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 If Americans don't want the income tax any more, they can have the 16th Amendment repealed.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.
Statutes are positive law. According to this definition:
Statutes are distinguished from common law.
Common law is based in natural law and, in turn, is the foundation for civil law. Thus a statute is not necessarily a 'law' when it comes to the People.
------
Indeed, and as it starts out: We the People. So what's your point?
You act like you know what your saying, but asking a question that has already been answered gives you away.
I consider the war of America against Britain as the country's war, the public's war, or the war of the people in their own behalf, for the security of their natural rights, and the protection of their own property.
Thomas Paine, On Financing the War, 1782
-----
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.
A legal document cannot contradict itself. Section 8 denotes the type of taxes the federal government has the authority to impose. If the 16th had the ability to operate in law in the manner you suggest, Article 1 section 8 would have to have been repealed. These taxes were to be imposed on the States and in the manner specified....NOT the People. This was not changed since the 16th conferred no new powers of taxation.
-----
What is taxed is the gain received from that labor. Gains in wealth are generally taxed.
A GAIN implies MORE than what you had before. Since you barter your labor for wages, there is no 'gain', it is an equitable exchange (i.e. private contract)
I notice your still not sourcing anything to back up your assertions.
Your just repeating the mantra of the mind-numbed robot- "They can tax us because they say they can"..."They can tax us because they say they can"..."They can tax us because they say they can"...