It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cap and trade UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:46 AM
link   
It has already been ruled on that Federal taxes on real estate and personal property are considered direct taxes by Article 1 section 9 para. 4.

en.wikipedia.org...'_Loan_%26_Trust_Co.

www.usconstitution.net...

Cap and trade and carbon taxes violate said part of the constitution because they are not apportioned. And while the 16th amendment was put in the constitution to allow the income tax the problen is it only applies to income. Cap and trade is based on carbon. Therefor it is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL property tax.


editing for a link to the pertinent section of the Constitution.

[edit on 27-6-2009 by ntech]




posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ntech
 


I don't understand your argument for why cap and trade is unconstitutional. I'm not a lawyer, either, but I noticed the link you sent doesn't seem to have a part on "Article 1 section 9 para. 4."

Are you sure this is unconstitutional, or do you just wish it were?

I think Cap and trade is a bad idea, overall. I have no idea what to do about climate change, but taxing carbon output should be heavily debated before endorsing any particular legal options.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by ntech
 


I don't understand your argument for why cap and trade is unconstitutional. I'm not a lawyer, either, but I noticed the link you sent doesn't seem to have a part on "Article 1 section 9 para. 4."

Are you sure this is unconstitutional, or do you just wish it were?

I think Cap and trade is a bad idea, overall. I have no idea what to do about climate change, but taxing carbon output should be heavily debated before endorsing any particular legal options.


In my personal opinion based on the ruling in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company it has to be unconstitutional. All the government has done is figure out a new way to tax property. They are taxing the produce of the land. The act that is defined as unconstitutional in Pollock. Get the picture?



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ntech
 


Alright, thanks for the edit. God help me, I am just totally lost when it comes to understanding law. I'll have to take your word it


Oy. If I had the money, I would put a lawyer on retainer just so I could call him at times like this to clarify these things



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
what is not Unconstitutional these days?


we all collectively face 2 choices

(not invest now, and complain and gripe and wish it wasnt so)

or

(invest and make a killing)

carbon credits are still cheap you know

and yes i disagree with a tax on breathing air, but you and i knew it was coming



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
It come under the 5th Amendment
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

What they are doing is taking the use of property under the guise of a tax.

Who are they taking it from is the stockholders/owners of the property.

In this case its not even taken for public use but so that the public can not use it. ie energy that is being made of sale to the public.

Its just like them coming to someone property and evicting them and taxing the person for the cost of taking the property and the eviction.

The real people that will lose money are the stockholders of the companies that are taxed for CO2. and many of these stockholders are people whose money is invested in retirement plans or other retirement investments.
Little of this money is investments by the rich many of them have money in companies that operate there plants in countries like China or India.

Some of these companies will be sold off to holding companies that will run the plants into the ground then declare bankruptcy and close. leaving the investors holding the bag ENRON style.
or GM style.

Many of these investors will be told there investments are safe and making money (that's if they even know where there retirement funds are even being invested many retirement fund operators don't keep there stockholders informed about every investment they have)and wake up one morning with the news that the companies have gone bankrupt and that they have lost everything.
And the people that were running the companies will have bailed with big paychecks and blame the government for everything.

The real strange thing as i read the cap and trade law is that it does not apply to agriculture.

And as i read it this means that anyone that grows crops/trees or other things like growing CO2 absorbing algae can not sell there carbon value to offset companies that make carbon. this as i read it screws Al Gore.
because tree farms would be agriculture.

Or they want to keep farmers from making money with there carbon offsets. but will exempt people like Al Gore and let them sell the agriculture/tree crops as carbon offsets.



[edit on 27-6-2009 by ANNED]



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


I can see how tree farms would be a bad idea -- use that land for food/development, instead.
_____________

This is really just another money scheme. Truly and honestly.

Like centralized money, there will be a "federal reserve" type body to oversee the supply of carbon credits. In doing such, this body will control the pace at which the economy runs.

Lets not forget that the entire world runs on carbon emissions, in one form or another.

Also, what does this mean for nuclear power? AFAIK, nuclear power emits zero carbon dioxide, just water vapor (which, ironically, a more powerful green house gas. It's not a hazard, though
). So does this mean that when we use nuclear supplied power, we won't have to buy carbon credits?

Lastly, Jeffrey Skilling would have a mother fu#@ing field day if this was all happening in the Enron days. A whole new chapter in energy trading is being written.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   
even if it is unconstitutional...
I don't see where it matters...
there's a crisis, and the constitution seems to have been filed in a box, and stored away in a large room full of boxes filled with irrelevant documents. some historian a century or so from now might happen across that box and find the document and think that it's a good idea and resurrect it...

but, it doesn't seem that the ones running the show have actually cared what it says.
so, well, doesn't seem to matter what is or what isn't constitutional. our elected officials have been bought and paid for by business and corps...
they've been given new documents....stocks, and bonds....and well, if they behave themselves and do what they are told, those documents will make them rich if they pass this stupid legislation.....
that's much more important than any ole constitution, or the welfare of the people of this nation.

seriously, if glenn beck is right, the major players in this bill are heavily invested in the businesses that will boom if this thing is passed...
and that is all that matters!

there's a crisis, and well, that opens up all kinds of avenues to make loads of money, if you are in the right position and have a little power to influence the legislation of the land.



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ntech
 


One problem, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust was nullified in 1913 with the passage of the 16th Amendment which states:



The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


In fact, the Pollock case directly affected Congress, hence their modification of the Constitution. See?



posted on Jun, 27 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ntech
 


I contend that the Cap & Trade bill is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the tenth amendment. The federal government is delegating itself a new power.This power was not inumerated,as one given to the federal government.
They are screwing us blind with this one.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
reply to post by ntech
 


One problem, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust was nullified in 1913 with the passage of the 16th Amendment which states:



The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


In fact, the Pollock case directly affected Congress, hence their modification of the Constitution. See?


The problem is that the 16th Amendment only applies to income taxes. Carbon taxes are based on the production of carbon. That is not an income tax. The 16th amendment does not apply.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ntech
 


I was referring to your citation of the Pollock case which is an income tax case, as the law in question was the Income Tax Act of 1894 and the failure to use apportionment.

I think we need to back up and get into what the Cap and Trade Bill is and does.

The IRS isn't going to send you a letter stating you didn't pay your Carbon Tax. Instead the Cap and Trade system sets some arbitrary amount of CO2 emissions at the point of production -which makes oil refiners and coal power companies nervous.

Well, the US Government is going to create a new commodities market ('Carbon Credits') where people who need Carbon Credits go and bid on it. Wall Street Bankers are very excited about this.

The cost you're going to see is at the market place. Now that it costs more to make a gallon of gasoline, you will either pay a increase price for the same amount or pay the same price for a smaller amount. This is where the cost comes in.

The point is the Cap and Trade Bill isn't a tax, per se. It's an emissions system that allows the EPA broad new powers to strangle a little more money in fees and fines from businesses.

But is it a tax in the standard sense? No. The whole "biggest tax hike in history" is nothing more than a Democrat-Lite [Republican] talking point since it's not really a tax.

Taxes are involved, but it involves a tax credit to offset the increase in prices for goods and services for income tax filers making less that $75K a year.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join