[citizenx7]

Yes, Geezer, its easy to be in a mode that wishes for the plain definitions and words of the Constitution were adhered to. But wait a minute, anything legislated after the Constitution, but contrary to the Constitution - is null and void. There is no statute of limitations that apply.

Well, with that in mind, I don't seem to notice anything in Mr. Schulz's speech, that I find a problem with. Why don't you start with that, what can you point out that deserves being scorned, or praised there? What is there that is contrary to what the founders said, or that is laid down in the Constitution? I would appreciate your insight.

[ancient_geezer]

Why don't you start with that, what can you point out that deserves being scorned, or praised there?

I start with the founders, and the Constitution if you don't mind. Then I'll evaluate the claims of Mr/ Schulz and his cronies.

 

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."

 

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.

Seems pretty clear, only point left is who do the tax laws of the National government apply too?

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;"

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;

 

Now to look at your link for further information about what "wethepeople.org" stands for:

OOP's password and membership is required.

Well there is good ole FR, to help us out.

Bob Schulz Hunger Strike Day Thread 1:

" There is NO LAW that requires most Americans to file a tax return, pay the federal income tax or have the tax withheld from their earnings "

I don't need to look any further to see that Schulz & Friends claims concerning the tax laws of the nation are a pile of Bovine Excretement, and the rest is merely window dressing to dress it up abit. You see FR has been exposed to Bob Schulz' progressions through the past many months trying to legitimize his base message. Don't pay taxes. I don't buy this iteration of the same message any more that his first more blatant expositions.

I just found his original approach was insupportable is all. His credibility is nil and his agenda has not changed in the least. He just tries to put a different approach to it and hide his underlying motivation. Not Pay Taxes.