Replies

The facts of the political situation are clear.. Neither our 'representitives', nor our courts, -- will address the issue of constitutional violations.

A red herring & irrelavent to the issue at hand as the power of Congress to tax is unquestionable and clearly enumerated in the Constitution.

Constitution for the United States of America:

Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Aa I remarked at #133:

One of the important functions of a jury is to corral in government people who are running astray. Its a very important function.

You have not demonstrated that the government is running astray insofar as the income and payroll taxes are concerned. The power to levy and collect taxes on the individual by the national government is clear and incontestable, and has been from the very first tax case before the Supreme Court:

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "

"the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."

"Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"

As well as clearly exemplified in the arguments of the founders in the Federalist Papers and the constitutional debates:

James Madison, Federalist #39:

"The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"

James Madison, Federalist #45:

"The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;

James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:

"If a government depends on other governments for its revenues -- if it must depend on the voluntary contributions of its members -- its [*129] existence must be precarious."

"If the general government is to depend on the voluntary contribution of the states for its support, dismemberment of the United States may be the consequence."

Our only recourse is jury nullification..

False, as this is a Republic afterall and recource is to be had in the particular instance through the legislative process necessary to functioning under the Constitution.

MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)

"'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56] he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."

However if you can establish a level of abuse beyound the principles stated by the early Supreme Court, then the tax law can be overturned.

MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)

"Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "

-- And surprise! -- The selfsame people at FR who argue for prohibitions & insane tax codes , argue against nullification.

Since I do not see anyone arguing for prohibitions nor insane tax codes, your statement is a is more hot air, and calling for jury nullification of constitutional statutes merely because one is dissatisfied with the operation of that law with regard to themselves is merely self interest looking for another avenue of expression.

Yet they call thenselves conservatives. Go figure.

The operation and preservation of law as opposed arbitrary action of the individual is a conservative position. Arbitrary application of law and the whims of men is a value of the anarchist, not that of the conservative.

The facts of the political situation are clear.. Neither our 'representitives', nor our courts, -- will address the issue of constitutional violations.

A red herring & irrelavent to the issue at hand as the power of Congress to tax is unquestionable and clearly enumerated in the Constitution. Constitution for the United States of America

Taxation is not the issue. Abuse of the taxing power is our subject.

The abuse of power is self evident to all rational men.
Our only recourse is jury nullification..

False, as this is a Republic afterall and recource is to be had in the particular instance through the legislative process necessary to functioning under the Constitution.

Our legislative process is broken. Partisan politics rule. We lack viable recourse.
- And surprise! -- The selfsame people at FR who argue for prohibitions & insane tax codes , argue against nullification.

Since I do not see anyone arguing for prohibitions nor insane tax codes,

Look in the mirror, geezer.

your statement is a is more hot air, and calling for jury nullification of constitutional statutes merely because one is dissatisfied with the operation of that law with regard to themselves is merely self interest looking for another avenue of expression.

Whatever.. Your own brand of hot air grows irksome.
Yet they call thenselves conservatives. Go figure.

Your silly effort to brand me as an anarchist is refuted by my every post urging you to honor our constitution..

Give it up geezer.. Your ploy to baffle em with volumes of BS cites isn't working.. Put a cork in it.