OK


Taxed Enough Already folks sure hate the IRS, because they simply hate Government, because they think helping other people is not something they should have to pay for.  It's the principle of the thing ... something about individual freedom, on steroids.

Now if only they could justify that Tax-hating rationale, somehow using their cherished Constitution ... there must be some "fine print" in there somewhere that they can twist leverage for their own individual gains ...


Tax protester constitutional arguments

Tax protester constitutional arguments are assertions that the imposition of the federal income tax violates the United States Constitution. These kinds of tax protester arguments are distinguished from related statutory arguments and conspiracy arguments, which presuppose the constitutionality of the income tax. Although the most frequent Constitutional arguments are directed towards the validity and effect of the Sixteenth Amendment, arguments exist that the income tax violates some other provision of the Constitution; or that some other provision, that would prevent the assessment of the income tax, was ratified but wrongfully excluded from the Constitution.

Other constitutional amendment arguments have been raised by tax protesters. Some argue that imposition of the income tax violates the First Amendment freedom of speech and freedom of religion.[1] Protesters argue that the income tax violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, the Takings Clause, or the right that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Tax protesters have argued that income taxes impose involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.[2] Some tax protesters argue that Americans are citizens of the individual states as opposed to citizens of the United States, as the Fourteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. Another argument is a missing amendment to the Constitution, known as the Titles of Nobility Amendment, which precedes the current Thirteenth Amendment. Another argument raised is that because the federal income tax is progressive, the discriminations and inequalities created by the tax should render the tax unconstitutional. These arguments have been rejected by the courts.

The authority of the federal government has been challenged by protesters, arguing that they should be immune from federal income taxation because they are sovereign individuals or natural individuals, have not requested a privilege or benefit from the government, or are outside the "federal zone" (D.C. and various federal enclaves such as military bases). Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any other federal court has ruled that an income tax imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is unconstitutional.[3] Under the Supreme Court ruling in Cheek v. United States,[4] a defendant in a tax evasion prosecution who has made arguments that the federal income tax laws are unconstitutional may have the arguments turned against him (or her). Such arguments, even if based on honestly held beliefs, may constitute evidence that helps the prosecutor prove willfulness, one of the elements of tax evasion.
[...]


Never mind that, despite those arcane objections, we find at the beginning of the Constitution:

The Constitution of the United States -- 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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

[emphasis added]

Congress is supposed to Raise Taxes --

To provide for the general Welfare.


It's in the Constitution!


For as much as Tea Party Patriots hate paying Taxes, and supposedly love the Constitution -- you'd think they actually take an hour or two to read it.

But NO, they simply hate paying Taxes MORE -- because all that promoting of the "general Welfare" -- is still promoting "Welfare" isn't it?

Q.E.D. and a 342 crates of TEA!


Extra Credit:  What would Taxed Enough Already advocates (aka the TEA Party) say about these (16th and 17th) Tax protest avoidance rationales?


Tax protester constitutional arguments: Sixteenth Amendment ratification

Amendment XVI in the National Archives of the United States of America. It provides that: "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."

Many tax protesters contend that the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was never properly ratified (see, e.g., Devvy Kidd).[6][7] [...]

In the 1977 case of Ex parte Tammen, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas noted testimony in the case to the effect that taxpayer Bob Tammen had become involved with a group called "United Tax Action Patriots," a group that took the position "that the Sixteenth Amendment was improperly passed and therefore invalid...." The specific issue of the validity of the ratification of the Amendment was neither presented to nor decided by the court in the Tammen case.[9]
[...]

Benson appealed that decision, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit also ruled against Benson. The Court of Appeals stated:

       Benson knew or had reason to know that his statements were false or fraudulent. 26 U.S.C. [section] 6700(a)(2)(A). Benson's claim to have discovered that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified has been rejected by this Court in Benson's own criminal appeal.... Benson knows that his claim that he can rely on his book to prevent federal prosecution is equally false because his attempt to rely on his book in his own criminal case was ineffective.[21]
The Court of Appeals also ruled that the government could obtain a ruling ordering Benson to turn his customer list over to the government.[22] Benson petitioned the United States Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court rejected his petition on November 30, 2009.[23]
SO, the IRS = Big Brother in some circles. Q.E.D.


Tax protester constitutional arguments: Seventeenth Amendment

An argument raised in the case of Trohimovich v. Commissioner is that the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was not properly ratified, and that all laws passed by Congress since the year 1919 (which was not the year of ratification) are invalid. The Trohimovich case involved a criminal contempt charge against the taxpayer in connection with a failure to obey a subpoena to produce books and records needed for the trial of the case. The United States Tax Court stated:
      The [taxpayer's] petition in this case, while rambling and lengthy, appears to rely primarily on arguments that neither the Internal Revenue Service nor this Court has authority to determine petitioner's tax liability because the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, which changed the method of electing senators to the U.S. Congress, was improperly proposed and/or adopted, and therefore all laws enacted by Congress (and the Senate) subsequent to at least 1919 are invalid. This included the Internal Revenue Code and the legislation which established this Court.
The court rejected the taxpayer's arguments, and ordered that "he be imprisoned for 30 days as punishment" for criminal contempt in failing to obey court orders or subpoenas.[26]

Ooops!  Another TEA Party unratified-rationale bites the dust. Perhaps these Tax-phobes should actually stop and READ Article I, Section 8 first.

It's funny what you might find -- when you stop to read what's already in the Constitution:


The Constitution of the United States -- Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, [...]

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

[emphasis added]


SO the next time, some GOP Tea Party advocate rattles off some outrage-laden Talking Point about

"wanting to get America 'back to' following The Constitution again,
because we are Taxed Enough Already -- dammit!"


Quietly ask them -- Does your Constitution still have "Article 1, Section 8" in it?


SO, which of these (S1.8) Items then are NOT Constitutionally-established then ... ?

  -- Raising Taxes,

  -- Promoting the General Welfare

  -- Regulating Foreign Trade,

  -- Regulating Bankruptcies,

  -- Naturalizing Citizens,

  -- Supporting the Post Office,

  -- The Building of Roads,

  -- The Promoting Science and the Arts,

  -- The Encouraging of Inventors and New Discoveries.


Which of those (S1.8) Items then are NOT Constitutionally-established to be paid for by Congress, since the Constitution instructs them to:
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.


Quietly show them, that Taxes ARE in the Constitution ... so quit your bitchin, and start your rowin.

Because America is a leaky boat, that we are all stuck in together.  For better or for worse. Love it or Leave it.


Remind those Congressional rabble-rousers, that unless they are going to pay for those (S1.8) Items out of their own pockets -- they NEED the IRS to do that heavy Tax-lifting for them ...



Poll

T.E.A. folks hate Taxes more than they love the Constitution

70%19 votes
11%3 votes
3%1 votes
14%4 votes

| 27 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.