing with you. He doesn't, unless you cite his "history" section and ignore his analysis.

In short, you are right about the original definitions applied by the framers. However, according to the article (and ironically I'd have a problem with this assertion, but hey, we are discussing the article so I'll go with it) the framers in the person of the early court found that the constitution didn't work, so according to the cy pres doctrine tweaked the constitution. They tweaked it by applying a non-dictionary definition to "indirect tax."

You and the article are at odds. Just retract your support for it and belief that it is authoritative. The article accuses the "founders" of "newspeak" according to your use of the term.

(Hint: Say that the author's assertion that a decision by the "Jay" Court does not equal a decision by the "founders." This of course makes the Federalist papers an equally if not lesser statement of the founders, as the Federalist papers were written by 2 founders, while the Jay court had more (at least according to the article).

In a way this illustrates why I don't care much for the "founder's intent."

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rouser2
If you are going to exclude the Supreme Court from arguments concerning the law, you are excluding yourself from any rational discourse.

If you can't explain your position rationally without having to constantly refer to authority, then you aren't conducting rational discourse.

Quite so. And the authority is granted right there in Art. I, Sec. 8.

Then why is it denied in Article I Section 9?

Again, quite so. And you and the rest of the mental giants on this board might be careful to note that this section was never amended. All Direct taxes must still be apportioned.

Some say it was amended by Amendment XVI. Income Tax was made an exception. The copy of the Constitution on Whitehouse.gov says:

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16

http://www.whitehouse.gov/kids/constitution/amendments11-27.html#16

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Yes. The 16th amendment put in a what you call a "newspeak" definition of "indirect tax."

Except that you haven't shown where the 16th Amendment calls the Income Tax a Direct Tax.

As an aside, I think we may almost agree. The plain text of the 16th authorizes an income tax. Why didn't they just make it simple?

Sounds simple to me. I really don't understand why there's all this gymnatics about it. The 16th Amendment authorizes an Income Tax. It sucks, but there it is.

The founders defined indirect as you say, originally. The article agrees. I agree at this point. However, the other shoe droppeth:

Ergo, I don't think you want to cite this guy as agreeing with you.

The only thing I cited him for was the founders' original intentions behind the prohibition of the direct tax. They NEVER wanted the Federal government to tax things like income.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Sounds simple to me. I really don't understand why there's all this gymnatics about it. The 16th Amendment authorizes an Income Tax. It sucks, but there it is.

It's complicated. I'm on your side but there is a reasonable explaination. It has been explained in the posts, but it is obscure and technical. I think the court should have just gone with plain meaning, but they seemed to be obsessed with the context of earlier supreme court decisions.


The only thing I cited him for was the founders' original intentions behind the prohibition of the direct tax. They NEVER wanted the Federal government to tax things like income.

At least without appropriation. That's the point. It was the "direct only with appropriation" that caused the problem. The concept of appropriation proved stupid and unworkable, so they abandoned it in the Hylton case. However, they decided "indirect" was easier to redefine than "appropriation."

Leads to a question. If the "founder's intent" proves unworkable, and under the traditional doctrines (including cy pres) can be reworked, do we have to follow founder's intent to our destruction?

Of course, if you answer that yes, and that the remedy is to amend the constitution, the follow up question is:

Why, when it appears from all evidence that the founders chose the "cy pres" route?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
It's complicated. I'm on your side but there is a reasonable explaination. It has been explained in the posts, but it is obscure and technical. I think the court should have just gone with plain meaning, but they seemed to be obsessed with the context of earlier supreme court decisions.

Yeah, they were hardly being constructionist about the matter.

At least without appropriation.

That's true; thanks for the correction.

Leads to a question. If the "founder's intent" proves unworkable, and under the traditional doctrines (including cy pres) can be reworked, do we have to follow founder's intent to our destruction?

No, we don't. We can amend the Constitution.

Why, when it appears from all evidence that the founders chose the "cy pres" route?

That I couldn't tell you. It was probably because it was the actions of judges and not legislators.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ziggurat

>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Folks, when "debating" this issue with Rouser2, keep in mind that he believes that the moon landing was a hoax.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> Oh that's hillarious! Thanks for the info, that does sort of put things in perspective. I guess I was closer to the mark than I thought when I said he had brainwashed himself.

Hilarious, but untrue. Mr. or Ms. Central, like a lot of other mental giants on this board, cannot debate issues, but instead resort to lies, insults and spamming obsfucations. It is a claim Central Scrutinizer cannot back up. Just like Counselor Suddenly cannot back up his claims, and thus, when cornered as to his own Orwellian contradictions, calls it "nitpicking". Mr. Central Scrutinizer was a lurker on previous thread on the JFK murder. His/her lone contribution was to continually ask the same dumb question which was not worth my time to answer. Now he/she simply lies about it. I commend him/her to slither back under the rock and slime from whence he/she came.


-- Rouser

Lurker? No, I was a very active participant. I pretty much smacked you down repeatedly and ran you off the board (with the help of others too!). Now your back, and I guess you were hoping I and a few others had left! No such luck son.

So maybe now you'd like to answer a simple question:

On July 20, 1969, did US astronauts set foot on the moon?

Oh, and while you're at it, how about the other one you ran away from:

Who killed JFK? Give us a name.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Well it really does not take that much time. "Yes I believe the moon landing was a hoax." or "No I do not believe the moon landing was a hoax."

Put me down for the latter.;)

Don't hold your breathe waiting for an answer.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Central Scrutinizer was a lurker on previous thread on the JFK murder. His/her lone contribution was to continually ask the same dumb question which was not worth my time to answer.

TRASLATION:

"I am not only a tax protestor, I am also stupid enough to believe in the 'JFK assassinated by the CIA (or whomever)' myth, and in the 'moon hoax' silliness.

Central Scrutinizer kept asking me why, if it was such a huge conspiracy involving hundreds of people, not ONE of them came forward in FOURTY YEARS to admit the truth about the JFK assassination, and ALL the 'evidence' we've got is from kooky conspiracy theorists who never had the least connection with either JFK or the CIA.

I can't answer that, so I'll try to insult him".

Got it about right, "Rouser"?

Of course, the truth is that the SAME people who killed JFK also conspired to create the illegal income tax and fake the moon missions--the shape-shifting reptilians!

(evil laughter)

Muahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah yes, you were there! Or else you're psychic, because that is exactly what happened! :D

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by shanek

>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, quite so. And you and the rest of the mental giants on this board might be careful to note that this section was never amended. All Direct taxes must still be apportioned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Some say it was amended by Amendment XVI. Income Tax was made an exception. The copy of the Constitution on Whitehouse.gov says:


>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Some say???" As a matter of fact I remember being taught that very thing in my own 8th grade government school social studies class. But such footnotes are in direct contravention to the Supreme Court which went to great lengths to explain that this is exactly what the Amendment did not do in the landmark tax case (Brushaber V. Union Pacific):

"The contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment... is also wholly without foundation."


In my own research on the subject, I discovered that from the very outset the news media (publications such as the Journal of Politcal Economy and the NY Times) mis-reported what the court ruled the very next day after the opinion came out. Thus, began the brainwashing of the entire nation. Who actually bothers to read Supreme Court opinions in the general population? Why even here on this board, people such as you yourself couldn't be bothered.

-- Rouser






http://www.whitehouse.gov/kids/cons...ts11-27.html#16

[michaellee]

The 16th Amendment, the Constitution, and Income taxes.

To shanek, Rouser2, Skeptic and Suddenly-

You all show great interest in this subject and state many different
opinions, interpretations, and beliefs- most without hurling insults.
However, I cannot figure out why Skeptic takes Rouser2's questions
and responses so personally. Does Skeptic work as or for:
The I.R.S? A tax attorney? H&R Block?

shanek asked more than once "why all of this confusion" and never really
was answered. Rouser2 kept asking the same questions, because he never was
answered either. Suddenly contributed as well; and Skeptic kept the thread
lively albeit with mostly info from other sources.

I will try to identify what I think you all did not include in your posts
which is important as it relates to filling in the missing pieces of the Income
Tax puzzle.

First off, I am not: employed by the IRS, an attorney, a tax protestor, or a
Supreme Court judge; nor am I concerned in the least about being mistaken for
a constitutional scholar. I am somewhat logical though, and found this a detriment
when related to most government positions. To wit:

The topic of Federal Income Taxes.
Basic questions I first thought to ask were-

What is the definition of "Income"?

What is a "Tax" and what does it include?

After all, between the Founding fathers era up until today, one would suspect
that if our government expects its citizens to accept a Federal INCOME TAX, surely
the first thing one of these geniuses would have done is to define the words TAX and INCOME.
It would seem impossible to collect a tax on something, if that something was never
defined.

Step one, therefore, would be to define TAX and INCOME


The founders defined TAX, in two classes, DIRECT and INDIRECT, in the Constitution.
The only thing stated twice in the Constitution is that "DIRECT taxes must be apportioned".
(Article 1, Secs 2 and 9, cls 3 and 4.). These are those paid directly to the government and imposed
directly on individuals. They are either levied as a simple head or pole tax, or related
to some other standard like wealth or income. Today, federal taxes that fall into this category
are income, estate and gift taxes. These taxes, according to the Constitution have to imposed in
proportion to state population. This involves three steps: Enact a law specifying the exact
dollar amount the government intends to collect; Apportion a fixed % of the total amount against
each state in proportion to its population; Figure all the tax rates in each state, so each state
would collect the apportioned amount.

INDIRECT taxes are referred to as "duties, imposts and excises" (Article 1, sec8,cls1), mandating
the tax to be levied on the basis of geographic uniformity. This kind of tax is placed on things
people buy.

Today, the income tax is levied neither as an apportioned, DIRECT tax nor as an INDIRECT "duty, impost or
excise" tax.

The 16th Amendment

In 1895, the Supreme Court declared the income tax of 1894 unconstitutional. In Pollack v. Farmer's Loan & Trust,
the SC reviewed the taxing provisions of the Constitution, previous tax case court rulings, and declared the
Income Tax Act of 1894 unconstitutional, for want of apportionment. For the next 17 years, Congress pushed and in
1909 passed tax legislation, then ratified the 16th Amendment in 1912.

Immediately, the constitutionality of the Amendment was challenged, resulting in the Brushaber decision of 1916.
Although today to be claimed as the case cited for a constitutional income tax, the Brushaber ruling actually
confirms just the opposite. In Brushaber vs. Union Pacific, the SC ruled that "the 16th Amendment contains nothing
repudiating or challenging the ruling in the POLLACK case"(page 19);nor that the Amendment changed the Constitution
or gave government any new taxing powers(pgs 11-14).

On pages 16 and 17, the SC said; "Taxation on income was in its nature an excise [tax] entitled to be enforced as such"
and "The whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a
consideration of the source whence the income was derived."

In a nutshell, the SC said that an 'income' tax was an excise tax that could be levied on 'income' SEPARATED from its
'source'. However, today, individuals pay a tax directly on sources of income, like wages and interest. Brushaber meant
that the 16th Amendment authorized a tax only on the profits derived from sources of income, not on the source itself.

Today, the government levies the tax on individuals as a direct tax on their sources of income, without apportionment, in
opposition to the POLLACK decision. Today, the federal government only claims to tax 'income' FROM something, not ON anything.

So, what is 'INCOME"? In US vs. Ballard, the Circuit court of appeals observed that "The general term 'INCOME' is not
defined in the Internal Revenue Code". This is true- look it up if you wish. So how does the government collect today?
In Eisner v. Macomber, 252US 189(pg206) the SC said "In order, therefore, thatthe clauses cited from Article I of the
Constitution may have proper force and effect...it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and is not 'INCOME'...
Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the
Constitution." So 'INCOME' is a constitutional term, its meaning cannot legally be changed or tampered with by Congress.
This is the reason the government insists that the income tax is based on "voluntary compliance", for the unapportioned direct
tax on individuals sources of income, if enforced as "mandatory", would be unconstitutional.

Thus a very good reason to keep playing the 'definition' game. To put it in perspective, Subtitle D and Subtitle E of the IRCode: Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Certain other excise taxes states that these taxes are "imposed" and "shall be paid on the basis of a return."...
"shall be liable for the taxes imposed"..."require payment of tax on the basis of a return".
There is no question about the imposition, liability and requirement to pay these taxes.

Why aren't similar terms used in the Subtitle A:Income Tax? Nowhere found are the words 'imposed', 'shall be liable', 'require payment',
in this section. Why not? Instead, terms and phrases like 'applies to those MADE liable for any tax imposed by this title' or 'when
persons ARE required to make returns or statements' are used. More frivolous tax code if you ask me.

I don't believe its too much to ask for all Americans to pay their fair share of taxes. This country is the greatest and our
government performs many great functions; then why not simplify this whole tax thing? Is it asking too much for the following?

You want us to pay INCOME TAXES, then just define the damn words in simple terms. It can't be that difficult, can it?
If I am required to file an INCOME TAX return, then simply state, maybe in the 1st section for all to see:
"You are liable for the tax imposed and required to file a damn return."

Wouldn't these simple steps eliminate what the IRS, the government, and SKEPTIC so much despise; "The tax protestor!??"
And make all of our lives better right around April 14th of every year as well.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Who actually bothers to read Supreme Court opinions in the general population? Why even here on this board, people such as you yourself couldn't be bothered.

Oh, I've read them; I just reserve the right to disagree with them. FYI, it's been the case many times in the past that a previous Supreme Court ruling was overturned. They're hardly an infallible body, and our system of government recognizes that.

[shanek]

Originally posted by michaellee
So, what is 'INCOME"? In US vs. Ballard, the Circuit court of appeals observed that "The general term 'INCOME' is not
defined in the Internal Revenue Code". This is true- look it up if you wish.

Um...

<div style="border: solid thin black; background-color: white; width: 100%"><p style="text-align: center">Internal Revenue Code
Section 61</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">STATUTE
<LI>General definition. Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
Gross income derived from business;
Gains derived from dealings in property;
Interest;
Rents;
Royalties;
Dividends;
Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
Annuities;
Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
Pensions;
Income from discharge of indebtedness;
Distributive share of partnership gross income;
Income in respect of a decedent; and
Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

Cross references. For items specifically included in gross income, see part II (sec. 71 and following). For items specifically excluded from gross income, see part III (sec. 101 and following). </p></div>

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek



That I couldn't tell you. It was probably because it was the actions of judges and not legislators.

Let me re-state the question. Why do you claim a "constructionalist" approach to constitutional interpretation where the plain meaning must be followed even to absurd effect is the only suitable method of constitutional interpretation, when, according to the article, the founders didn't suscribe to that method?

If it turned out that the founders believed in a dynamic approach to statutory (and constitutional) construction, wouldn't your reliance on a static construction be unfounded? Hypothetically, of course.

Also, doen't your rejection of the application of the cy pres doctrine in Hylton, (where indirect tax is 'strategically defined") create a conundrum w/r/t your theory of constitutional construction? Cy pres is used when the plain language of a text leads to an absurd or impossible result, one clearly not intended by the drafter. By the doctrine of cy pres, a court modifies the original text so that the intent of the drafter is best preserved.

The Founders thus created a dilemma for themselves. They intended to give Congress the power to lay direct taxes. Giving Congress that power was intended to solve the fiscal crisis that had caused the 'impotence' and 'imbecility' at the federal level. The drafters then attached a condition to that power to lay direct taxes, apportionment, which made direct taxes perverse. No one in the debates understood apportionment to be a hobble or a perversity and yet it is in the constitutional text.


Apportionment was unworkable and in effect made all direct taxes impossible, and this was not the "intent of the founders." This was the desire of some of the founders (the anti federalists), but not the founders as a whole.

So, what do we do when the effect of the plain language of the founder's text leads to a result contrary to their intent?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Let me re-state the question. Why do you claim a "constructionalist" approach to constitutional interpretation where the plain meaning must be followed even to absurd effect is the only suitable method of constitutional interpretation, when, according to the article, the founders didn't suscribe to that method?

They did, initially. They just chose to "reinterpret" it instead of amend the Constitution when it proved to be unworkable.

If it turned out that the founders believed in a dynamic approach to statutory (and constitutional) construction, wouldn't your reliance on a static construction be unfounded?

Yeah, and if the sky were green it wouldn't be blue.

By the doctrine of cy pres, a court modifies the original text so that the intent of the drafter is best preserved.

Except that that didn't happen in this case. The conclusion reached was not what the founders talked about in the Constitutional debates.

Apportionment was unworkable and in effect made all direct taxes impossible, and this was not the "intent of the founders." This was the desire of some of the founders (the anti federalists), but not the founders as a whole.

Allowing direct taxes with apportionment was a compromise the anti-Federalists made so that they could at least avoid direct taxes on the people, which the Federalists agreed to.

If direct taxes with apportionment is unworkable, then why is the default to allow all direct taxes instead of none?

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by michaellee
Re: The 16th Amendment, the Constitution, and Income taxes.

>>You want us to pay INCOME TAXES, then just define the damn words in simple terms. It can't be that difficult, can it?
If I am required to file an INCOME TAX return, then simply state, maybe in the 1st section for all to see:
"You are liable for the tax imposed and required to file a damn return."

Good post. Shows good understanding of the issues (with a few exceptions). As to the definition of "income", you are correct. There is no definitiion in the IR Code. Predictably, Shanek trots out the standard answer the government gives with the clause which reads:

"Gross income is all income from whatever source derived, including, ..., compensation for services, commissions, etc., etc., etc."

A sneaky, cleaver, devious way of defining a word without defining it at all. Of course, the only word defined is the word "gross" meaning "all". And the sources from which that undefined thing called "income" may be derived. But the word itself is not defined and for good reason. The government would like everyone to presume that income means everything that comes in.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by shanek

>>Um...
<LI>General definition. Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
[list=1]
Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
Gross income derived from business;
Gains derived from dealings in property;
Interest;
Rents;
Royalties;
Dividends;
Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
Annuities;
Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
Pensions;
Income from discharge of indebtedness;
Distributive share of partnership gross income;
Income in respect of a decedent; and
Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

Comment:
Of course this clause does not define "income" at all, but only the word "gross" meaning "all". The list of sources where thiis undefined thing called "income" may be derived neither defines the word "income". It's like a teacher asking a elementary grade pupil a question like "What is a horse". And the pupil answers "a horse is a horse with four legs and a tail." Or, to pararphase this devious non-definition in the code to answer the question:

What is Gross Fish?
Answer: Gross fish is all fish from whatever source derived including rivers, lakes, streams and the sea. So what is defined here is the word "gross" and then a list of where this undefined word "fish" may be taken from (derived). But the word "fish" is not defined. So many people taken in by this elementary slight of hand verbal trickery, including judges and lawyers. And of course, taxpayers and jurors.

-- Rouser

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


They did, initially. They just chose to "reinterpret" it instead of amend the Constitution when it proved to be unworkable.

I don't understand. Doesn't the founder's act of "reinterpret" prove my point? Keep in mind I am talking only about methods of construction here, not agreement with result. That they "reinterpret" the text shows a bent towards dynamic rather than static construction, no? I'm looking at methods of construction, not results. If the founders considered a dynamic approach acceptable, why wouldn't you?


Yeah, and if the sky were green it wouldn't be blue.

It is a hypothetical, yes, but the point I'm getting at is the issue that the founders may not have been strict constuctionalists.



Except that that didn't happen in this case. The conclusion reached was not what the founders talked about in the Constitutional debates.

Allowing direct taxes with apportionment was a compromise the anti-Federalists made so that they could at least avoid direct taxes on the people, which the Federalists agreed to.

If direct taxes with apportionment is unworkable, then why is the default to allow all direct taxes instead of none?


The court found that redefining indirect tax was the best way to honor the founder's intent. The question is not whether you believe the court did a good job, rather the question is whether this should be done at all. You have once answered "no" to this question, but you sort of deflected the follow up, which was how do you justify your disaproval as you seem to be at odds with the very founders whose intent you claim to follow?

In other words, since it appears the founders themselves didn't find their own intent regarding the definition of "indirect tax" a controlling factor in constitutional interpretation, how do you justify your doing so?

I know there's a flavor of paradox to the idea of not following the founder's intent because to do so violates the founder's intent. This does not argue against strict construction per se, just the use of "founder's intent" to justify the use of a strict constructionalist approach.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I don't understand. Doesn't the founder's act of "reinterpret" prove my point? Keep in mind I am talking only about methods of construction here, not agreement with result. That they "reinterpret" the text shows a bent towards dynamic rather than static construction, no?

Only by a few in the judicial branch, and even then only after the ratification of the Constitution. The debates at the Constitutional Convention make it perfectly clear that they were taking a constructionist approach to drafting the Constitution.

Yeah, and if the sky were green it wouldn't be blue.

It is a hypothetical, yes,

But it's also circular. The point is, nothing in the debates leading up to the ratification of the Constitution shows that they ever intended the Constitution to be a dynamic document, even if that's how some of them ended up treating it later.

The court found that redefining indirect tax was the best way to honor the founder's intent.

The intent of which founders? The Federalists wanted direct taxes; the anti-Federalists didn't. And Jay was a Federalist.

how do you justify your disaproval as you seem to be at odds with the very founders whose intent you claim to follow?

That's the thing&mdash;I maintain that the later rulings are at odds with the intent of the founders.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ziggurat

>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Folks, when "debating" this issue with Rouser2, keep in mind that he believes that the moon landing was a hoax.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> Oh that's hillarious! Thanks for the info, that does sort of put things in perspective. I guess I was closer to the mark than I thought when I said he had brainwashed himself.

Hilarious, but untrue. Mr. or Ms. Central, like a lot of other mental giants on this board, cannot debate issues, but instead resort to lies, insults and spamming obsfucations. It is a claim Central Scrutinizer cannot back up.


I realize this is getting a little off topic, but if you'll indulge me for a moment, Rouser2, I haven't actually seen you refute Scrutinizer's statement that you believe the moon landing was a hoax. So to settle that little matter, what exactly IS your opinion on the moon landing? Rather than resort to hearsay, I thought I'd just go straight to the source. A direct statement from you can settle that matter rather directly.

[Skeptic]

>>The object of the tax is your INCOME (duh.) That's why it's called "income tax".

Then your position is, that the tax is a Direct Tax in contravention to the landmark Supreme Court cases (Brushaber and Stanton). Or do you still not have a position?

Not really, because "direct tax" DOESN'T mean "a tax that has an object". ALL taxes have an "object"--the salary you get, the bottle of beer you buy, the fuel you use, the land you own, etc. This DOESN'T make them direct taxes: of these four example, the first three (income tax and the tax on alcohol and tubacco) are indirect taxes or various sorts, while the last one only (tax on land) is a direct tax.

It is little wonder that you reach all these absurd conclusions about not having to pay income tax; that's because you start from an absurd premise. You define "direct tax" as a tax that "has an object", and therefore, since the income tax "doesn't have an object", you don't have to pay it because you are not its "object".

But your "argument" is simply a case of "garbage in, garbage out". "Direct tax" NEVER meant "a tax that has an object" (whatever this odd formula means except for the fact that all taxes tax SOMETHING); "Indirect tax", consequently, never meant "a tax that has no object" (whatever that possibly is--a tax on nothing? A tax law saying, "hey, somebody, give us money" to nobody in particular? ). We already discussed what "direct" and "indirect" means in this context numerous times, and it something completely different.

Simply put: the income tax is an INDIRECT tax whose object is your income. This is only a "contradiction" or a "problem" if we use your (or your tax guru's) boneheaded definition of "direct tax" as a "tax that has an object". But nobody that matters agrees with you that this is the correct defintion--certainly no court ever did.

But wait, don't tell me: it's all a huge conspiracy to "hide the truth". Only you (and your tax guru) know the "truth" about what "direct tax" and "indirect tax" REALLY mean. Everybody else is wrong or lying.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
of these four example, the first three (income tax and the tax on alcohol and tubacco) are indirect taxes or various sorts, while the last one only (tax on land) is a direct tax.

Why is an income tax more like a tax on alcohol and tobacco and not like a tax on land?

And why do you need to keep insisting that the Income Tax is an indirect tax in order to be Constitutional when the 16th Amendment says that Income Tax is Constitutional but doesn't say one word about it being direct or indirect?

[Skeptic]

Does Skeptic work as or for:
The I.R.S? A tax attorney? H&R Block?

No. Thanks for the ad hominem, however. Nice start for an objective discussion.

Then again, what OTHER argument those who absurdly hold that income tax is illegal have EXCEPT "it is all a conspiracy" by labeling anybody who disagrees as part of the "evil IRS government cosnpiracy"?

Rouser2 kept asking the same questions, because he never was
answered either.

Actually, he was. He asked "is the income tax direct or indirect?" and was answered, "indirect". He asked "what is the object of the tax?" and was answered, "your income". He then said, "ah-haaaaaah!!!! A contradiction!!! The income tax has an object, so it must be a direct tax!!!!". But that just shows he's an idiot, because "direct tax" NEVER meant "a tax that has an object". The income tax is, quite simply, an indirect tax whose object is (duh) your income.

After all, between the Founding fathers era up until today, one would suspect
that if our government expects its citizens to accept a Federal INCOME TAX, surely
the first thing one of these geniuses would have done is to define the words TAX and INCOME.

Not really. See the tax protestor FAQ:



Argument: The Internal Revenue Code does not define "income."

Reply:Technically correct, but irrelevant. Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income," from which taxable income is calculated, "income from all sources" and gives a number of examples of the types of income included in "gross income" in section 61, including compensation for services (i.e., wages, salaries, and other forms of earned income).

It is actually fairly common for statutes to omit fundamental definitions of legal concepts, and for taxing statutes to omit fundamental definitions of what is being taxed. For example, property taxes rarely define what is meant by "property." The Internal Revenue Code includes a gift tax and an estate tax as well as an income tax, and both taxes are imposed on the value of property, and yet there is no statutory definition of "gift," "value," or "property."

Courts have therefore not been impressed with arguments about a statutory definition of "income."

"Upon review of May's amended petition, we find no allegations of fact which could give rise to a valid claim; rather, the complaint merely contains conclusory assertions attacking the constitutionality of the Internal Revenue Code and its application to the taxpayer.[Footnote omitted.] Tax protest cases like this one raise no genuine controversy; the underlying legal issues have long been settled. See, e.g., Abrams, 82 T.C. at 406-07 (citing cases rejecting similar arguments). Because May's petition raised no justiciable claims, the Tax Court properly dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim." May v. C.I.R., 752 F.2d 1301, 1302 (8th Cir. 1985), (among other things, May's amended complaint alleged that "The Respondent has totally erred in its determination of 'income' when no definition of 'income' appears in the Internal Revenue Code. No basis exists for this improper determination of 'income' by the Respondent." 752 F.2d at 1304, note 3).

"Plaintiff argues he is entitled to relief because the Code does not define income. The United States, however, is correct that "income" is afforded its every day usage as any gain derived from capital, labor, or both combined. See United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (6th Cir. 1983). In addition, the Code explicitly defines "gross income", from which taxable income is computed, as including compensation for services, i.e., wages." Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2D PAR. 98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous refund suit), aff'd 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Par. 50,394, 83 AFTR2d Par. 99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999), (with sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).

"In April of 1995, Dr. Ahee filed two form 1040 federal individual income tax returns for the years 1990 and 1991. Each of these returns were filed with all entries completed '0,' except the 1990 return demanded the $6,440 refund (presumably for taxes paid in 1989). Attached to these returns was a two paged typed addendum in which Dr. Ahee stated that he was not required to pay taxes. Dr. Ahee claimed that he decided to file these 'zero' returns after attending a tax seminar in early April 1995. [...] "Appellant avers that since the Code does not define income, he did not know that monies he received were income, so he violated the Code, if at all, in good faith. While it is true that the 'general term income is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code,' all of the monies received by Dr. Ahee clearly meet the definitions found in IRC section 61. [United State v.] Ballard, [535 F.2d 400 (8th Cir. 1976)] 535 F.2d, at 404. The money he received as compensation for patient services falls squarely within IRC section 61(a)(1): 'Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items.'" United States v. Ahee, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 2706, 87 AFTR2d Par. 2001-523, No. 99-1991 (6th Cir. 2/15/2001), (criminal conviction for willfully filing false returns affirmed).




Today, the income tax is levied neither as an apportioned, DIRECT tax nor as an INDIRECT "duty, impost or
excise" tax.

Although today to be claimed as the case cited for a constitutional income tax, the Brushaber ruling actually
confirms just the opposite.

In Brushaber vs. Union Pacific, the SC ruled that "the 16th Amendment contains nothing
repudiating or challenging the ruling in the POLLACK case"(page 19);nor that the Amendment changed the Constitution
or gave government any new taxing powers(pgs 11-14).


These are two tired, and false, tax protester arguments, namely 1). The 16th amendment illegally (or uncosntitutionally) created a new sort of tax, and 2). since the 16th amendment "created no new power of taxation", it doesn't actually allow the government to collect income tax.

First of all, notice that the tax protestors want to have it both ways: they argue, at the same time, that they don't have to pay income taxes because the 16th DID create a new power taxation (and that that is illegal, ergo the income tax law based on it is unconstitutional), AND that they don't have to pay income taxes because the 16th amendment DID NOT create a new power of taxation (so that, while the amendment itself is constitutional, income tax still isn't). Which one is it, then?

At any rate, once more, neither argument has a shread of merit. As the tax protestor FAQ, once more, says when answering both claims:



Argument: The 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax.

Reply: This statement is taken from language in the opinions of the United States Supreme Court in the Brushaber and Stanton decisions and, unlike most other tax protester nonsense, it is actually true. The problem is not that the statement is false, but that it doesn't mean what tax protesters think it means and it doesn't lead to the conclusion that tax protesters want to reach.

Tax protesters believe that, before the adoption of the 16th Amendment, a tax on incomes was unconstitutional and therefore outside the power of Congress. This is not correct because, as explained above, it was clear even before the 16th Amendment that Congress could tax wages and earnings from employment, as well as income from business operations. By incorrectly asserting that a tax on incomes was unconstitutional before the 16th Amendment, and then asserting that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax, tax protesters can conclude that a tax on incomes must be unconstitutional even after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, which is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous because it means that the 16th Amendment does not mean what it says. The amendment plainly states that "The Congress shall have the power to tax incomes" and tax protesters nevertheless try to claim that Congress does not have the power to tax incomes.

It is also ridiculous because it would mean that Congress proposed a constitutional amendment, and the states ratified a constitutional amendment, that changed nothing and has no meaning.

To understand the statement of the Supreme Court when it said that the 16th Amendment created "no new power," you have to understand the context in which it was made. One of the claims made by the taxpayer in the Brushaber case was that the 16th Amendment was "repugnant to the constitution" because it created a form of tax that was neither apportioned (as required for "direct" taxes by Article I, Section 9) nor uniform (as required for "excises" by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). The court referred to the conclusion "that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes," as an "erroneous assumption."

"[T]hat the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

This statement was confirmed and explained by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), in which the court stated that "by the previous ruling [in Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation...."

Therefore, the power to tax incomes without apportionment is not a new kind of power, but just a different classification of the "previous complete and plenary power of income taxation," taking it out of the category of direct taxation and placing it back in the category of indirect taxation "to which it inherently belonged."



However, today, individuals pay a [income] tax directly on sources of income, like wages and interest.

This is just not true. Wages and interests are NOT "sources" of income, they are a KIND of income, a part (or whole) of your income. This whole "income/source of income" argument is a verbal gymnastic, trying to define your salary as one kind, while claiming the income tax merely taxes the other kind. As the tax protestor FAQ says:



Argument: Wages are not income, but only a source of income (Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code lists only sources of income), so wages cannot be taxable.


Answer: As explained above, the argument that the 16th Amendment requires the determination of a "source" before income can be taxed turns the 16th Amendment on its head and is totally inconsistent with the words of the amendment, the history of the amendment, and the court decisions interpreting the amendment.

The argument is equally bizarre when applied to the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code.

Section 61(a) of the Code states that "gross income" (the beginning of the determination of "taxable income") means "all income from whatever source derived .. .."

As explained above in connection with the same phrase ("from whatever source derived") in the 16th Amendment, the word "whatever" is usually defined as meaning "of any number or kind," or "of any kind at all." If income is taxable from any kind of source, then there is no need to identify the source before taxing the income. (What about income that has no source? I will leave it to more imaginative minds than mine to try to visualize an income that springs out of thin air, with no source at all.)

In interpreting similar provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1929, the Supreme Court expressly disregard the idea that the "source" of income was significant:

"Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to their nature. And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955).

The regulations under the Internal Revenue Code also confirm that the geographical source of the income of a citizen or resident of the United States is usually not relevant:

"In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States." Treas. Reg. ¤Ê1.1-1(b).

Tax protesters claim that the reference in section 61 to "the following items" is to not to a list of items of income, but to a list of "items of sources," which makes no sense, either grammatically or as a matter of common English usage. And, like many tax protester arguments, it also claims too much, and collapses of its own weight.

If the list of "items" is section 61 is a list of sources, and not income, and "sources" are not taxable, then nothing is taxable, because the items listed in section 61(a) include every type of income imaginable:

(1) Compensation for services, include fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

If none of those things are income, and none of them is taxable, then nothing is income, and nothing is taxable, an absurd result which Congress could not possibly have intended. (Students of logic may recognize this as a reductio ad absurdum, or proof that something is false by showing that, if it were true, it would lead to absurd results. Unfortunately, tax protesters know nothing of logic.)



So, what is 'INCOME"? In US vs. Ballard, the Circuit court of appeals observed that "The general term 'INCOME' is not
defined in the Internal Revenue Code". This is true- look it up if you wish.

True but irrelevant, as said above.

(By the way, I have cookbook at home that DOES NOT define "recipie", "cooking", or "food" ANYWHERE! Must be part of an evil conspiracy; how can the chef that wrote it claim that I can undestand such a book where he DOESN'T EVEN DEFINE THE BASIC TERMS? What, exactly, is he HIDING by such UNCLEAR LANGUAGE? )

So 'INCOME' is a constitutional term, its meaning cannot legally be changed or tampered with by Congress.

Once more, the tax protestors want to have it both ways: first the claim that the income tax law DOES NOT define income and is therefore illegal, and then that it DOES define income to mean something different that what it previously meant.

The most generous interpretation I can give is that the tax protestors claim that the reason the income tax law doesn't define "income" is that if it did, it would be obvious to all that it includes in "income" things that the constitution did not include in it.

This is simply false. Once more, the tax protestor FAQ notes the truth:



Argument: The Internal Revenue Code cannot define "income" because it is a term used in the Constitution and Congress cannot modify the Constitution by statute.

Reply:There is some truth to this and, as explained above, the Internal Revenue Code does not define "income." "Gross income" (which is the beginning point to determine what is "taxable income") is defined as "income from whatever source derived," but "income" itself is not defined.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that Congress intended to tax everything within the Constitutional meaning of "income," and so the Internal Revenue Code taxes everything that could be called "income." See, Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955).



In other words, the income tax law does not change the meaning of the word "income" as used in the constitution either explicitly (since it doesn't define "income") or implicitly (looking at what it taxes). Looking at what is included in "gross income" as the icome tax's implicity definition of what "income" is, it is obvious that it only taxes things (e.g., wages, profits from businesses, etc.) that clearly ARE "income" according to the constitution.

This is the reason the government insists that the income tax is based on "voluntary compliance",

The argument that the income tax is "voluntary" is based on functional illiteracy.

First of all, once more, the tax protestors are committing a logical fallacy: they are claiming that a tax, and a law, ar voluntary. Nobody EVER uses the terms "tax" or "law" to mean something that is voluntary; if it is, it is a "gift", or a "suggestion", or a "charity". Laws and taxes COMPELL, by defintion.

(Of course, the tax protestors claim this isn't THEIR logical fallacy, but the logical fallacy committed by the all-powerful "eeeeevil gubirmint conspiracy". Yeah, whatever... )

At any rate, the ONLY sense in which the government ever claimed the income tax is voluntary is in the sense that to be effective, it must rely on the truthfullness and goodwill of most taxpayers to tell the truth about their income without an IRS agent standing there. It is only voluntary in the same sense traffic laws are--roadsigns are effective because the vast majority of those who get to a "stop" sign will stop voluntarily, that is, even without a cop being present. This doesn't mean you can run a stop sign and claim you were just refusing to "volunteer".

To once more quote the tax protestor FAQ:



Argument: The income tax is voluntary.

This is a corruption of statements made by the IRS, the courts, and Congress to encourage taxpayer compliance with the tax laws, without the need for legal action against taxpayers.

A quotation frequently taken out of context by tax protesters is the following by the U.S. Supreme Court:

"Our tax system is based upon voluntary assessment and payment and not upon distraint." Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 175.

This quotation is out of context, because the court first noted that the government could collect the tax by exercising its power of distraint, "but we cannot believe that completing resort to this extraordinary procedure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent." 362 U.S. at 175. In other words, Congress can collect taxes by force, but the court believed that Congress intended to give taxpayers an opportunity to comply before exercising that force.

This is better explained in Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938), (which was cited in the Flora decision), as follows:

"In assessing income taxes, the Government relies primarily upon the disclosure by the taxpayer of the relevant facts. This disclosure it requires him to make in his annual return. To ensure full and honest disclosure, to discourage fraudulent attempts to evade the tax, Congress imposes sanctions. Such sanctions may confessedly be either criminal or civil."

See also, Ginter v. Southern, 611 F.2d 1226, 1229 & n.2 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. den., 446 U.S. 967 (1980); Funk v. Commissioner, 687 F.2d 264, 265 (8th Cir. 1982). When confronted by claims that income taxes are "voluntary," courts readily explain that the payment of income tax is mandatory, not optional:

"Appellants' claim that payment of federal income tax is voluntary clearly lacks substance. See Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460, 467 (8th Cir. 1985)." United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993).

"The payment of income taxes is not optional ... and the average citizen knows that payment of income taxes is legally required." Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 834 (2nd Cir. 1990).

"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (6) the income tax is voluntary... " Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

"Any assertion that the payment of income taxes is voluntary is without merit. It is without question that the payment of income taxes is not voluntary. United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993), (per curiam); Wilcox v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988). The assertion that the filing of an income tax return is voluntary is, likewise, frivolous. Title 26, United States Code, Section 6012(a)(1)(A), 'requires that every individual who earns a threshold level of income must file a tax return.' United States v. Pottorf, 769 F.Supp. 1176, 1183 (D.Kan. 1991). Failure to file an income tax return subjects an individual to criminal penalty. Id., (citing 26 U.S.C. ¤Ê7203)." United States v. Hartman, 915 F.Supp. 1227 (M.D.Fla. 1996).

"Based on his belief that the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance, Beresford wrote the IRS to explain that he had voluntarily chosen not to comply and would not be paying overdue income taxes for 1987, 1988, and 1989. The IRS issued a federal tax lien against him, which it satisfied by withholding $14,609.97 from the sale of Beresford's house in October 1999. Beresford seeks to recover that sum plus interest and costs. He also seeks a permanent injunction 'forbidding defendant from contacting him against his wishes and from directly or indirectly interfering in any other aspect of his life.' Complaint at 11. ... Beresford's primary contention, however, that the federal income tax system is based on voluntary compliance, has been held to be 'completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous.' Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990); Wilcox v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988)." Steven M. Beresford v. IRS, et al., 86 AFTR2d Par. 2000-5200, No. 00-293-KI (July 13, 2000).

"The federal income tax is not voluntary, and a person may not elect to opt out of the federal tax laws by a unilateral act of revocation and recission. See, e.g., Lesoon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 141 F.3d 1185, 1998 WL 166114 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993); Damron v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 18 F. Supp. 2d 812, 819-20 (E.D. Tenn. 1998), aff'd, 188 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 1999)." United States v. John L. Sasscer, 86 AFTR2d Par. 2000-5317, No. Y-97-3026 (D.C. Md. 9/25/2000), (footnote omitted).

A similar claim is that a federal income tax return is a form of contract, and is therefore voluntary, or invalid if entered into under duress. This claim is also uniformly rejected:

"The notion that the federal income tax is contractual or otherwise consensual in nature is not only utterly without foundation by, despite McLaughlin's protestations to the contrary, has been repeatedly rejected by the courts." McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987).

"Drefke argues that taxes are debts which can only be imposed voluntarily when individuals contract with the government for services and that those who choose to enter such contracts do so by signing 1040 and W-4 forms. By refusing to sign those forms, Drefke argues that he is 'immune' from the Internal Revenue Service's jurisdiction as a 'nontaxpayer.'
"This is an imaginative argument, but totally without arguable merit. 26 U.S.C. ¤Ê1 imposes upon 'every' individual a certain rate of income tax depending on their amount of taxable income. 26 U.S.C. ¤Ê6012 states that unmarried individuals having a gross income in excess of $4,300, and married individuals entitled to make joint returns having a gross income in excess of $5,400 'shall' file tax returns for the taxable year. Considering Drefke's gross income for 1979 and 1980, he was clearly required to file tax returns for those years.
"26 U.S.C. ¤Ê6151 states that when a tax return is required to be filed, the person so required 'shall' pay such taxes to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the fixed time and place. The sections of the Internal Revenue Code imposed a duty on Drefke to file tax returns and pay the appropriate rate of income tax, a duty which he chose to ignore." United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983), cert. den., sub nom., Jameson v. United States, 464 U.S. 942 (1983).

"Upon review of May's amended peition, we find no allegations of fact which could give rise to a valid claim; rather, the complaint merely contains conclusory assertions attacking the constitutionality of the Internal Revenue Code and its application to the taxpayer.[Footnote omitted.] Tax protest cases like this one raise no genuine controversy; the underlying legal issues have long been settled. See, e.g., Abrams, 82 T.C. at 406-07 (citing cases rejecting similar arguments). Because May's petition raised no justiciable claims, the Tax Court properly dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim." May v. C.I.R., 752 F.2d 1301, 1302 (8th Cir. 1985), (among other things, May's amended complaint alleged that "The filing of an 'imcome' [sic] tax return is 'VOLUNTARY' and penalties can not be instituted against a voluntary act since to do so would make the act 'mandatory.'" 752 F.2d at 1304, note 3).



Why aren't similar terms used in the Subtitle A:Income Tax? Nowhere found are the words 'imposed', 'shall be liable', 'require payment',
in this section.

Huh? The income tax DOES say, quite clearly, that taxes are imposed on all US citizens who have income (excluding some foreign income and other rare cases not relevant here). As the tax protestor FAQ (yet again) says:



In its various subsections, section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says that "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. .."

As explained in the regulations:

"Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ...." Treas. Reg. ¤ 1.1-1(a)(1).

The word "impose" means "to establish or apply as compulsory; levy." So how can a tax be "imposed" if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can't. If a tax is imposed on a person's income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law.



You seem to be arguing that, because the eeeeeevil gubirmint didn't say the magic words ("impose", "liable", etc.) in some OTHER subsection of the law where you FEEL they should have, then you are not liable for income tax.

Not true. Like in the case of "the government didn't define income" argument, the government hardly needs to re-define or re-state things ad infinitum in every possibly sub-sub-section of the income tax code before it "really counts". That's just a tax protestor fantasy.

Wouldn't these simple steps (of "simpifying" the income tax code by taking seriously the tax protestor's nonsense "arguments" eliminate what the IRS, the government, and SKEPTIC so much despise; "The tax protestor!??"

Of course not. The tax protestors are not, after all, motivated by a good faith attempt to simplify the tax code. They are merely using mostly imaginary "complications" and "vaugenesses" in the tax code as an excuse, a feeble justification (in their own mind) of why they really don't have to obey it and don't have to pay taxes.

They know that this shows them to be parasitic people who enjoy America's greatness but refuse to contribute, so they need some face-saving excuse against this charge of being freeloaders. And what better excuse than blaming the eeeeeeevil gubirmint: "sure, I'll pay my taxes, if only THEY simplify the code!"

But that's just an excuse for why they don't pay (the real reason they don't pay is that they don't feel like it.) If, per impossibilum, the IRS goes nuts and satisfied every single tax protestor demand for "clarification", the tax protestors will simply find some other excuse--"well, you SIMPLIFIED it, but you didn't simplify it CORRECTLY; I will pay the moment that you..."; or "well, you CLAIM to have simplified it, but actually you made MORE COMPLEX; I will pay the moment that you...", or whatever.

Let me put it this way: did the photos of the Mars surveyour of Cidonia, specifically done by NASA to appease the "face on mars" nuts, satisfy the "face on Mars" conspiracy theorists? Of course not. They just made even more bizzare claims about the photos being "fake". The same would be true with tax protestors: if their demands are met, they will just make more, and far more bizzare ones.

[Skeptic]

Why is an income tax more like a tax on alcohol and tobacco and not like a tax on land?

Because it is an excise, a tax on a commercial transaction (recieving wages for work included) instead of on an object. If you own land, you sometimes must pay a tax on it merely for owning it, even if you live alone in the woods. You only owe income tax, however, if you have taxable income--which always involves some sort of commercial transaction (working for somebody in return for money, selling something at a profit, etc.)

And why do you need to keep insisting that the Income Tax is an indirect tax in order to be Constitutional

I am not insisiting on it. The courts insist on it--they repeatedly ruled the 16th amendment "created no new power of taxation", and thus, the income tax it authorises must be either one (direct) or the other (indirect). Since the amendment says that it is not a direct tax (since it can be collected "without appropriation") it must an indirect one, and thus uniform (which it is) to be constitutional.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ziggurat


>>I realize this is getting a little off topic, but if you'll indulge me for a moment, Rouser2, I haven't actually seen you refute Scrutinizer's statement that you believe the moon landing was a hoax. So to settle that little matter, what exactly IS your opinion on the moon landing? Rather than resort to hearsay, I thought I'd just go straight to the source. A direct statement from you can settle that matter rather directly.

Yes, it is indeed off topic. The answer is, I do not respond to nitwits who post off-topic questions which only serve to betray their own nitwittery. Get it? Now slither away into your crevice with your know-nothing friend from whence you came.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skeptic


>>Simply put: the income tax is an INDIRECT tax whose object is your income. This is only a "contradiction" or a "problem" if we use your (or your tax guru's) boneheaded definition of "direct tax" as a "tax that has an object".


Every tax must have an taxing object, whether Direct or Indirect. As previously pointed out, a Direct tax is either a capitation ( a head tax) or a tax on property. Nothing else. An indirect tax is a tax on a revenue taxable activity, event or privilege.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by shanek


Oh, I've read them; I just reserve the right to disagree with them. FYI, it's been the case many times in the past that a previous Supreme Court ruling was overturned. They're hardly an infallible body, and our system of government recognizes that.


You may disagree with them all you like. But when the government uses the very authorities which deny them the powers they claim, then you cannot ignore those authorities. The government cites the Supreme Court landmark tax cases to prove their current manner of laying and collect of an income tax is proper and lawful, but the very cases they cite prove that the government's laying and collecting enforcement of the tax is not lawful. Thus, you cannot ignore the Supreme Court and simply thumb your nose, unless you blindly choose to accept the government's claims.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Why is an income tax more like a tax on alcohol and tobacco and not like a tax on land?

Because it is an excise,

Oh, come on&mdash;that's no answer! That's just the assertion again!

Answer straight: Why is Income Tax, which is the tax on MY money that I have rightfully earned, more like an excise tax, which is a tax that can be passed on to others, and not like a tax on land, which is MY property that I have rightfully earned?

If you own land, you sometimes must pay a tax on it merely for owning it,

Not to the Federal government.

You only owe income tax, however, if you have taxable income--which always involves some sort of commercial transaction (working for somebody in return for money, selling something at a profit, etc.)

Labor is a product now? My, we're just getting so twisted in our definitions here...

Since the amendment says that it is not a direct tax (since it can be collected "without appropriation")

HOW does it say that? It merely states that Income Tax can be collected without apportionment...this DOES NOT mean it's not a direct tax! In the Constitutional debates, our founders most certainly stated that it was possible to have a direct tax with it being apportioned! In fact, that was a big problem with the tax system under the Confederacy! That was the reason they put the words "except in proportion" to Article I Section 9!

If you say it's indirect just because it's collected apportionally, that just makes no logical sense whatsoever. Being without apportionment does NOT necessitate it being an indirect tax!

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ziggurat

>>I realize this is getting a little off topic, but if you'll indulge me for a moment, Rouser2, I haven't actually seen you refute Scrutinizer's statement that you believe the moon landing was a hoax. So to settle that little matter, what exactly IS your opinion on the moon landing? Rather than resort to hearsay, I thought I'd just go straight to the source. A direct statement from you can settle that matter rather directly.

Yes, it is indeed off topic. The answer is, I do not respond to nitwits who post off-topic questions which only serve to betray their own nitwittery. Get it? Now slither away into your crevice with your know-nothing friend from whence you came.

Your privilege, certainly. But you basically called Scrutinizer a liar for saying you believed the moon landing was a hoax, but now you won't say what your opinion on the matter is. So I'm left in a quandry - I don't have any direct evidence to back up Scrutinizer's claim, but the one person who COULD refute it refuses to do so. Oh, and he's not really my friend, I don't know him at all, I just thought what he said was really funny. And you haven't given me reason yet to think it's not true, though it would only take a single sentence. Less effort than you spent telling me to slither away. Oh well, I guess neither of us gets what we want today.:rolleyes:

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skeptic

>>Then again, what OTHER argument those who absurdly hold that income tax is illegal have EXCEPT "it is all a conspiracy" by labeling anybody who disagrees as part of the "evil IRS government cosnpiracy"?

No one on this board has argued that the income tax is illegal. Certainly not me. Where do you get this? The argument is that the income tax is perfectly legal, but the enforcement is not. Get your facts straight.


>>Rouser2 kept asking the same questions, because he never was
answered either.

>>Actually, he was. He asked "is the income tax direct or indirect?" and was answered, "indirect". He asked "what is the object of the tax?" and was answered, "your income". He then said, "ah-haaaaaah!!!! A contradiction!!! The income tax has an object, so it must be a direct tax!!!!".

Never made any such bonehead statement. All taxes must have a a taxing object. Get your facts straight.

>>But that just shows he's an idiot, because "direct tax" NEVER meant "a tax that has an object".

Ah, ah, another ad hominem attack. But you are the idiot. Every tax must have a taxing object. Otherwise who knows who or what is being taxed (see American Jurisprudence).

>> The income tax is, quite simply, an indirect tax whose object is (duh) your income.


Duh, then you continue to be enveloped in the mental warp of an Orwellian Twilight zone. If a tax is indirect, it cannot be laid upon people or their property directly.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skeptic

Re: More spam from Skeptic, who simply cannot do anything but copy other people's mindless propaganda:

>>Tax protesters believe that, before the adoption of the 16th Amendment, a tax on incomes was unconstitutional

False. What tax protestors? No one who has studied the issue believes that. Only the strawman created by this dubious author.

>> and therefore outside the power of Congress. This is not correct because, as explained above, it was clear even before the 16th Amendment that Congress could tax wages and earnings from employment, as well as income from business operations.

Only true if the tax is/was indirect.

>>By incorrectly asserting that a tax on incomes was unconstitutional before the 16th Amendment, and then asserting that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax, tax protesters can conclude that a tax on incomes must be unconstitutional even after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, which is ridiculous.

A completly false strawman.


>>It is ridiculous because it means that the 16th Amendment does not mean what it says. The amendment plainly states that "The Congress shall have the power to tax incomes" and tax protesters nevertheless try to claim that Congress does not have the power to tax incomes.

Continuing to beat the strawman. Not a claim any serious student of the subject propounds.


>>It is also ridiculous because it would mean that Congress proposed a constitutional amendment, and the states ratified a constitutional amendment, that changed nothing and has no meaning.

Ridiculous only if you ignore the explanations provided in the landmark tax cases, namely that the amendment was for clarification, not for changing anything.


>>To understand the statement of the Supreme Court when it said that the 16th Amendment created "no new power," you have to understand the context in which it was made. One of the claims made by the taxpayer in the Brushaber case was that the 16th Amendment was "repugnant to the constitution" because it created a form of tax that was neither apportioned (as required for "direct" taxes by Article I, Section 9) nor uniform (as required for "excises" by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). The court referred to the conclusion "that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes," as an "erroneous assumption.""

Erroneous indeed. But still, that is just what the defenders of the current system claim despite the clear refutation made by the Supreme Court.


The rest of your junk is just more copied spam, which you obviously do not understand, and cannot debate as to point and counterpoint, but only copy and paste. Why don't you find another hobby?


-- Rouser

[Skeptic]

But still, that is just what the defenders of the current system claim

"Rouser", for the millionth time: NOBODY (except a few crazy tax protestors and Shanek) CLAIMS THE INCOME TAX IS A DIRECT TAX. It isn't. You're quite correct: it's an indirect tax. So?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
"Rouser", for the millionth time: NOBODY (except a few crazy tax protestors) CLAIMS THE INCOME TAX IS A DIRECT TAX.

I do, and I'm not a "crazy tax protestor" despite your dishonest efforts to paint me as such in this thread. I am in favor of repealing and eliminating the Income Tax, but I'm not saying it's illegal or that we aren't obliged to pay it.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ziggurat


>>Your privilege, certainly. But you basically called Scrutinizer a liar for saying you believed the moon landing was a hoax, but now you won't say what your opinion on the matter is.

If you persist in betraying your own nitwittery, I'd be happy to oblige you a direct answer. Just get the hell off of this board, start your own new topic, whether it be Moon Landings or JFK, or cows jumping over the moon, but get your brainless ass outa here and take CT with you!

[Skeptic]

If a tax is indirect, it cannot be laid upon people or their property directly.

False.

We've been through this before, Rouser: virtually ALL taxes are "direct" in the sense that they are "directly" laid upon somebody or something--in the sense that somebody has to "directly" pay them, or that they are a tax "directly" on something.

But this is not what "direct" and "indirect" means in the law! "Indirect" means (roughly) a tax on commerce, including a tax on the wages you get for work, while "direct" means tax on property that is NOT engaged in any such transaction.

It is, therefore, quite possible to have an indirect tax "directly" (in your sense) on income, which the tax payer has to "directly" (in your sense) pay. So what? You're just misusing the words "direct" and "indirect", that's all.

[Skeptic]

Shanek--I edited my post in reply to your objection. Sorry about that.

[Skeptic]

If you persist in betraying your own nitwittery, I'd be happy to oblige you a direct answer.

TRASLATION: They're on to me; they know I also believe the moon landing is a hoax. But I'll try to hide it, since it instantly exposes me as a lunatic.

Just get the hell off of this board, start your own new topic, whether it be Moon Landings or JFK, or cows jumping over the moon, but get your brainless ass outa here and take CT with you!

TRANSLATION: Or I'll huff and I'll puff and...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
We've been through this before, Rouser: virtually ALL taxes are "direct" in the sense that they are "directly" laid upon somebody or something--in the sense that somebody has to "directly" pay them, or that they are a tax "directly" on something.

But the distinction as used by the founders in the Constitutional debates held that if someone could pass on the cost of the tax to someone else, like a manufacturer being taxed on a product but passing that cost on to the consumer, then it was indirect. Both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists agreed on this. Since an Income Tax cannot be passed on to anyone else, and must be paid by the person on whom it is levied, it would therefore, under their working definition, be a direct tax.

[shanek]

Personally, I don't care two short smegs if he does or doesn't believe in the moon hoax. That doesn't have anything to do with the Income Tax or the definition of a direct tax, and doesn't affect the validity of his arguments. And to be honest, I kind of wish you all would shut up about it. That;s way off topic for this thread.

[Skeptic]

But the distinction as used by the founders in the Constitutional debates held that if someone could pass on the cost of the tax to someone else, like a manufacturer being taxed on a product but passing that cost on to the consumer, then it was indirect.

(sigh) yes, but as "Suddenly" showed, they soon realized that definition was unworkable and trivialized the whole "direct/indirect" distinction in the constitution, so they changed it in their own court rulings. Starting in the 1790s, with members of the constitutional congress sitting as justices, they continually interpreted the "direct/indirect" distinction as the (roughly) "commerce/non-commerce" distinction.

The founders themselves made it quite clear that, at least from that time (the 1790s) on, the "direct/indirect" distinction in the constitution should be interpreted as the "commerce/non-commerce" distinction, not the "passed on/not passed on" distinction.

THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND, Shanek. And, to repeat, what matters is their FINAL intention, not their original one, whatever that was.

[Skeptic]

Personally, I don't care two short smegs if he does or doesn't believe in the moon hoax. That doesn't have anything to do with the Income Tax or the definition of a direct tax, and doesn't affect the validity of his arguments

Here you're wrong. The reason that it is relevant to know what "Rouser" believes about the moon is that, if he thinks it's a hoax, it is more than likely that he has a general, all-encompassing "the government is engaged in a huge conspiracy" view. This means that his views on taxes--a hated government activity--is more than likely to be, to say the least, somewhat biased.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ziggurat
>>Your privilege, certainly. But you basically called Scrutinizer a liar for saying you believed the moon landing was a hoax, but now you won't say what your opinion on the matter is.

If you persist in betraying your own nitwittery, I'd be happy to oblige you a direct answer. Just get the hell off of this board, start your own new topic, whether it be Moon Landings or JFK, or cows jumping over the moon, but get your brainless ass outa here and take CT with you!

I'd be happy to betray my nitwittery (that word does kinda have anice ring to it) but I didn't bring CS (edit: I assume you meant Central Scrutinizer?) in with me, and I can't take him when I decide to go. Hey, if it makes you feel any better, you can ask me what I think about the moon landing or even JFK's assasination if you want. I'll even give you an answer.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skeptic
[B]If a tax is indirect, it cannot be laid upon people or their property directly.

>>False.
We've been through this before, Rouser: virtually ALL taxes are "direct" in the sense that they are "directly" laid upon somebody or something--in the sense that somebody has to "directly" pay them, or that they are a tax "directly" on something.

Your "in the sense" is all nonsense. An indirect tax cannot be laid directly on property. That's a direct tax.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND, Shanek. And, to repeat, what matters is their FINAL intention, not their original one, whatever that was.

You keep saying "the founders" like they all made that decision. They didn't. It was just a few of them, who were Federalists, whereas the Constitution was meant to be a compromise between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists.

NOBODY CHANGED THEIR MIND! The Federalists just found a way to get in what they wanted all along!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
This means that his views on taxes--a hated government activity--is more than likely to be, to say the least, somewhat biased.

You're talking like you're a lawyer and he's your hostile witness...

[Skeptic]

Your "in the sense" is all nonsense. An indirect tax cannot be laid directly on property.

Yes it can (as explained above ad infinitum). Don't be silly. The reason you won't accept this is that only your misguided definition of a "direct tax" keeps your "the government is collecting income tax illegaly for over 90 years" conspiracy theory logically consistent.

But, then again, since you also believe in the "JFK was killed by the CIA" and "the moon landings never happened" conspiracy theories, it is hardly surprising you believe in this conspiracy theory as well.

Seen any black helicopters or UFOs lately? Just wondering.

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skeptic

>>Your "in the sense" is all nonsense. An indirect tax cannot be laid directly on property.

>>>>Yes it can (as explained above ad infinitum.
Don't be silly. The reason you won't accept this is that only your misguided definition of a "direct tax" keeps your "the government is collecting income tax illegaly for over 90 years" conspiracy theory logically consistent.

Not my defintion at all. But from the Constitution itself and the SC cases in support therein. Where does your definition come from? Some guy's web site?

>>But, then again, since you also believe in the "JFK was killed by the CIA" and "the moon landings never happened" conspiracy theories, it is hardly surprising you believe in this conspiracy theory as well.

>>Seen any black helicopters or UFOs lately? Just wondering.

No. But I see plenty of evidence for nitwits, dingbats and assorted know-nothings around this board. And that's no conspiracy.

-- Rouser

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Rouser2
No. But I see plenty of evidence for nitwits, dingbats and assorted know-nothings around this board. And that's no conspiracy.

-- Rouser

Looking in the mirror again?

[tracer]

Originally posted by michaellee
In Brushaber vs. Union Pacific, the SC ruled that "the 16th Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the POLLACK case"(page 19)
Here's the above quote from that case in its proper context:


"it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the [16th] Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership"

[bolding mine]

Funny how ripping part of a sentence out of context can completely change its meaning, isn't it?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by tracer

Funny how ripping part of a sentence out of context can completely change its meaning, isn't it?

This turned out to be the theme of the thread.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Suddenly


This turned out to be the theme of the thread.

Sort of the theme of Rouser2's pathetic "life"! And all the conspiracy loonies for that matter.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by tracer

Here's the above quote from that case in its proper context:


"it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the [16th] Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case [b]that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership"



Funny how ripping part of a sentence out of context can completely change its meaning, isn't it?


* * *

Here's an idea! When writing a post, try to have a point! It makes it so much more interesting that way!


-- Rouser

[Skeptic]

Tax protestors, of course, do nothing but quote out of context--for the very good reason that, in context, the supreme court's (and other courts') decisions supposedly "proving" they are correct actually prove the exact opposite.

Recently, a judge compared the tax protestor's "legal research" to quoting one sentence from the bible that says "Judas hanged himself", and another that says, "Go and do likewise", and then claiming this proves the bible says you should go hang yourself.

but wait, Rouser2, don't tell me: that judge, like everybody else except the tax protestors, is part of the eeeeeeeeeevil gubirnint konspiracy, right?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Tax protestors, of course, do nothing but quote out of context--for the very good reason that, in context, the supreme court's (and other courts') decisions supposedly "proving" they are correct actually prove the exact opposite.

Recently, a judge compared the tax protestor's "legal research" to quoting one sentence from the bible that says "Judas hanged himself", and another that says, "Go and do likewise", and then claiming this proves the bible says you should go hang yourself.

but wait, Rouser2, don't tell me: that judge, like everybody else except the tax protestors, is part of the eeeeeeeeeevil gubirnint konspiracy, right?

* * *

Just like your non-existent law, your judge does not exist, nor do the strawmen arguments you create exist. The only conspiracy here is your own conspiracy of continuing unabashed nitwittery.

-- Rouser

[tracer]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Here's an idea! When writing a post, try to have a point! It makes it so much more interesting that way!
You mean like my point that michaellee's use of a sentence fragment from Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust removed it from its context, and thereby changed its meaning so that it seemed to be supporting with michaellee's argument -- when in context the quote supported nothing of the sort?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by tracer

You mean like my point that michaellee's use of a sentence fragment from Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust removed it from its context, and thereby changed its meaning so that it seemed to be supporting with michaellee's argument -- when in context the quote supported nothing of the sort?


Micheallee's point was that the landmark Brushaber case pointed out that the Amendment conferred no new power. You disagree with that?

The fragmented sentence she quoted indeed only discussed the dimension of the word "property" to include property other than real estate. So you are correct. Her fragmented quote had a specific meaning in context, but you are incorrect in saying that the quote did not support her contention that the Brushaber case ruled that the Amendment conferred no new power of taxation.

-- Rouser

[Skeptic]

Micheallee's point was that the landmark Brushaber case pointed out that the Amendment conferred no new power. You disagree with that?

No. But you still have to pay income tax. Here's why:

Argument: The 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax.

Reply: This statement is taken from language in the opinions of the United States Supreme Court in the Brushaber and Stanton decisions and, unlike most other tax protester nonsense, it is actually true. The problem is not that the statement is false, but that it doesn't mean what tax protesters think it means and it doesn't lead to the conclusion that tax protesters want to reach.

Tax protesters believe that, before the adoption of the 16th Amendment, a tax on incomes was unconstitutional and therefore outside the power of Congress. This is not correct because, as explained above, it was clear even before the 16th Amendment that Congress could tax wages and earnings from employment, as well as income from business operations. By incorrectly asserting that a tax on incomes was unconstitutional before the 16th Amendment, and then asserting that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax, tax protesters can conclude that a tax on incomes must be unconstitutional even after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, which is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous because it means that the 16th Amendment does not mean what it says. The amendment plainly states that "The Congress shall have the power to tax incomes" and tax protesters nevertheless try to claim that Congress does not have the power to tax incomes.

It is also ridiculous because it would mean that Congress proposed a constitutional amendment, and the states ratified a constitutional amendment, that changed nothing and has no meaning.

To understand the statement of the Supreme Court when it said that the 16th Amendment created "no new power," you have to understand the context in which it was made. One of the claims made by the taxpayer in the Brushaber case was that the 16th Amendment was "repugnant to the constitution" because it created a form of tax that was neither apportioned (as required for "direct" taxes by Article I, Section 9) nor uniform (as required for "excises" by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). The court referred to the conclusion "that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes," as an "erroneous assumption."

"[T]hat the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

This statement was confirmed and explained by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), in which the court stated that "by the previous ruling [in Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation...."

Therefore, the power to tax incomes without apportionment is not a new kind of power, but just a different classification of the "previous complete and plenary power of income taxation," taking it out of the category of direct taxation and placing it back in the category of indirect taxation "to which it inherently belonged."

Jeez, Rouser, how many times are you going to spew the same, long ago discredited claims?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B]
Jeez, Rouser, how many times are you going to spew the same, long ago discredited claims?

Until we land on the moon :biggrin:

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Skeptic

>>Micheallee's point was that the landmark Brushaber case pointed out that the Amendment conferred no new power. You disagree with that?

No. But you still have to pay income tax. Here's why:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument: The 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax.

Reply: This statement is taken from language in the opinions of the United States Supreme Court in the Brushaber and Stanton decisions and, unlike most other tax protester nonsense, it is actually true. The problem is not that the statement is false, but that it doesn't mean what tax protesters think it means and it doesn't lead to the conclusion that tax protesters want to reach.

Tax protesters believe that, before the adoption of the 16th Amendment, a tax on incomes was unconstitutional and therefore outside the power of Congress. This is not correct because, as explained above, it was clear even before the 16th Amendment that Congress could tax wages and earnings from employment, as well as income from business operations. By incorrectly asserting that a tax on incomes was unconstitutional before the 16th Amendment, and then asserting that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax, tax protesters can conclude that a tax on incomes must be unconstitutional even after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, which is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous because it means that the 16th Amendment does not mean what it says. The amendment plainly states that "The Congress shall have the power to tax incomes" and tax protesters nevertheless try to claim that Congress does not have the power to tax incomes.

It is also ridiculous because it would mean that Congress proposed a constitutional amendment, and the states ratified a constitutional amendment, that changed nothing and has no meaning.

To understand the statement of the Supreme Court when it said that the 16th Amendment created "no new power," you have to understand the context in which it was made. One of the claims made by the taxpayer in the Brushaber case was that the 16th Amendment was "repugnant to the constitution" because it created a form of tax that was neither apportioned (as required for "direct" taxes by Article I, Section 9) nor uniform (as required for "excises" by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). The court referred to the conclusion "that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes," as an "erroneous assumption."

"[T]hat the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

This statement was confirmed and explained by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), in which the court stated that "by the previous ruling [in Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation...."

Therefore, the power to tax incomes without apportionment is not a new kind of power, but just a different classification of the "previous complete and plenary power of income taxation," taking it out of the category of direct taxation and placing it back in the category of indirect taxation "to which it inherently belonged."

Comment: You've already copied and pasted this nonsense once. before. I am not a tax protester, whatever that is. Nor do I believe what your alter ego nincompoop says "tax protesters" believe. Nor are you a scholar. You are a completely and totally incompetent dingbat who can only copy and paste but is incapable of thinking for yourself. An indirect tax cannot be a direct tax. And the cases you and your alter ego copy and paste from do not support your view, nor the view of person you copy from. You are trapped in the mental warp twilight zone of Orwellian Doublethink, as is the niincompoop you copy from.

-- Rouser

[Skeptic]

Comment: You've already copied and pasted this nonsense once. before. I am not a tax protester, whatever that is. Nor do I believe what your alter ego nincompoop says "tax protesters" believe. Nor are you a scholar. You are a completely and totally incompetent dingbat who can only copy and paste but is incapable of thinking for yourself. An indirect tax cannot be a direct tax. And the cases you and your alter ego copy and paste from do not support your view, nor the view of person you copy from. You are trapped in the mental warp twilight zone of Orwellian Doublethink, as is the niincompoop you copy from.

TRASLATION:

(Rouser frothing at the mouth): "They're all crazy! THEY'RE ALL CRAZY!!!!!! Get away from me with that straightjacket, you crazy person!!! Aaaaaaaarhhhhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!! !"

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Comment: You've already copied and pasted this nonsense once. before. I am not a tax protester, whatever that is. Nor do I believe what your alter ego nincompoop says "tax protesters" believe. Nor are you a scholar. You are a completely and totally incompetent dingbat who can only copy and paste but is incapable of thinking for yourself. An indirect tax cannot be a direct tax. And the cases you and your alter ego copy and paste from do not support your view, nor the view of person you copy from. You are trapped in the mental warp twilight zone of Orwellian Doublethink, as is the niincompoop you copy from.

TRASLATION:

(Rouser frothing at the mouth): "They're all crazy! THEY'RE ALL CRAZY!!!!!! Get away from me with that straightjacket, you crazy person!!! Aaaaaaaarhhhhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!! !"

Ask him who killed JFK!! :D

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ziggurat


>>I realize this is getting a little off topic, but if you'll indulge me for a moment, Rouser2, I haven't actually seen you refute Scrutinizer's statement that you believe the moon landing was a hoax. So to settle that little matter, what exactly IS your opinion on the moon landing? Rather than resort to hearsay, I thought I'd just go straight to the source. A direct statement from you can settle that matter rather directly.

Yes, it is indeed off topic. The answer is, I do not respond to nitwits who post off-topic questions which only serve to betray their own nitwittery. Get it? Now slither away into your crevice with your know-nothing friend from whence you came.

Thank you for finally answering! So, for the record, you do officially acknowledge that the moon landing was a hoax.

[Tony]

:)