[Constitution Scholar]

Ok wise guys, I want you to prove ANY of these points about the income tax incorrect. State exactly why it isn't true, and any sources of information.

1. Admit that the Internal Revenue Code is found at Title 26 of the United States Code.

2. Admit that Title 26 of the United States Code is broken down into Subtitles.

3. Admit that income taxes are set forth in Subtitle A of Title 26.

4. Admit that Subtitle A contains Sections 1 through 1564.

5. Admit that estate and gift taxes are set forth in Subtitle B of Title 26.

6. Admit that Subtitle B contains Sections 2001 through 2663.

7. Admit that employment taxes are set forth in Subtitle C of Title 26.

8. Admit that Subtitle C contains Sections 3101 through 3510.

9. Admit that miscellaneous excise taxes are set forth in Subtitle D of Title 26.

10. Admit that Subtitle D contains Sections 4041 through 4999.

11. Admit that alcohol, tobacco, and certain other excise taxes are set forth in Subtitle E of Title 26.

12. Admit that Subtitle E contains Sections 5001 through 5872.

13. Admit that procedures and administration to be followed with respect to the different taxes addressed in Subtitles A through E are set forth in Subtitle F of Title 26.

14. Admit that Subtitle F contains Sections 6001 through 7872.

15. Admit that Congress enacted the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(3).

16. Admit that when the Internal Revenue Service requests information from an individual, the Privacy Act requires the IRS to inform each individual whom it asks to supply information, on the form which it uses to collect the information or on a separate form that can be retained by the individual –

(a) the authority which authorizes the solicitation of the information and whether disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary;

(b) the principal purpose or purposes for which the information is intended to be used;

(c) the routine uses which may be made of the information, as published pursuant to paragraph (4)(D) of this subsection; and

(d) the effects on him, if any, of not providing all or any part of the requested information.

17. Admit that Congress enacted the Paperwork Reduction Act at 44 U.S.C. § 3504(c)(3)(C)

. 18. Admit that the Paperwork Reduction Act requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to include with any information requests, a statement to inform the person receiving the request why the information is being collected, how it is to be used, and whether responses to the request are voluntary, required to obtain a benefit, or mandatory.

19. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service complies with the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act by setting out the required statements on the IRS Form 1040 Instruction Booklet.

20. Admit that the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act statements which the Internal Revenue Service currently uses with respect to the federal income tax state that: "Our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code Sections 6001, 6011, 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must file a return or statement with us for any tax you are liable for. Your response is mandatory under these sections."

21. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 6001 states: "Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe. Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax under this title. The only records which an employer shall be required to keep under this section in connection with charged tips shall be charge receipts, records necessary to comply with Section 6053(c) and copies of statements furnished by employees under Section 6053(a)."

22. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 6011 states: "(a) General Rule. When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary and person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations . . .(f) Income, estate and gift taxes. For requirement that returns of income, estate, and gift taxes be made whether or not there is tax liability, see subparts B and C."

23. Admit that subparts B and C referred to at Internal Revenue Code Section 6011(f) contain Internal Revenue Code Sections 6012 through 6017a.

24. Admit that Congress displayed its knowledge of how to make someone "liable for" a tax at 26 U.S.C. § 5005, which states that: "(a) The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1)."

25. Admit that Congress displayed its knowledge of how to make someone liable for a tax at 26 U.S.C. § 5703, which states that: "(a)(1) The manufacturer or importer of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes shall be liable for the taxes imposed therein by section 5701."

26. Admit that the persons made liable at Internal Revenue Code Sections 5005 and 5703, for the taxes imposed at Internal Revenue Code Sections 5001(a)(1) and 5701, respectively, are the persons described at Sections 6001 and 6011 required to make returns and keep records.

27. Admit that Section 1461 is the only place in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code where Congress used the words: "liable for."

28. Admit that the person made liable by Congress at Section 1461 is a withholding agent for nonresident aliens. 29. Admit that there is a canon of statutory construction, "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" , which means the express mention of one thing means the implied exclusion of another.

30. Admit that Congress could have, but did not, make anyone else other than the withholding agent referred to in Section 1461, "liable for" any income tax imposed in Subtitle A.

31. Admit that up until 1986, the statement required by the Privacy and Paperwork Reduction Acts set out in the IRS Form 1040 instruction booklet, mentioned only Internal Revenue Code Sections 6001 and 6011 as the authority to request information.

32. Admit that the United States Supreme Court has held in C.I.R. v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 89 (1959), and in U.S. v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 358-359 (1957), that a regulation that purports to create a legal requirement not imposed by Congress in the underlying statute is invalid.

JURISDICTION

33. Admit that at Section 7608(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, Congress set forth the authority of internal revenue officers with respect to enforcement of Subtitle E and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms.

34. Admit that at Section 7608(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, Congress set forth the authority of internal revenue officers with respect to enforcement of laws relating to internal revenue other than Subtitle E.

35. Admit that the term "person" as that term is used in Internal Revenue Code Section 6001 and 6011 is defined at Section 7701(a)(1).

36. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 7701(a)(1) states: "The term person shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation."

37. Admit that trusts, estates, partnerships, associations, companies and corporations do not have arms and legs, do not get married, do not eat, drink and sleep, and are not otherwise included in what one not trained in the law would recognize as a "person."

38. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 6012(a) states that: "(a) General Rule. Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount or more . . . ."

39. Admit that Internal Revenue Code Section 1 imposes a tax on the taxable income of certain "persons," who are "individuals" and "estates and trusts." (See 26 U.S.C. § 1.)

40. Admit that the "individual" mentioned in Internal Revenue Code Section 6012 is the same individual as mentioned in Internal Revenue Code Section 1.

41. Admit that the "individual" mentioned by Congress in Internal Revenue Code Section 6012 and Internal Revenue Code Section 1 is not defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code.

42. Admit that 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1 is the Treasury Regulation that corresponds to Internal Revenue Code Section 1.

43. Admit that at 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1(a)(1), the individuals identified at Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code are those individuals who are either citizens of the United States, residents of the United States, or non-resident aliens.

44. Admit that the "residents" and "citizens" identified in 26 C.F.R. § 1.1- 1(a)(1) are mutually exclusive classes.

45. Admit that as used in 26 C.F.R. Sec. 1.1-1, the term "resident" means an alien.

46. Admit that 26 C.F.R. Section 1.1-1(c) states that: "Every person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen."

47. Admit that a person who is born or naturalized in the United States but not subject to its jurisdiction, is not a citizen within the meaning of 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1.

48. Admit that on April 21, 1988, in the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Evansville Division, in the case of United States v. James I. Hall, Case No. EV 87-20-CR, IRS Revenue Officer Patricia A. Schaffner, testified under penalties of perjury that the terms "subject to its jurisdiction" as used at 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) meant being subject to the laws of the country, and that meant the "legislative jurisdiction" of the United States.

49. Admit that in the same case, Patricia A. Schaffner testified under oath the term "subject to its jurisdiction" could have no other meaning than the "legislative jurisdiction" of the United States.

50. Admit that when Patricia A. Schaffner was asked to tell the jury what facts made Mr. Hall subject to the "legislative jurisdiction" of the United States, the prosecutor, Assistant United States Attorney Larry Mackey objected, and the court sustained the objection.

51. Admit that the Internal Revenue Service is never required by the Federal courts to prove facts to establish whether one is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

52. Admit that the United States Department of Justice and United States Attorneys, and their assistants, always object when an alleged taxpayer demands the Government prove that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and the federal courts always sustain those objections, which means that the federal courts routinely prohibit the introduction of potentially exculpatory evidence in tax crime trials.

52(a). The IRS keeps a system of financial records on federal judges, IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agents, and U.S. Attorneys, which records cannot be accessed by the subject(s) under the FOIA or Privacy Act.

53. Admit that unless specifically provided for in the United States Constitution, the federal government does not have legislative jurisdiction in the states.

54. Admit that on December 15, 1954, an interdepartmental committee was commissioned on the recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States, Herbert Brownell, Jr., and approved by President Eisenhower and his cabinet, named the Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States, and charged with the duty of studying and reporting where the United States had legal authority to make someone subject to its jurisdiction. (Note: this report hereinafter referred to as "the Report." )

55. Admit that in June of 1957, the "Interdepartmental Committee for the Study of Jurisdiction over Federal Areas Within the States" issued "Part II" of its report entitled "Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within the States."

56. Admit that the Report makes the following statements:

a. "The Constitution gives express recognition to but one means of Federal acquisition of legislative jurisdiction -- by State consent under Article I, section 8, clause 17... Justice McLean suggested that the Constitution provided the sole mode for transfer of jurisdiction, and that if this mode is not pursued, no transfer of jurisdiction can take place."

b. "It scarcely needs to be said that unless there has been a transfer of jurisdiction (1) pursuant to clause 17 by a Federal acquisition of land with State consent, or (2) by cession from the State to the Federal Government, or unless the Federal Government has reserved jurisdiction upon the admission of the State, the Federal Government possesses no legislative jurisdiction over any area within a State, such jurisdiction being for exercise by the State, subject to non- interference by the State with Federal functions,"

c. "The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State,"

d. "On the other hand, while the Federal Government has power under various provisions of the Constitution to define, and prohibit as criminal, certain acts or omissions occurring anywhere in the United States, it has no power to punish for various other crimes, jurisdiction over which is retained by the States under our Federal-State system of government, unless such crime occurs on areas as to which legislative jurisdiction has been vested in the Federal Government."

57. Admit that the phrase "subject to their jurisdiction" as used in the Thirteenth Amendment means subject to both the jurisdiction of the several states of the union and the United States.

58. Admit that the "subject to its jurisdiction" component of the definition of citizen set out at 26 C.F.R. Section 1.1-1(c) has a different meaning than the phrase "subject to their jurisdiction" as used in the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

59. Admit that a Treasury Regulation cannot create affirmative duties not otherwise imposed by Congress in the underlying statute. corresponding Internal Revenue Code section.

60. Admit that Congress defined a "taxpayer" at Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code, as any person subject to any Internal Revenue tax.

61. Admit that one who is not a citizen, resident, or non-resident alien, is not an individual subject to the tax imposed by Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.

62. Admit that an individual who is not subject to the tax imposed by Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, is not an individual required to make a return under the Requirement of Internal Revenue Code Section 6012.

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT/AMBIGUITY OF THE LAW

63. Admit these facts: the 27th Amendment was proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789. Some of the State legislatures ratified the proposal on these dates: Maryland, on December 19, 1789; North Carolina on December 22, 1789; South Carolina on January 19, 1790; Delaware on January 28, 1790; Vermont on November 3, 1791; and Virginia, on December 15, 1791. This number of States was not sufficient for ratification of this amendment. Then some 84 years later on May 6, 1873, Ohio ratified this amendment. Interest in this amendment was rekindled when on March 6, 1978, Wyoming ratified this amendment. After this, other States ratified the amendment: Colorado on April 22, 1984; South Dakota on February 1985; New Hampshire on March 7, 1985; Arizona on April 3, 1985; Tennessee on May 28, 1985; Oklahoma on July 10, 1985; New Mexico on February 14, 1986; Indiana on February 24, 1986; Utah on February 25, 1986; Arkansas on March 13, 1987; Montana on March 17, 1987; Connecticut on May 13, 1987; Wisconsin on July 15, 1987; Georgia on February 2, 1988; West Virginia on March 10, 1988; Louisiana on July 7, 1988; Iowa on February 9, 1989; Idaho on March 23, 1989; Nevada on April 26, 1989; Alaska on May 6, 1989; Oregon on May 19, 1989; Minnesota on May 22, 1989; Texas on May 25, 1989; Kansas on April 5, 1990; Florida on May 31, 1990; North Dakota on May 25, 1991; Alabama on May 5, 1992; Missouri on May 5, 1992; Michigan on May 7, 1992; and New Jersey on May 7, 1992.

64. Admit that in the case of Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 374-375 (1921), the Supreme Court concluded:

"We do not find anything in the article which suggests that an amendment once proposed is to be open to ratification for all time, or that ratification in some of the states may be separated from that in others by many years and yet be effective. We do find that which strongly suggests the contrary. First, proposal and ratification are not treated as unrelated acts, but as succeeding steps in a single endeavor, the natural inference being that they are not to be widely separated in time. Secondly, it is only when there is deemed to be a necessity therefor that amendments are to be proposed, the reasonable implication being that when proposed they are to be considered and disposed of presently. Thirdly, as ratification is but the expression of the approbation of the people and is to be effective when had in three- fourths of the states, there is a fair implication that it must be sufficiently contemporaneous in that number of states to reflect the will of the people in all sections at relatively the same period, which of course ratification scattered through a long series of years would not do. These considerations and the general purport and spirit of the article lead to the conclusion expressed by Judge Jameson 'that an alteration of the Constitution proposed to-day has relation to the sentiment and the felt needs of to-day, and that, if not ratified early while that sentiment may fairly be supposed to exist, it ought to be regarded as waived, and not again to be voted upon, unless a second time proposed by Congress.' That this is the better conclusion becomes even more manifest when what is comprehended in the other view is considered; for, according to it, four amendments proposed long ago-two in 1789, one in 1810 and one in 1861-are still pending and in a situation where their ratification in some of the states many years since by representatives of generations now largely forgotten may be effectively supplemented in enough more states to make three-fourths by representatives of the present or some future generation. To that view few would be able to subscribe, and in our opinion it is quite untenable. We conclude that the fair inference or implication from article 5 is that the ratification must be within some reasonable time after the proposal."

65. Admit that the date of September 25, 1789, when the 27th Amendment was first proposed, is "widely separated in time" from the date of March 6, 1978, when Wyoming ratified this amendment.

66. Admit that pursuant to the United States Constitution, Congress is authorized to impose two different types of taxes: direct taxes and indirect taxes.

67. Admit that the constitutionality of the 1894 income tax act was in question in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895), and that in this case, the Supreme Court found that Congress could tax real and personal property only by means of an apportioned, direct tax. Finding that the income from real and personal property was part of the property itself, the Court concluded in this case that a federal income tax could tax such income only by means of an apportioned tax. Further finding that as this particular tax was not apportioned, it was unconstitutional.

68. Admit that for Congress to tax today real or personal property, the tax would have to be apportioned.

69. Admit that for Congress to tax income from real and personal property without the authority of the 16th Amendment, such taxes would have to be apportioned.

70. Admit that in 1913, the following law, Revised Statutes § 205, was in effect:

"Sec. 205. Whenever official notice is received at the Department of State that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Secretary of State shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published in the newspapers authorized to promulgate the laws, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States."

71. Admit that Revised Statutes § 205 provided that "official notice" of a State's ratification of an amendment must be received at the State Department.

72. Admit that on or about July 31, 1909, Senate Joint Resolution 40 proposing the ratification of the 16th Amendment was deposited with the Department of State and the same was published at 36 Stat. 184, and that this resolution read as follows:

SIXTY-FIRST CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the fifteenth day of March, one thousand nine hundred and nine.

JOINT RESOLUTION.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution:

"Article XVI. 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."

J.C. CANNON,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
J.S. SHERMAN,
Vice-President of the United States, and
President of the Senate.

73. Admit that on July 27, 1909, the same Congress adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 6, which read as follows:

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the President of the United States be requested to transmit forthwith to the executives of the several States of the United States copies of the article of amendment proposed by Congress to the State legislatures to amend the Constitution of the United States, passed July twelfth, nineteen hundred and nine, respecting the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes on incomes, to the end that the said States may proceed to act upon the said article of amendment; and that he request the executive of each State that may ratify said amendment to transmit to the Secretary of State a certified copy of such ratification.

Attest: Charles G. Bennett
Secretary of the Senate

A. McDowell
Clerk of the House of Representatives

74. Admit that not only did this resolution request that certified copies of favorable State ratification resolutions be sent to Washington, D.C., the States were expressly informed to do so by Secretary of State Philander Knox, who sent the following "form" letter to the governors of the 48 States then in the Union:

"Sir:

"I have the honor to enclose a certified copy of a Resolution of Congress, entitled 'Joint Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,' with the request that you cause the same to be submitted to the Legislature of your State for such action as may be had, and that a certified copy of such action be communicated to the Secretary of State, as required by Section 205, Revised Statutes of the United States. (See overleaf.)

An acknowledgment of the receipt of this communication is requested.

I have the honor to be, Sir,

Your obedient servant,
P. C. Knox"

75. Admit the following facts:

a. When California provided uncertified copies of its resolution to Secretary of State Philander Knox, Knox wrote the following to California Secretary of State Frank Jordan: "I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th ultimo, transmitting a copy of the Joint Resolution of the California Legislature ratifying the proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and in reply thereto I have to request that you furnish a certified copy of the Resolution under the seal of the State, which is necessary in order to carry out the provisions of Section 205 of the Revised Statutes of the United States"

b. When Wyoming Governor Joseph Carey telegraphed Philander Knox news that the Wyoming legislature had ratified the 16th Amendment on February 3, 1913, Philander Knox telegraphed in return as follows: "Replying to your telegram of 3rd you are requested to furnish a certified copy of Wyoming's ratification of Income Tax Amendment so there may be no question as to the compliance with Section 205 of Revised Statutes."

76. Admit that on February 15, 1913, a State department attorney, J. Rueben Clarke, informed Secretary of State Philander Knox, in reference to the State of Minnesota, "the secretary of the Governor merely informed the Department that the state legislature had ratified the proposed amendment."

77. Admit that, in the official records deposited in the Archives of the United States, there is no certified copy of the resolution of the Minnesota legislature ratifying the 16th Amendment.

[ancient_geezer]

Ok wise guys, I want you to prove ANY of these points about the income tax incorrect.

Why? Is there one that has to be incorrect? From what I can see they can all be correct and you still have no case of denial of a fundamental right possessed by you.

Perhaps you will point out to us the key question, that you would like to see dispproved.

You appear to infer that your personal rights have in someway being taken away through the enumerated power of taxation granted by the people to the Congress by the Constitution for the United States of America. Name that right you claim to have and demonstrate you are unable to exercise it by virtue of an indirect tax levied on the commerce you engage in.

There is no personal right to a free ride. Nor is there anything within the constitution that limits the exercise of the enumerated authority of Congress to tax.

Only the American people in whole as Principal and the those who they have chosen to represent them as there agents in government are the proper defendant's to your prosecution, and by rights the Principals are the only ones who may provide the answers or any redress in reality.

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,"

Only the people in their choice of representation can limit the exercise of that Constitutional authority to tax.

MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)

• "Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "

Demonstrate that a right you have title and proper ownership of has deliberately and intentially been destroyed by enactment of the income tax, for relief from the Court. Therein lay remedy under the Constitution for those who can demonstrate a true denial of personal right!

For all others:

Champion v. Ames(1903), 186 U.S. 321

• 'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [21 US 1, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56]   he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."

 

Else, you continue to be liable to the Income Tax, For the Constitution lays out the means to pay for the enumerated functions of the national government in the form of taxation paid out of the product of individuals who benefit from their presense in this nation.

---

I submit the following evidence for consideration of Summary Judgement to dismiss, as this suit has named no proper party, nor does it specify a grievience for which relief may be granted.

Constitution for the United States of America:

• Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

• Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
  to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
  but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

• Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #12:

• "A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land."

• "The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #21:

• The principle of regulating the contributions of the States to the common treasury by QUOTAS is another fundamental error in the Confederation. Its repugnancy to an adequate supply of the national exigencies has been already pointed out, and has sufficiently appeared from the trial which has been made of it.

James Madison, Federalist #39:

• "The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"

James Madison, Federalist #45:

• "The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;

James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:

• "If a government depends on other governments for its revenues -- if it must depend on the voluntary contributions of its members -- its [*129] existence must be precarious."

• "If the general government is to depend on the voluntary contribution of the states for its support, dismemberment of the United States may be the consequence."

James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention
4 Dec. 1787 Elliot 2:466--68

• No man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and each buys in proportion only to his consumption. The price of the commodity is blended with the tax, and the person is often not sensible of the payment But would it have been proper to rest the matter there? Suppose this fund should not prove sufficient; ought the public debts to remain unpaid, or the exigencies of government be left unprovided for? should our tranquillity be exposed to the assaults of foreign enemies, or violence among ourselves, because the objects of commerce may not furnish a sufficient revenue to secure tham all? Certainly, Congress should possess the power of raising revenue from their constituents, for the purpose mentioned in the 8th section of the 1st article; that is, "to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States."

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.

"Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"

James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:

• Mr. Chairman, in considering this great subject, I trust we shall find that part which gives the general government the power of laying and collecting taxes indispensable, and essential to the existence of any efficient or well-organized system of government: if we consult reason, and be ruled by its dictates, we shall find its justification there: if we review the experience we have had or contemplate the history of nations, here we find ample reasons to prove its expediency. There is little reason to depend for necessary supplies on a body which is fully possed of the power of witholding them. If a government depends on other governments for its revenues -- if it must depend on the voluntary contributions of its members -- its [*129] existence must be precarious."

• "If the general government is to depend on the voluntary contribution of the states for its support, dismemberment of the United States may be the consequence."

---

What is your rationalization and rebuttal in support for Representation without Taxation under the "Constitution for the United States of America;"

Your list of questions do not provide insight into the core of the problem.