Posted on 04/19/2014 12:17:52 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Knoxville, Tenn. (CBS DC) – Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a crowd of law school students that if taxes in the U.S. become too high then people “should revolt.”
Speaking at the University of Tennessee College of Law on Tuesday, the longest-serving justice currently on the bench was asked by a student about the constitutionality of the income tax, the Knoxville News Sentinel reports.
Scalia responded that the government has the right to implement the tax, “but if it reaches a certain point, perhaps you should revolt.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at washington.cbslocal.com ...
And there is the rub.
The Gubermint is regrouping but we are still alive, and they look like the thugs they are.
Wow! Sounds like the patriot call to me!
Well, yes, except if the C of C fails, I’m for marching politically (with the right candidates (harder and harder to find), of course, but not necessarily militarily on Washington, if that’s what you meant. I’m rather for states making incremental moves to become independent of Washington DC beginning with financial independence.
Newp....
There’s no need to march militarily on D.C.
This is from Rand Paul via Fox News. Notice Reid is keeping the government from functioning and solving problems
“...He said there’s a legitimate constitutional question about whether the feds or the states should be responsible for endangered species. Paul believes the Endangered Species Act “has been abused across America” and is a prime example of “government overreach.”
Paul cited some odd examples of how the Endangered Species Act has been enforced in his home state of Kentucky.
“Nobody in Washington really knows anything about ranching or grazing cattle,” said Paul, adding that he proposed a bill last year in the Senate that would give states more control over land and the preservation of species. Paul called on Harry Reid to at least allow a vote on the measure in the Senate.....”
Talk about out of control. Ethics charges should be brought against him asap
I used to have a button that said,
TAXES ARE REVOLTING.
WHY AREN’T YOU?
To me it looks like the Right, in not being clear about who the #1 enemy is (big government), may bicker themselves right out of the 2016 election. If the electoral process fails and the Convention of States fails, then the only option I see is individual states (Texas, don't know who else) taking action to nullify and steps to become financially independent of Washington DC.
Hogwash.
There is NO reason to think the Federal Gov't would honor new amendments any more than they do the original.
Do you really think that tiger will suddenly become spotted?
It’s always been an option.. Certainly no one welcomes chaos of the orders or levels now magnified ..
Yet no one can deny the personal attacks that have befallen those who were grazing land long before BLM ever came to be..
If the actions of the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the past are any future indicator ala Clinton and Babbage
No one comes out a winner
I would like to know the actual question. I think for a law student to ask about the Constitutionality of the income tax is remarkable, since the 16th amendment has never been revoked and all arguments to say it w.as improperly instituted have thus far failed
Jim Robinson: When an originalist Justice of the Supreme Court says it’s time, it’s time.
Amendment10: Harvard Law School-indoctrinated Justice Scalia had a golden opportunity to tell the students about Justice John Marshall's official clarification of Congess limited power to lay taxes - and Scalia blew it. “Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Repeal The 17th: Some other FReeper (can't remember who it was) pointed out the other day that the main thing about the 16th amendment wasn't the "tax on income" but that a federal tax, for the first time ever, could be levied upon an individual citizen. Up until that time, there was very little interaction between an individual citizen and the federal government. AMENDMENT XVI Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." ––– “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes ... without regard to any census or enumeration.
Amendment10: While I would support repeal of 16A because it ignores other tax-related constitutional clauses imo, I actually don't have problems with it for the following reason. 16A doesn't constitute an excuse for Congress to ignore its limited power to lay taxes, imo, which I indicated in previous post. In fact, I think that the states should amend Justice Marshall's clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes to the Constitution where corrupt Congress can continue to ignore it. /sarc
Amendment10: As mentioned in related threads, it remains that before 16A was ratified, the Supreme Court had clarified that Congress cannot lay taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue which Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers. “Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824. Also mentioned elsewhere, not only is the Court's clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes still in effect imo, but the states need to amend Justice Marshall's statement to the Constitution where corrupt Congress can continue to ignore it. /sarc
SoFloFreeper: I would like to know the actual question. I think for a law student to ask about the Constitutionality of the income tax is remarkable, since the 16th amendment has never been revoked and all arguments to say it was improperly instituted have thus far failed.
You want a real revolution, one that will stick? Then just require the government to obey the law, and get rid of their ability to “presume” corporate law applies to non-corporate people. That would be the most fundamental of all possible revolutions in America.
Because the truth - the plain, simple truth - is that the income tax IS limited, and it says so itself. It has to, otherwise it would conflict with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. At Title 16 (Federal Tax Code Title), Sections 6671 (b), 7343 and 6332 (f), the ENFORCEMENT of the income tax code is limited to “An officer or employee of a listed type of corporation; AND 2) Under a duty to perform an act; AND 3) In respect of said act, a violation occurs.”
And remember, taxes are “imposed.” If it can’t be imposed, it’s not a tax. And if it can’t be enforced, it can’t be imposed. The government plays games here, too, by calling the income tax “voluntary” because they know it doesn’t apply to most people. But they set up rules where they presume people are “volunteering” - and then deny them knowledge of how to “un-volunteer.” And then the “impose” the tax on the “volunteers.”
Funny tricks, huh? Hah hah.
But like I said, the courts allow the government to “presume” people fit those definitions. And the government provides NO safe way for people to rebut that presumption - even though they don’t fit the definition. And that’s how they “convict” so many people who actually do not fit the tax code requirements.
Therefore a REAL revolution would fix THIS problem. It would be people learning about these FACTS, and crafting laws that require full disclosure from the government, and a safe way for people to point out that they don’t fit the requirements of the law.
THAT WOULD SAVE AMERICA.
And it would save a LOT of foolish and ignorant bloodshed, too.
Our Constitution, our freedoms and our lives are precious. Picking up arms should be the absolute LAST thing anyone does. And if it can be prevented merely by learning the law that is published right in front of the entire population, openly, then it would be a crime before God not to explore that alternative to it’s uttermost extent.
Please read, and please learn, as much as possible about this REAL solution: Brains Before Guns.
One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America
Probably not when the country is shared by two factions that have become implacable enemies. Think Rwanda.
> responded that the government has the right to implement the tax, “but if it reaches a certain point, perhaps you should revolt.”
Thanks 2ndDivisionVet.
Well, it would be interesting to have amendments which proscribe punishments for those [government agents] which violate them.
Indeed. Buuuump!
One Stone, Two Powers: How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America
More specifically, neither Obama or activist Justice Roberts can point to IRS code to justify anything concerning Democratcare. This is because the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide them from Obama and Chief Justice Roberts, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive and judicial branches, or in non-elected bureaucrats like those running the IRS. In other words, Congress has a constitutional monopoly on federal legislative powers whether it wants it or not imo.
So by delegating federal legislative powers to constitutionally undefined "federal regulatory agencies" such as the IRS, Congress is wrongly protecting federal legislative powers from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of the clauses referenced above.
Next, regardless that Justice Roberts referenced Gibbons v. Ogden to help justify his support for Democratcare, Gibbons opinion includes the following statements which clearly don't support the Supreme Court's PC decision on Democratcare.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
In other words, since the states have never granted Congress the specific power, via the Constitution, to define public healthcare policy, Congress doesn't have the power to make laws which legislatively address healthcare issues any more than it has the power to regulate our 1st Amendment-protected rights. This is regardless if such legislation merely appropriates taxes or applies penalties in the name of healthcare as evidenced by Justice Marshall's official clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes.
The bottom line is that corrupt federal Democrats wrongly ignored proposing a healthcare amendment to the Constitution to the states for ratification before establishing Democratcare, the states not obligated to ratify such an amendment.
Objection!
Scalia is not an originalist; no originalist would say that it is ‘Foolish’ to have the supreme court decide if NSA wiretapping is unconstitutional
. Moreover, no constitutionalist (originalist or textualist) can support the War on Drugs, which is predicated on vast expansions of federal power (contrary the 10th and 9th Amendments). This expansion is essentially the affirming of the USSC's ability to amend the Constitution by deriving from Wickard v Filburn the principle that the ability to issue interstate regulations includes the ability to issue intrastate regulations. Scalia played a part in further expanding the engine of our enslavement (the commerce clause) in Gonzales v. Raich so it includes even non-commerce — it is unforgivable for a jurist to issue concurrence with the logical nullity that the Congress can issue valid laws regarding non-commerce matters through the power to regulate commerce.
In the first paragraph of his dissent, Thomas said:
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.(My emphases.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.