Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
We allow assholes to vote
#11
(04-25-2019, 12:21 PM)k.d. Wrote: That is not how a Constitutional Republic works - as decreed by our Constitution.
And, if you think Joe SixPack thinks he should be robbed and Amazon should pay zero taxes, you are crazy.

"Levy" is the operative term in the constitution.

Tax "fairness" you say ? LOL. Are you supporting Bernie, Pocohantis or Kamala ?
Reply
#12
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Please tell me EXACTLY in which Article and Section where I can find the word 'levy' in the Constitution.
Reply
#13
I misread "lay" as "levy".

Seems to mean the same thing, no ?
Reply
#14
Here ya go:

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution empowers Congress to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” Article I, Section 9, further states that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

Although income taxes levied in support of the American Civil War (1861–65) were generally tolerated, subsequent attempts by Congress to impose taxes on income were met with significant opposition. In 1895, in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the federal income tax unconstitutional in striking down portions of the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 that imposed a direct tax on the incomes of American citizens and corporations. It thusly made any direct tax subject to the rules articulated in Article I, Section 2.

Consequently, unless the U.S. Congress expected all income taxes to be apportioned among the states according to their populations, the power to levy income taxes was rendered impotent. The Sixteenth Amendment was introduced in 1909 to remedy this problem. By specifically affixing the language, “from whatever source derived,” it removes the “direct tax dilemma” related to Article I, Section 8, and authorizes Congress to lay and collect income tax without regard to the rules of Article I, Section 9, regarding census and enumeration. It was ratified in 1913.

The full text of the Amendment is:

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.
Reply
#15
So, we agree the constitution as amended allows the government to impose (lay) taxes. Do you think the constitution represents the will of the people ? or does it represent a "threat of force".

I suppose it can be both.
Reply
#16
In 1895, in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the federal income tax unconstitutional in striking down portions of the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 that imposed a direct tax on the incomes of American citizens and corporations. It thusly made any direct tax subject to the rules articulated in Article I, Section 2.

No, it is against the Constitution, but then again, everything changed in 1913 to get away from what our founders expected, including the beginning of the Fed.
Reply
#17
"Is" and "was" are not the same.

The founders "expectations" were just that and nothing more. They recognized that with Article 5.

The Fed is an entirely different issue. Some may say it is a "non governmental" agency ha ha.
Reply
#18
Which branch of government controls the Fed and the central banks?

The 16th Amendment is as lawful as Obama is a natural born citizen.
Reply
#19
No branch "controls" the fed. Once nominated and confirmed the fed is independent , sorta.

The 16th amendment is lawful because , um well, it's the 16th amendment.

We know what a natural born citizen isn't, but nobody knows what it is. Depends on who you want to believe, constitutional scholars or bloggers.
Reply
#20
It is just common sense that you can't be a natural born citizen of one country yet have citizenship in another at the same time.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)