Replies

I do believe you should take a closer look at the organisation you appear to be advocating and their real message.

It has now become a Constitutional Crisis.

Sure has, this one:

The Honorable James DeMint (R-SC)
United States House of Representatives
THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 2001
12:00 noon
"In 1996, Congress passed a historic welfare reform law that has dramatically reduced the number of Americans who depend on welfare. In spite of this positive development, Representative DeMint is concerned about the steady growth of a welfare/entitlement state that extends well beyond the poor and is forcing millions of middle income Americans into dependency.
There has been a shift in the relationship between individuals and government, he argues, such that fewer and fewer are paying taxes at the same time that more and more are receiving increasingly generous benefits. If it becomes the case that most voters do not bear a financial burden for this largess, then there will be little to restrain--and significant political incentives to encourage--the continued growth of government. And at that point, DeMint warns, we have reached a major crisis in our democracy."

Milton Friedman as quoted by Northwest Florida Daily News, 10-16-2000:

"If we're to have an income tax, it's a good thing for everyone to pay at least a nominal amount," he said. "If non-taxpayers become a majority in society, what would restrain them from voting for ever higher taxes on others?"

Walter Williams, World Net Daily, 10-25-2000

According to the most recent U.S. Treasury Department figures, in 1997 the top 1 percent of income-earners (those with income of $250,000 and higher) paid 33 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent of income-earners ($108,000 and over) paid 52 percent, and the top 50 percent ($36,000 and over) paid 96 percent of income taxes. Guess what the bottom 50 percent of income earners paid?
If you're among those who pay little or no federal income taxes, what do you care about tax cuts? Moreover, if you think tax cuts pose a threat to government handout programs, you might be openly hostile and support Al Gore's silly "risky scheme" talk. So many Americans paying little or no federal taxes makes for a natural spending constituency. It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?

I've studied Schulz & Co.(Schiff, Kotmair,Conklin, Bannister et.al.), material for several years, and I can unequivocally state state they are full of bovine excretement offering only failed dead end arguments that lead to increased fines and manytime out right loss of liberty whenever they have are used in the Courtroom.

Not one of there "legal" argument stands up to critical inquiry.

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that "freeborn" state citizens are exempt from income tax, and that an individual is not a "person" under the tax code.

KANNE, Circuit Judge.

Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.

The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.

We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.

The New American, house publication of the John Birch Society sees things pretty much as I do.

Patriot Beware!
by Thomas R. Eddlem

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm

Beware Indeed.

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.

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."

I have yet to see the rationalization and rebuttal in support for Representation without Taxation under the "Constitution for the United States of America;"

Or a proposed solution to the real crisis from the leaders behind the Schulz & Co. dog and pony show.

Just as the article open this thread demonstrates, they are full of emotional tugging but short on practicle solutions and reasoned discourse.

I don't get your point. I am not advocating anything to anyone; simply posting information. I have found that it is best to simply ask the tyrants questions. I would love to REALLY push DeMint over the line. Of course he doesn't want to be another Hanson. Here is a letter to him from one of his constitutents:

===========================================================================

Citizen X
Some Street
YourDistrict, SC 29----

Hon. Jim DeMint
Federal Bldg.
300 East Washington St.
Greenville, SC 29601

Via Certified U.S.P.S. Mail
P *** *** ***

April 20, 2001

Dear Congressman DeMint:

Thank you for taking a stand on term limits that has, to date, been responsible and consistent with your original platform. I need your help on an issue that falls within your purview as a United States Congressman and the public servant of the people of your district.

For a number of years I have been reviewing information which suggests that the income of U.S. citizens who live and work exclusively within the United States is not subject to the federal "income tax" imposed by 26 USC § 1. This, of course, goes completely against the "conventional wisdom" about the income tax. However, the claim is backed by extensive citations from the actual federal statutes and regulations. I know you have a keen interest in the issue of taxation as witnessed by your balloon event at Greenville Tech last year.

If the claim is correct, the ramifications are enormous, and you have a duty to correct a serious injustice. If the claim is not correct, then I believe you should set the record straight by giving specific answers to the attached questions, so that I (and others) can be certain of what the law requires.

I am not "protesting" any law. I am not interested in any response which does not specifically address the questions below. I am, as your constituent, formally requesting that you, as my "representative," assist in helping me to understand and comply with the laws passed by Congress. (Please do not refer my inquiry to the IRS as they have been non-responsive on this and a number of issues that I have raised) And if my conclusions are correct, I demand that you immediately let your constituents know, before this fraud is allowed to continue one more day.

Thank you for your attention to this serious matter.

Sincerely,

Citizen X

The other part of this letter will take longer to format.