Quite right, they are not equal. Thank you for your answer but you didnt need to stay up all night. Mr Rumls 'common good' as you call it is really public policy. Public policy ruled the country then, and it rules the country now. So its a bit bigger than Mr Ruml, although he was among its architects.
Public policy (as I understand it) is the ideal American life in some groups view, an American utopia. Taxation is the principal means of implementing and maintaining public policy. Mr Ruml wasnt proposing anything, we was complaining about a part of public policy then.
In practical fact, we dont have a constitutional republic, we have an American utopia in compliance to public policy. Thats really where the TPs go wrong isnt it? They fix on the unconstitutionality of federal taxation, when in fact the constitution has nothing to do with it. I see you as Beardsleys intellectual equal, and yet you keep harping back to the constitution. I think you know better. Why do you do that? I suspect you know more about public policy than most.
'common good' as you call it is really public policy. Public policy ruled the country then, and it rules the country now.
'Common good' is not my term it is Rumls term, and refer to the foundation of socialist policy.
'Public policy' is and always has been the intent of legislative acts of Congress from day one of the Republic. It is the legislative purpose of the act. Your distinction carries no weight as regards the construction of statutes. That has always been the pole star of judicial construction of statute.
U S v. FISHER, 6 U.S. 358 (1805)
- "It is undoubtedly a well established principle in the exposition of statutes, that every part is to be considered, and the intention of the legislature to be extracted from the whole."
FindLaw: U S v. GOLDENBERG, 168 U.S. 95,103 (1897)
"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of words and the rules of grammar. The courts have no function of legislation, and simply seek to ascertain the will of the legislator.
FindLaw: RODGERS v. U S, 185 U.S. 83 (1902)
"The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature."FOSTER v. UNITED STATES, 303 U.S. 118 (1938)
"Courts should construe laws in harmony with the legislative intent and seek to carry out legislative purpose."
FindLaw: S.E.C v. C. M. JOINER LEASING CORP., 320 U.S. 344,351 (1943)
"... courts will construe the details of an act in conformity with its dominating general purpose, will read text in the light of context and will interpret the text so far as the meaning of the words fairly permits so as to carry out in particular cases the generally expressed legislative policy.
Taxation is the principal means of implementing and maintaining public policy.
Taxation, predominately corportate and indivdual income taxes, may be used for such, it is not the prime function of taxation as regards the intent of the Constitution.
Beardsly Ruml is not the expounder of the Constitution, he is merely another minion expressing an opinion of socialist intrusion into this nation's politics.
In practical fact, we dont have a constitutional republic,
We have a constitutional Republic regardless of the distortions of the socialist environment in which it now operates.
we have an American utopia in compliance to public policy.
Meaningless jargon. We have a two party system(dominent Factions) competing for political power by coercing votes through demogoguery and legislative chicanery.
Thats really where the TPs go wrong isnt it? They fix on the unconstitutionality of federal taxation
Nope, for they are looking to join the majority in being able to ignore the real costs of government, and get on the same gravytrain, of apparent or no taxation of themselves. The net and ultimate result of which will be accelerated growth of government through the perception of freebees buying votes. It's called:
Representation without Taxation
And the TPr's success in achieving there personal tax free goal, will be the total death knell of the Republic, for without the goad of taxation there can be no demand for fiscal accountability of the government to the electorate.
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?
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.
I see you as Beardsleys intellectual equal,
You live in a delusional world my friend.
and yet you keep harping back to the constitution. I think you know better. Why do you do that?
I keep harping back to the Constitution because the Constitution is what defines and limits the authority of government in this Republic.
As far as what you may imagine, that is of no concern to me.
I suspect you know more about public policy than most.
I know nothing, I can read and research with objectivity however. Which is something I am beginning to suspect is a rare commodity among the tax resistor community(aka TP mob).