Posted on 02/10/2015 6:43:07 AM PST by HomerBohn
“...Why not have a flat tax?...”
If you are taxing *income*, then anyone who doesn’t file an income tax return doesn’t pay taxes (dope dealers, etc).
If you have a sales tax, anyone who buys things pays tax, regardless of income.
The idea I like better is close to where you were headed and is more of a free market solution. Make it so that the Fed’s revenue comes directly from each state based on a percentage of the State’s GDP. Each state can figure out how they want to tax their residents to cover that federal tax bill. The states with the most attractive tax method will see an influx of residents and business. The states with the least attractive tax method would see residents and business flee from it. The market would work out the most preferable and workable tax method.
Plus, any disputes over the fed tax payment is between the fed and a state, instead of the fed against Joe Schmoe who can’t afford to fight it.
And let me guess...this citizen’s land has some water access or mineral rights that Fed.gov wants.
From the story it sounds like a retal property.
All this argument about Flat Tax vs. Fair Tax is interesting but I think we’re all overlooking one important question: what Senator or Congressman is going to vote for a tax plan that will raise taxes for close to half his constituency?
In some states, the sheriff is the highest elected official in a county; in other states he is not. (Some states don't have county sheriffs at all; in some states they're not elected; and in most states there are other county-wide elected officials.)
As such, the Feds can not run law enforcement opecations without the Sheriff’s permission and knowledge. There is an exception if they are investigating the Sheriff for corruption. Consequently, the Sheriff can stop a Federal enforcement action.
Nonsense. The Supremacy Clause means that federal law enforcement always trumps state law.
If you are right, tell us the last time the feds arrested a sheriff for simply impeding them?Come to think of it, this is the first I've heard of a sheriff (in my memory) impeding a US Marshall in such a fashion. Perhaps others do and don't make the news? Unfortunately and based on years of personal experience, far more often than not (and I would guess it is a very, very high percentage that do) the local S.O. and P.D. will enthusiastically work with Federal agents and cater to them.
This Sheriff is highly unusual in this regard and I tip my hat to him! We could use a whole lot more just like him!
I do know for a fact that local FBI Agents get their CCW permits signed by the local sheriffWhy would a sworn officer at the city, county, state or federal level have any need of a CCW when they have their LEO credentials?
If accurate, I in no way support this. It has been a while since I read the FAIR tax book so I can not recall if you are correct. However, you can tell by my post I am not in 100% agreement with the book. But to be clear, a true FLAT TAX and good FAIR tax is eons above what we have now. I just lean to the FAIR tax because I believe the income tax surrenders income as personal property and gives it to the government.
Okay, first of all I did read “Commonwealth Edison Co v Montana” and I think it was a very logical and smart move that Montana did.
With that stated when it involves federal laws then federal agents have the lawful authority. There is no such thing as concurrent authority when it comes to federal laws. In fact local DAs cannot even prosecute federal crimes. Congress nor even the US Constitution has granted to the office of sheriff the power to unilaterally and with absolute power determine whether due process has been fulfilled in federal matters. The fact is that both federal agents and local law enforcement are most professionals. They help each other as others have already alluded to in this thread and in many ways as others have stated it is good for the feds to establish good relations with the locals for logistics, intelligence, and resources, etc. Drug task forces are very powerful tools of cooperation between the locals and feds.
With that stated in direct federal law enforcement then the feds have full Congressional authority.
Hypothetically, if a federal agent had a federal court order then in your view would the sheriff still have the power to determine if “due process” was attained or not?
lol; you got me there; (smile)
My point is that people in general read something off the internet that they emotionally would like to be true and they take it for gospel. I think the sheriff being all powerful argument and can tell the feds what to do argument is my pet peeve because anyone with any inclination of how the government works knows that it is propaganda. I have always stated well what if your sheriff is as bad as the feds. Using a hyperbole, the reality is that local government can just be as tyrannical as the federal government.
Simply because federal laws are supreme per the US Constitution and Congress has enacted statutes giving federal agents authority to carry out federal laws. To be frank nothing complicated to it. No different than a city cop giving a lawful order to someone not to impede with an arrest.
If they are a “qualified law enforcement officer” under federal law then they don’t need the sheriffs permission.
Whether the feds can enforce state laws varies from state to state and who has the authority to deny them authority from enforcing state law depends on the verbiage of the state statute and not necessarily the sheriff.
Yeah, wasn’t commenting from an emotional viewpoint so much.
Of course all opinions and decision in life are, in fact, emotion based and backed up by reason and hopefully an informed position.
I might not be able to stay on this subject, though I might circle back, as I am going on a few appointments here in a few minutes.
Who knows? I might just learn something after all.
Thanks for engaging.
Hmmmm....I should be thinking up my biker name!
“IRS needs to start policing itself.”
That’s like saying Jesse James should have stopped his brother Frank from robbing banks and trains.
Just ask yourself what kind of person you would have to be to willingly work for the IRS. I think I would have to be facing starvation or worse to even consider it.
Below the asterisk line is some information I obtained on Google tonight. The cite is at the very end of the article. I don’t profess to know ANYTHING on this subject and only offer this article as a “contribution” to this threads discussion of Sheriff’s power vs Feds Power.
Assuming this article is correct and has not subsequently been thrown out, then it is clear that this Wyoming Sheriff DOES have Federal Court certified and absolute power over Feds in his jurisdiction, to wit:......... “If a sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional right and power to keep them out, or ask them to leave, or retain them in custody.”
Again, this is not Me saying this. Please reference the cite at the end of the article.
************************************************************
This is settled law that most people are not aware of.
County sheriffs in Wyoming have scored a big one for the 10th Amendment and states rights. The sheriffs slapped a federal intrusion upside the head and are insisting that all federal law enforcement officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies must clear all their activity in a Wyoming County with the Sheriff’s Office. Deja vu for those who remember big Richard Mack in Arizona.
Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis spoke at a press conference following a recent U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J (2006)) and announced that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval ......
“If a sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional right and power to keep them out, or ask them to leave, or retain them in custody.
The court decision was the result of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association. The suit in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.
Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official.” Go back and re-read this quote.
The court confirms and asserts that “the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official.” And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried — not in Wyoming, not yet.
But it gets even better. Since the judge stated that the sheriff “has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official,” the Wyoming sheriffs are flexing their muscles. They are demanding access to all BATF files. Why? So as to verify that the agency is not violating provisions of Wyoming law that prohibits the registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm owners. This would be wrong.
The sheriffs are also demanding that federal agencies immediately cease the seizure of private property and the impoundment of private bank accounts without regard to due process in Wyoming state courts.
Gosh, it makes one wish that the sheriffs of the counties relative to Waco, Texas and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma regarding their jurisdictions were drinking the same water these Wyoming sheriffs are.
Sheriff Mattis said, “I am reacting in response to the actions of federal employees who have attempted to deprive citizens of my county of their privacy, their liberty, and their property without regard to constitutional safeguards. I hope that more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens from the illegal activities ofthe IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or any other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of constitutional law. Employees of the IRS and the EPA are no longer welcome in Bighorn County unless they intend to operate in conformance to constitutional law.” [Amen].
However, the sad reality is that sheriffs are elected, and that means they are required to be both law enforcement officials and politicians as well. Unfortunately, Wyoming sheriffs are the exception rather than the rule . . . but they shouldn’t be.
Sheriffs have enormous power, if or when they choose to use it. I share the hope of Sheriff Mattis that “more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens.”
If Wyoming Sheriffs can follow in the steps of former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack and recognize both their power and authority, they could become champions for the memory of Thomas Jefferson who died thinking that he had won those “states’ rights” debates with Alexander Hamilton.
This case is not just some amusing mountain melodrama. This is a BIG deal. This case is yet further evidence that the 10th Amendment is not yet totally dead, or in a complete decay in the United States. It is also significant in that it can, may, and hopefully will be interpreted to mean that “political subdivisions of a State are included within the meaning of the amendment, or that the powers exercised by a sheriff are an extension of those common law powers which the 10th Amendment explicitly reserves to the People, if they are not granted to the federal government or specifically prohibited to the States.”
Winston Churchill observed, “If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fights with all the odds against you with only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is not hope of victory at all, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
excellent thread on constitution and the IRS powers
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.