Lawsuit to feds: Constitution says, 'No you can't'

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 01, 2010 | Bob Unruh

[NTHockey]

Logically, not legalistically, the Commerce Clause cannot be as all encompassing as its proponents claim. If it supersedes the entire Constitution, then logically, the government does not exist.

The three branches - Congress, Executive and Judiciary - do not exist, for they are not defined. What we are left with is a dictatorship.

Article I, Section 9 “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

Attainder
attainder n. The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime.
In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment).

[Oceander]

No, it's not. For a clear example of that, take a look at how the so-called "Income Tax Cases" were distinguished almost to irrelevance during the 18 years or so from the time those cases were decided until the time the 16th Amendment was ratified - time and again, the Supreme Court found one reason or another why a whole slew of different taxes weren't the sort of direct tax that the Income Tax Cases had forbidden, even when they more or less were.

More broadly, however, no broad federal power long exercised stands or falls on a single case. Wickard may have represented the nadir (if you will) of respect for constitutional limitations (to-date) on the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't mean that all contemporary understandings of the breadth of the Commerce Clause power stand or fall on Wickard. For example, assuming Wickard were repudiated on its facts by the Supreme Court, all of the jurisprudence regarding the instrumentalities and channels of interstate commerce - such as OTR trucking on the highways of the various states - still stands. For some faint allusions to this, see United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

I am not saying that there are favorable odds on Wickard being overturned, or even substantially repudiated; however, I am saying that it is not beyond the realm of possibility. Do not forget that, until 1954, it seemed highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would ever repudiate the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), and the doctrine of "Separate but Equal" based on that case, until it did exactly that in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

[tacticalogic]

I understand that. That's why I specifically made reference to the Congressional "finding" of "substantial effects". There were other cases around the same time that laid some of the groundwork, and Wickard tends to be the lightning rod. What needs to be challenged and overturned is the "substantial effects" doctrine in general.

One of the most prescient pieces of writing I've ever seen on the subject, in my opinion, comes from Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution

"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments. "

[OneWingedShark]

This is why I should like to see, if there must be a national tax [either a sales or an income, but not both] that it be instituted via constitutional amendment which:
1 - Repeals the 16th.
2 - Sets the rate thereof (say 5%); that way the actual rate CANNOT be changed w/o Constitutional Amendment.
3 - Prohibits ANY exemptions or “credits.” {IE Everyone is treated uniformly.}
4 - Prohibits “withholdings” AND the ability to “simply take what you owe from your bank account.”
5 - Institute an additional MANDATORY penalty for tax-frauds/tax-evaders who hold public office: removal from office AND forfeiture of any pension/retirement-benefits.
6 - Prohibits taxation of firearms beyond a specific amount, say $20 like the 7th Amendment, total (from federal state and any political sub-division thereof).
7 - Prohibits any ‘special tax’ on ammunition.

[OneWingedShark]

>Article I, Section 9 “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
>
Attainder
>attainder n. The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime.
>In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group.

Like, say, gun owners?