It would violate a statute, which is not necessarily a 'law'.
-----
Because many laws both state and federal may apply
Federal laws are limited to their Constitutionally authorized jurisdiction:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings
****
But if the government be national with regard to the operation of its powers, it changes its aspect again when we contemplate it in relation to the extent of its powers. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.
James Madison Federalist #39
-----
Last I saw, the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it does empower the collective Congress to lay and collect taxes, and the Constitution was written by "We the People". So you must be mistaken.
First, the Constitution was written by the representatives of the respective States on behalf of the People, not by the People themselves.
Second, that's WHY the Preamble is separate from the body of the constitutional document. The Preamble is a notice of intent, which specifies the reason for the document...to secure the rights of the People.
How can you say taxing people into poverty protects their rights?
-----
No, I don't believe I'm mistaken at all.
That a law limited to such objects as may be authorised by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the suprerme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries
------
So far your argument consists of "The government has the authority to do what it wants because it SAYS it does".
There is no constitutional justification for a direct tax on the People's labor....period.
Failure to obtain the license would simply violate the law
It would violate a statute, which is not necessarily a 'law'.
Of course it is. Statutes are laws enacted by a legislative body.
Because many laws both state and federal may apply
Federal laws are limited to their Constitutionally authorized jurisdiction:
And how does that impact the statement I made that "many laws both state and federal may apply"?
First, the Constitution was written by the representatives of the respective States on behalf of the People, not by the People themselves.
You may want to read the Preamble.
Second, that's WHY the Preamble is separate from the body of the constitutional document. The Preamble is a notice of intent, which specifies the reason for the document...to secure the rights of the People.
Indeed, and as it starts out: We the People. So what's your point?
How can you say taxing people into poverty protects their rights?
So exactly where did I say such an inane thing? Hopefully you are not also taking the position that we have an unalienable right not to be taxed, as other posters have?
So far your argument consists of "The government has the authority to do what it wants because it SAYS it does".
I'm not sure you are following my argument at all. I'll speak slowly. The Congress has the constitutional authority to lay and collect taxes. The 16th Amendment removed the distinction of direct and indirect as factors in the constitutionality of a particular tax. If someone believes that what the government does is unconstitutional, he may take it to a federal court, where a decision will be rendered. If he doesn't like it, he can appeal. If Americans don't want the income tax any more, they can have the 16th Amendment repealed. Frankly, I don't have a problem with that system. Why do you?
There is no constitutional justification for a direct tax on the People's labor....period.
I agree with that. Which is why labor is not taxed. What is taxed is the gain received from that labor. Gains in wealth are generally taxed. Gains are calculated by subtracting costs from revenues. The value of one's labor is not at issue, merely the gain from it.
MACVSOG68 and toddsterpaininthea*s seem to be joined at the hip.
