Sorry that I am taking so long to get back to this stuff. My day is gobbled up paying taxes, he he.
Anyhow, Mr. 'geezer, on some of your "constitutional/that's the way it is" posts from a while back:
Frankly, I find your knowledge of the constitution and the underlying documents impressive while at the same time finding your reading flat out scary. You are quoting me constitutional powers in the “permissive” interpretation, when anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the Constitution was written and proposed to be implemented by the “restrictive” interpretation (except the supreme courts of the last hundred years).
Despite foolish court precedents, the constitution is just a fancy way of describing the overriding CONTRACT between the ‘governing’ and the ‘governed’. Most importantly, the contract was indirectly offered by the governed. Therefore, it is outside of rational reason to suggest that the totally free and sovereign states/people would have offered anything more than a restricted set of powers to the new government that they were agreeing to. Powers not to be exceeded. Permissive readings like yours and wrongheaded court precedents do not change the fact that the constitution was meant to be a cage that government could be contained in rather than a permission slip to exercise every conceivable power that was not expressly forbidden.
If you like the permissive reading of contracts (everything is ok except the few written restrictions) then you won't mind if we write up a contract for me to take care of you in your old age. You can write it and it should give me the basic authority to use your money as needed, make you subservient to me as needed (for your own safety) and whatever restrictions you can think of. Now be certain to remember that you are totally free before we enter this contract and after we enter the contract... I... retain all the useful authorities and will be reading the contract in the "permissive" manner. If you do not specifically prohibit me from doing something with you/your money/your property/or your freedom... it will be allowed by our "permissive" contract. After all, I'm your new one man contracted government and I'm just here to help ;)
Of course no free man or state would enter into a contract on those terms. That is why I have trouble with some of your assertions on the powers of the government to lay and collect any manner of tax it sees fit and the idea that it also allows for liberal powers to us force against the people.
In fairness, I may have read your posts wrong so feel free to set me straight if you actually agree with my constitutional understanding.
That is why I have trouble with some of your assertions on the powers of the government to lay and collect any manner of tax it sees fit and the idea that it also allows for liberal powers to us force against the people.
Unfortunately that has been the interpretation right from the very first day of its ratification by those we hold to be the founders themselves, not just some extension of a prenumbra in a modern day court.
As far as the use of force to collect a tax, seems the all time example of that lay with the ole General and first President himself George Washington collecting a still tax from the farmers in Pennsylvania. And that was right out of the gate after ratification of the Constitution.
George Washington's Proclamation Whiskey Rebellion August 7, 1794:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/proclamations/gwproc03.htmGeorge Washington's address on October 20 1794
to General Lee at Bedford, PA
As far as limits on powers to lay collect those taxes the first tax case before the USSC, comprised of several members of the Constitutional convention responsible for the provisions regarding taxation, made clear what little limts to tax there actually are.
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," "[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."
If that does any damage to any preconceived notions on what national government can or can't do as regards taxes, not much I can do about that.
Despite foolish court precedents, the constitution is just a fancy way of describing the overriding CONTRACT between the ‘governing’ and the ‘governed’.
Simple test for you to distinguish the difference between law and mere contract. Exercise of a law can kill you inspite of your immediate objections to such violation, exercise of the provisions of a contract can't.
Contrary to some notions offered in this and that quarter to the contrary, a constitution is not a contract. A constitution is however an imposed "Supreme Law of the Land" instituted for particular purpose, that of defining the powers and limits of a government. You and I are bound to a constitution's government by our mere presence under the jurisdiction(read guns) of the govenment it defines and by no other factor, inspite of all rhetorical or philosophical conjectures of social contracts and such to make reality more palatable to those that don't exactly like their exposure to reality in raw terms.