Skip to comments.Hugh Hewitt Responce
Posted on 01/09/2013 12:46:14 PM PST by Bidimus1
Hugh Hewitt on Tue Jan 8 2013 asked for a legal argument against taxing arms out of existance. Here is what I sent him.
I heard on your show Tues the 8th of Jan. A call for those of us that support the constitution to find a argument againt the taxiation to the point of elimination of the sales of arms.
I am not a lawyer but do try to think critically.
My first argment is this.
Fundemtnal Rights are equal. This can be supported but McDonald v Chichago.
Fundamental right deserving of protection. Evidence from the periodimmediately following the Amendments ratification confirms thatthat right was considered fundamental. Pp. 2231. (ii) Despite all this evidence, municipal respondents argue thatMembers of Congress overwhelmingly viewed §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment as purely an antidiscrimination rule. But while §1 does contain an antidiscrimination rule, i.e., the Equal Protection Clause,it can hardly be said that the section does no more than prohibit discrimination. If what municipal respondents mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for specialand specially unfavorabletreatment, the Court rejects the suggestion. The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated inan evenhanded manner. Pp. 3033
As such one must look to other fundemtal rights and the manner in which they have been infringed and later remedies applied.
The case that comes first to mind is Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections.
Annie E. Harper, a resident of Virginia, filed suit alleging that the state's poll tax was unconstitutional. After a three-judge district court dismissed the complaint, the case went to the Supreme Court. This case was decided together with Butts v. Harrison ( http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1965/1965_48 )
"We conclude that a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax"
As the franchise is a fundemtal right and is protected against the use of a Tax to descriminate so must all Fundemental rights be protected.
To make this even more on point the 14th amendment due processs clause is the basis for both the McDonald and Harper cases.
I hope this is of of some value to you in your thnking on the subject.
“The power to tax is the power to destroy”
McCulloch v. Maryland
How would the far left fringe react to a $1B per abortion tax on that exercise of the fundamental right to privacy in the Penumbra of the Constitution? How about a $100,000 per word tax on anything published by the press, a right guaranteed by the First AMendment? Or perhaps a charge of $10M to choose a jury trial rather than a trial with only a judge? Using a punitive tax to restrict a fundamental human right is evil. Using a punitive tax to restrict a basic constitutional right is unconstitutional and illegal.
After Justice Roberts’ appalling opinion in the Obamacare case, I’m not sure there is a winning legal argument against this.
Apparently the critical thinker needs an equally critical editor...
Attach an amendment to every gun tax bill requiring the an equal tax on voting.
It still beats the hell out of some of the texts I get or the posts I see on FB... LOL.
U got that rite!!!
“After Justice Roberts appalling opinion in the Obamacare case, Im not sure there is a winning legal argument against this.”
You are more right than you know. The 0bamacare opinion probably wasn’t the mortal blow to the Rule of Law and legal respect for our Constitutional Republic.
It was the autopsy report.
How about taxing Hollywood for violence in movies?
They want hire taxes. /sarc
Spelling and punctuation on FR is trending downward of late.
Your point is telling and true. What does any winning argument look like these days? I have no confidence in our rule of law anymore. And that is a HUGE problem for society. It was once said (I forget who) that a nation of laws only remains so as long as the citizenry respects and honors the laws.
Someone else discussed the idea (maybe Ayne Rand) that a tyrannical government will pass laws that cannot or should not be followed in order to be able to label anyone a criminal.
When you think about these two ideas, they are converging at a surprising rate. Between Healthcare, 2A, Taxation, etc. and the lack of faith in our federal governments respect/adherence for/to the constitution, I see REVOLT at the intersection of the two.
Otherwise good, patriotic and law abiding citizens will soon be labeled criminals through the evisceration of God given rights by legislation. They will be faced with a conundrum. They will consider the lesser of evils when such a conundrum requires them to pick an allegiance. Do they follow law that is prejudiciously enforced and goes against our founding principles? Or do they remain faithful to the original laws (Constitution), thus committing a crime, and steel themselves for a fight if it should ever come to that?
That is how the next revolution will start. I doubt there will be much shooting, but it will split the nation.
The Roberts opinion doesn’t seem to recognize any limits to the government’s taxing power. The consequences of that opinion in the hands of liberals could be unimaginably horrid.
Woo Hoo for spell checkers! : )
I have to confess I’ve had problems lately. When I post from my iPad strange things happen sometimes...
Don’t be too discouraged. In the past the gun grabbers have just passed eyewash legislation that leaves 99% of guns and owners legal. Then they congratulate each other and give each other awards for “doing something.”
I think Roberts’ opinion implicitly declares that there are no limits whatsoever on the power of the Federal Government over the people. Enjoy meeting your quota, comrade.