reply to post by Whyhi
Wow, nice way to twist around what I meant there.
Wow, maybe you should start saying what you mean instead of relying on gross over generalizations.
If a health care reform is carried out, the increase to your income tax is put into effect, increasing your tax. Of course you can use the tax
liability statement you used earlier and say well I am not directly involved, and I could respond with the commerce clause that allows them to have to
power to carry out such reforms.
The issue of property tax was germane to this thread as this topic is about public schools and most public schools are funded through property taxes,
not "income taxes", and your incessant use of the word "you" to ascribe a tax liability to anyone other than yourself only continues to reveal
your profound ignorance of the principles of Constitutional taxation. You have no legal authority to assess any other persons tax liability than
yourself. Try to stay on topic.
Supreme law, as in you're subject to it. An individual can break the constitution, no? Treason and such?
The Constitution remains a document outlining the jurisdictional boundaries of those elected and appointed government officials, and the people not
elected or appointed have not taken any oath of office swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution, that ritual is reserved for people who work for
the government, and they are the ones subject to The Constitution, and that Constitution is Supreme Law of the Land
and no subsequent
legislation or executive order, or judicial fiat can overrule The Constitution, of which all federal government employees are bound to obey.
How did I erroneously quote the 14th amendment? I said the 14th amendment gave US citizenship to anyone born in the US, correct? I think it's safe to
assume that as a US citizen, you follow laws, including tax laws.
The 14th Amendment did not create any new power for the federal government, nor did it place any new burden upon the people, and was primarily written
to correct the problem of the Dred Scot ruling, where African Americans were not afforded the right to a redress of grievances and other rights,
because of that ruling. That is the historical context in which that Amendment was written, and your continued deflection of tax liability continues
to ignore you have no legal authority to assess any persons tax liability outside of your own.
If you're trying to equate slavery with obtaining a US citizenship through birth and therefore are to follow US laws, then more power to you I guess.
You're the one who attempted to use the 14th Amendment to argue that a "social contract" had been made upon birth, not I.
I think you're just arguing with my wording at this point. Like I'll say slavery is illegal via the constitution and you'll say the Constitution is
laying out the clear boundaries of government, and It's illegal because congress is enforcing the law of making slavery illegal. Did I get that one
right? We'd still be arguing about what wording I may have used when we're both basically saying the same thing.
No, you did not get that one right. Congress legislates, the Executive branch enforces that legislation, and the Judicial branch adjudicates.
Congress does not enforce what it has legislated. You and I are not saying the same thing, and words matter very much when it comes to law. The
rules of statutory construction dictate that each and every word be given significance.
Please explain. Go on about natural rights or whatever while dismissing the concept of a social contract.
Very well then, I will. Natural Rights are a real part of common law that have been with us since time immemorial, and the concept of a "social
contract" is not a part of common law. Common law is expressly spoken to in The Bill of Rights, and the 9th Amendment makes perfectly clear that all
enumerated rights to not mean that those rights were granted by a government or Constitution, but exist outside of that. The 9th Amendment makes
clear that the people have not surrendered their sovereignty, where a "social contract" relies on the surrender of sovereignty.
Further, it is a Constitutionally protected right of the people to make contracts. That right is in regards to actual contracts where agreements are
arrived by all parties involved. Your "social contract" does not play by those rules. Do not attempt to equate a "social contract" with natural
law, they are two different concepts.
In response to my question of what law I am breaking by not paying you arrogantly respond by stating:
How many times do I have to tell you this? You have absolutely no legal authority to assess my tax liability. Whatever tax liability I have is
between I, and the government levying and collecting that tax, and is none of your business. If you want to speak to taxes, then at least have the
courtesy of speaking to your own liability and stop pretending that your precious "social contract" has given you the legal authority to assess
other peoples tax liability. You are too fast and loose with words to be trusted on tax law, so it is best you keep references to who is breaking tax
law in regards to yourself.
I can truthfully say I actually had no idea the constitution was actually supposed to be capitalized. You got me there.
It was a quibbling point, no doubt, but interestingly you still refused to capitalize the word. Hmmmm.
All in all, name a specific tax which you think is unconstitutional. And yes, I support taxes, and socializing elements of society.
Any tax enforced unconstitutionally is an unconstitutional tax. Only those liable for taxes owe taxes, and all people made liable for a tax must pay
that tax. I have not made any claims that taxes are unconstitutional, this is your game, not mine. You are, of course, all for socializing
"elements" of society, but who the hell is society? Is that one of those citizens born in The United States of America made a citizen by the 14th
Amendment? You may advocate taxation, and of course you do, to fund your socialist Utopia, but The Constitution lays out plainly that Congress must
abide by certain rules regarding taxation. All direct taxes must be apportioned among the states, and all indirect taxes must be uniform across the
states. This means if you hope to escape the pain of apportionment, and hope to use taxes to fund your Utopia, that those taxes must be uniform and
indirect as in a taxable event. Good luck with that, as all taxable events are defeatable taxes.
PS: Yes, I'm aware I probably worded several things in there incorrectly and I'm alright if you point them out for me in a somewhat patronizing
Good, I am pleased to know that, since I have obviously done so anyway.
[edit on 19-8-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]