Replies

I disagree Poohbah, there have been individuals, and a few groups of individuals that have had some correspondence about their concerns. Some have done so in a legal framework, in court. They may, or may not have received some answers along the way.

They most assuredly DID receive answers. Again, they didn't like those answers. I'm sure that murderers dislike the laws prohibiting murder with the same sort of ferocity as the TPers hate the Internal Revenue Code.

Some have won in court, some have lost.

You are mistaken--none have won.

But, they did not go with a formal, legal, constitutional petition for redress of grievance.

Interesting. You attach such meaning to this concept of a "formal, legal constitutional petition for redress of grievance," but there is no definition of such a process in the Constiution.

That is a necessarily formal, first amendment process.

No, it isn't, because the process isn't defined in the document. We have a process for amending the Constitution; we have a process for electing Representatives and Senators; we have a process for electing the electoral college, which in turn elects the President; but we don't have a process for a "formal, legal, constitutional redress of grievance."

I don't believe it has ever been done before.

You can't do what isn't defined. So Schulz's action is semantically void.

One of the reasons that it has not been done thoroughly before is that it costs a lot of money, and it takes a great deal of tenacity.

In other words, it's too much like work for most of the fringe whackos dodging taxes.

Poohbah: I find it interesting that you are so desirous of upholding the line that, the popular understanding that whatever the government has done is okay! Surely, there must be something that they may have done wrong, isn't there?

It is totally unfair to compare a person who wishes to stand up for what he considers his rights, and a murderer who would rather not go through a trial! Certainly, you don't think of them as being comparable?

The fact of the matter is, our Constitution is a unique document in all of history. The people, as the Creators, have all the rights, most importantly, the basic rights of freedom, that many take for granted, are considered to predate the Constitution, and are from our beneficent God, and are not subject, at any time to restrictive legislation.

The States, as created entities, were given a number of responsibilites, and the central government, which could get into the most mischief, was highly restricted, put into a box, so to speak. Its power was strictly limited.

There have in fact been victories in court, by those 'protesting' the income tax. I'm not prepared to document those at this moment. Some were not published, which is the courts perogative. But I am not saying that the courts have been friendly to citizen's concerns since the 1930's or so. There are reasons for this, which are beyond the scope of our discussion.

But, I do not concede that this means that the income tax system is okay, and beyond legal reproach! And I don't understand anyone that has looked into the system, saying that.

Perhaps the word 'formal' redress is misunderstood. I mean by that, that we are talking about something which is not casual, an event which is not entered into without knowing what you are doing, from a legal standpoint. In other words, we are talking about something basic to our Bill Of Rights: The First Amendment: ..."or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". This is something that Bob Schulz refers to written by Anthony Hargis: ""The Lost Right, Redress of Grievances." It is truly a process that has been forgotten, or assumed (improperly), as the right to tell government what you think. Its much more than that!

So, to say that it isn't defined, and therefore, we can't do it, is obviously, on its face, misconstruction of the clear meaning of the first amendment. While this was probably unintentional, its important to clarify that.