[ancient_geezer]

 

I merely pointed out, correctly, that the judges are hopelessly comprised by a massive conflict-of-interest in this matter, and their "rulings" on tax cases are phony. Period.

And your unvarnished word is going to provide a legal defense. ROTFLMAO

We had a Civil War in this country over the prior funding of the federal government (tariffs).

Despite all your straw "reasons", if judges ruled against the income tax, government funding would go away

Dream on!!

By Pre CIVIL WAR Law:

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."

 

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] 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;

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 --"

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
"COMMERCE, trade, contracts.
The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
INCOME. The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business; it is applied particularly to individuals; the income of the government is usually called revenue.

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
WAGES, contract. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services. As to servants wages, see Chitty, Contr. 171 as to sailors' wages, Abbott on Ship. 473; generally, see 22. Vin. Abr. 406; Bac. Abr. Master, &c., H; Marsh. Ins. 89; 2 Lill. Abr. 677; Peters' Dig. Admiralty, pl. 231, et seq.

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
COMPENSATION, contracts. A reward for services rendered.

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
GAIN. The word is used as synonymous with profits.

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
PROFITS. In general, by this term is understood the benefit which a man derives from a thing. It is more particularly applied to such benefit as arises from his labor and skill

Consideration received for labor or product is commerce, a contract subject to duty or excise.

[an amused spectator]

And your unvarnished word is going to provide a legal defense. ROTFLMAO

You're the kind of supercilious little swine that would have sneered the same crap at those who dared to dispute the Dred Scott decision. "But Taney has held that slaves (and even the free descendants of slaves) are not citizens and may not sue in the federal courts, and that Congress can not forbid slavery in the territories of the United States," cries ancient_geezer. "He is a Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and we all must grovel in homage to his black-robed majesty!"

Sorry, pal - I'm not blinded by the man behind the curtain, unlike you. ;-)

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

As for your lame Civil War "refutation" (cut and paste central!) - a few hundred thousand Americans died over a question you seem to consider settled BEFORE the Civil War.

Again, Occam's Razor says that you have no idea what you're talking about if you think the question is that simple.

[an amused spectator]

Allow me to correct a misconception you seem to have about one of my posts:

Despite all your straw "reasons", if judges ruled against the income tax, government funding would go away.

should read:

Despite all your straw "reasons", if judges ruled against the income tax, government funding from the income tax would go away.

I guess I thought that such an outcome was a foregone conclusion, but you seem to need it spelled out...