[LibertyBorn]

OneWingedShark: "Well, mostly because it was late and I wanted to make it a quick post — but look here, you've revealed yourself as not only willing, but eager, to impute upon me "unthinking"/brainwashed (and ill-will?). Something I suspected given your post #239 wherein you talk out of both sides of your mouth regarding incorporation."

Impute you? particularly? I believe it would be a difficult debate to argue we are not all habituated to dutifully pay income tax, with both politicians and private individuals telling us it is our patriotic duty. I merely indicated that your argument seemed (at that point) to be inured to paying income tax by your indication that it should be limited at a certain percentage, and then followed up by an argument of what I strongly believe the founder's original intent to have been: that taxation on wages was a direct tax and that had to be applied to the states according to the census of enumeration. Not only does this deliberate hurdle prevent the federal government from exercising agendas involving individuals, but it also protects the fact that only the States themselves have direct authority on the citizenry.

I would be fascinated to hear specifically HOW I might be "talking out of both sides of my mouth" regarding 14th Amendment incorporation. I've provided historical evidence and argument as to WHY rights themselves are to be observed by the States, and also the 14th itself overall is odious in that it serves as justification for the federal government to police (and award) rights, when those rights are intended to prohibit government action. Also the final section of the 14th Amendment does not grant Congress any new powers that are not enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, and writing laws policing rights and awarding rights do not become "appropriate legislation".

I was presenting a consistent and supported argument, not talking out of both sides of my mouth.

OneWingedShark:"But, since you ask about why I disagree it is this: your assertion that wages are merely equivalent exchange of labor for money is actually the model wherein a person's labor has no intrinsic worth. You see, given a pile of wood, tools, and a laborer the resultant dog-house's value is not merely cost+labor, but cost+labor+utility."

Eh, nowhere a part of my argument does it involve that labor necessarily having the same consistent value, but rather only that the laborer and the employer agree upon the work and the value in advance. If the laborer is making birdhouses from that wood and tools, and suddenly there are others in the market making the same birdhouse, suddenly the time spent building bird houses is of less value because it is in less demand. Under those conditions, the employer might dismiss a number of workers, producing less birdhouses, or he might negotiate to pay the workers less, or perhaps find another market item to build using the wood and tools. However there's a good chance that the new market item, other than the birdhouse, might have a lower market value for the item, given the financial incentive to build that birdhouses rather than the new item in the first place.

None of this diminishes the fact that the labor is exchanged for a recognition of the work itself having a certain (but not necessarily constant) value. By taxing wages, the government is essentially saying that is all profit, ignoring the expense by the laborer of the labor itself.

Your reference to Matthew has no bearing on the argument at hand whatsoever, as it is merely an individual choosing to give laborers more than what was otherwise owed them.

Nowhere does what I argue involve setting up any sort of "foundation for a framework of labor-laws", for a whole range of reasons, but primarily because nowhere do I argue that labor has an absolute value, but rather only that it has an agreed-upon value -- it's called Free Market Capitalism.

OneWingedShark: "Again, I disagree — the income tax is a single point: when the laborer is paid — the sales tax is essentially every financial transaction in the commercial sector. (Also note, I've not said anything about the welfare state — that would be resolved by the move to a physically-based currency and limitation on the amount of debt that could be assumed and so becomes a non-issue in light of such an amendment."

Congratulations, you've just presented the federal government's own rationalization by which it not only enslaved every one of us, but also reduced our labor to having no value.

As I've indicated, in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, despite the existence of the 16th Amendment, the Court went out of its way to assert that the 16th Amendment provided no new taxing authority, insisting that income tax for employment were never a "direct" to-the-person tax, but always an indirect "excise" tax. Yet an excise tax an "event tax" paid upon the event of a purchases of a specific good, such as gasoline. I should not have to go to the extent of arguing the profound difference between employment and purchase of something, but contrary to your claim, by the very fact that wages are reduced to just a "sale", it reduces the labor provided to having no value. Furthermore, unlike the employer who when subject to excise sales tax on those "birdhouses", where the employer can charge more for the value of the birdhouses, the laborer is not free to charge more for the value of his labor to compensate for the theft of that labor by the federal government - which is enslavement.

While wages for labor may be paid at a single point, the "pay period", that is only by convenience, as it is actually earned at every point along the way. However it is a difficult argument that payment for gasoline, or clothes, is at all similar by being an accumulated obligation for use of gasoline or cloths along the way.

As recognized in the 1787 Pennsylvania Ratification contention notes, in being subjected to a direct tax on wages, a worker will pay all that he has to preserve "his head", but with an excise tax on birdhouses or gasoline sales, the provider of these services is not subject to the same sort of coercion. This is why such a direct income tax was recognized as "so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments." Direct taxation essentially enslaves people to the government. Contrary to Obama and others claim that "you didn't build that", I'm quite certain that the federal government is not a partner in my labor, or existence.

What you fundamentally argue for is the legitimacy of that despotism, but then claim foul on my part when I only provided you the explanation that we have all been habituated to the belief in the validity of a direct income tax. If you intend to validate our enslavement by legitimizing a direct personal income tax, then you need to find your own excuse now to do so. Thus far your argument has not provided any such excuse..

OneWingedShark indicated, "Ah, and does that not stink more? After all the power of presentment is mentioned in Amendment 5, so to remove it should require a Constitutional amendment, no?"

You were responding to my reference to "independent presentments" being made by a grand jury, without any direction provided by the Court system. While the 5th Amendment indicates that no person shall be made to answer for a capital crime without " presentment or indictment" by a grand jury, nowhere does that involve that idea that every presentment by a grand jury must followed -- which is a flaw of logic.

Furthermore your argument ignores the penchant for grand juries to "indict a ham sandwich." And, NO, the recognition that the conclusions of grand juries might be flawed, or wrong, does not involve, as you indicate, "stripping away the power of presentment." No such body or singular individual should have that singular authority. Just being "the people" does not grant them with enlightenment or wisdom, as those same "the people" occupy every other position in government too, and all are flawed.

Even the power of indictment held by a legitimate grand jury, does not empower any ad hoc group of individuals calling themselves a grand jury with any authority at all, particularly not extending to anything beyond that group itself. We don't recognize mob rule, in whatever form, no matter what fabricated, corrupt rationalization might be applied to justify it.

While the claim that the independent presentments are no longer valid, is a false fabrication stemming from only one advisory note comment having no legal authority, this does not imply that all presentments must be followed, as they are not necessarily valid. So, no, an amendment to the Constitution is not necessary for the court to ignore an independent presentment.

[OneWingedShark]

OneWingedShark indicated, "Ah, and does that not stink more? After all the power of presentment is mentioned in Amendment 5, so to remove it should require a Constitutional amendment, no?"

You were responding to my reference to "independent presentments" being made by a grand jury, without any direction provided by the Court system. While the 5th Amendment indicates that no person shall be made to answer for a capital crime without " presentment or indictment" by a grand jury, nowhere does that involve that idea that every presentment by a grand jury must followed -- which is a flaw of logic.

Furthermore your argument ignores the penchant for grand juries to "indict a ham sandwich." And, NO, the recognition that the conclusions of grand juries might be flawed, or wrong, does not involve, as you indicate, "stripping away the power of presentment." No such body or singular individual should have that singular authority. Just being "the people" does not grant them with enlightenment or wisdom, as those same "the people" occupy every other position in government too, and all are flawed.

Even the power of indictment held by a legitimate grand jury, does not empower any ad hoc group of individuals calling themselves a grand jury with any authority at all, particularly not extending to anything beyond that group itself. We don't recognize mob rule, in whatever form, no matter what fabricated, corrupt rationalization might be applied to justify it.

While the claim that the independent presentments are no longer valid, is a false fabrication stemming from only one advisory note comment having no legal authority, this does not imply that all presentments must be followed, as they are not necessarily valid. So, no, an amendment to the Constitution is not necessary for the court to ignore an independent presentment.

First off, Section V of the proposal means that this is not an ad hoc group, but rather sets forth the means by which a valid grand jury is to be instituted. Moreover, Section 4 obviously does not prohibit the members of a Grand Jury from facing justice as well as preventing the courts from meddling with the composition thereof. — As far as I can tell you wish that the grand jury is placed squarely in subordination to the judiciary.

If the grand jury's composition and actions are restricted to those acts and members which the judiciary approves, is it at all unreasonable to assume that their actions and membership will be constrained to that which profits the judge? And if so, then is it not exceedingly unlikely that a criminal wearing a black robe, wrapping himself in law, will ever be brought to justice (especially as they gather to themselves more and more power)?

OneWingedShark: "Again, I disagree — the income tax is a single point: when the laborer is paid — the sales tax is essentially every financial transaction in the commercial sector. (Also note, I've not said anything about the welfare state — that would be resolved by the move to a physically-based currency and limitation on the amount of debt that could be assumed and so becomes a non-issue in light of such an amendment."

Congratulations, you've just presented the federal government's own rationalization by which it not only enslaved every one of us, but also reduced our labor to having no value.

As I've indicated, in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, despite the existence of the 16th Amendment

Either a constitutional amendment alters the Constitution or it does not, if the former then to say 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. means that the Congress has that power regardless of what the previous state of the Constitution was, correct? Now, given that it says without apportionment this means that the power so referred is not bound by apportionment; and to say without regard to any census or enumeration means that it is without regard to census or enumeration.

That the court says it gave no new powers is irrelevant and misleading — the removal of qualifications/restrictions on the power of taxation is technically not granting a new power… but it certainly is expanding the power into scopes it previously was not and to those areas which it was previously forbidden the power is new. (Just like breaking a dam and letting water into a new area does not create new water might indeed create a new lake which is, indeed, water.)

I would be fascinated to hear specifically HOW I might be "talking out of both sides of my mouth" regarding 14th Amendment incorporation.

Where you say: That doctrine of "incorporation" was only the "magic" fabrication by which the Federal government justified its usurpation of an authority to police rights when those rights were specifically listed in the Constitution to exclude any federal government action whatsoever. However those rights themselves are also equally applicable to the States themselves.

What you are doing is validating the textual transformation of the Constitution and applying it w/o an amendment. — i.e. the "magic" of a living constitution as 'enlivened' by judicial activism rather than actual amendment. *spit*

In short, words mean things, to take the 1st and alter "Congress" to mean any portion of government, federal or state is to deny the possible necessity of an actual amendment. (After all, if it is based on a preexisting right, and all such rights are applicable to both federal and state then that right must apply to the State as well, right? So, if there is, eg, a right to marriage then the Courts can obviously impose homosexual marriage, right?) Not at all.

Or, to put it another way, not all of the preexisting rights are natural. The 7th amendment provides a jury trial for common law controversies exceeding $20 — is there some human property that makes $20 relevant? Is there some magic to a jury trial? (The primary advantage of the jury is, in fact, that they are distinct and separate from the judge and, as they decide the verdict, removing from them a large temptation towards corruption.)

Moreover, the Bill of Rights was a creation of the states to be applied "against" the federal government — this is obvious from the preamble:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added

Finally, incorporation is terrible because it elevates the courts above the Constitution. We've already seen that they elevate themselves above the law, so why not the supreme law?

I believe it would be a difficult debate to argue we are not all habituated to dutifully pay income tax, with both politicians and private individuals telling us it is our patriotic duty. I merely indicated that your argument seemed (at that point) to be inured to paying income tax by your indication that it should be limited at a certain percentage, and then followed up by an argument of what I strongly believe the founder's original intent to have been: that taxation on wages was a direct tax and that had to be applied to the states according to the census of enumeration. Not only does this deliberate hurdle prevent the federal government from exercising agendas involving individuals, but it also protects the fact that only the States themselves have direct authority on the citizenry.

Hm, I see what you mean.
I still believe that a national sales-tax would be setting up for something far, far worse.

I wouldn't be opposed to the federal government taxing the states who then collect in the manner they chose, but even with that I believe that their power should be limited: no graduated rates, no seizing of property prior to conviction, a limit to the maximum any income tax might have — IOW, the things addressed in my proposed amendment.