Friday, January 04, 2013

Different Strokes For Different Folks

Different Strokes For Different Folks
Does Congress Have the Authority to Tax Americans At Different Rates?  No!  Congress may not have the authority to tax Americans period.  Further proof that the Electorate has either no regard for, or is ignorant of history and the content of the U.S. Constitution

By de Andréa
January 4, 2013

In light of the Fiscal Cliff debate and debacle, the 16th Amendment that was passed February 3, 1913, gave birth to the IRS and gave the Federal Government unlimited authority and power to tax every citizen.  Well…maybe not.  Here’s the wording of the 16th Amendment:  “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.”

Please note that there is no provision in this amendment that Congress is given the right to ‘unequally’ apply this authority.  Moreover, the 10th Amendment clearly says that without Constitutional authority Congress cannot do it.  Here is the wording of the 10 Amendment:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  In other words, unless it is clearly stated in the Constitution the Federal Government just cannot do it.  In looking over all the Constitution’s amendments, I don’t see an unequal distribution of either a right or is limitation.  And in the entire Constitution there is no provision that allows inequality. 

Read what USA THE REPUBLIC has to say.  The whole IRS system is illegal.  Note that the 16th Amendment doesn’t define whose “income”, it simply says “income”.  It purposely does not say “personal’ income” because the Supreme Court had previously struck that down.  The definition of income was purposely eliminated to confuse the states at time of ratification.  Actually the Supreme Court and the U.S. Treasury had previously defined income as being derived from corporate profits.  Personal money isn’t defined as income because it is not profit therefore there is no income, but instead is defined as “equal trade”.  Money from the employer is equally traded for the employees work, no profit, therefore no income therefore no tax.  Personal income tax period is therefore illegal.

Equality under the law
Equality under the law requires that as each of us stands before the courts or the Constitution, ‘no one’ may be treated in an unequal way.  The law applies to every citizen ‘equally’… except, as it seems, when it comes to the application of the 16th Amendment at the discretion of the Congress.  Our Government attacks incentive and penalizes success and wealth!

Does the First Amendment parcel out its freedom in percentages?  Doesn’t every person have the same right to speak, write, and assemble?  Rich people and poor people have the same percentage of these rights — 100 percent. 

The same is true of the Second Amendment.  Everybody has a right to “keep and bear arms” at the same rate.  Rich people and poor people have a right to purchase as many guns as they want.  Because the rich can afford more guns does not mean that they have to pay more for those guns.

The same is true about the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments.  Read them over and try to apply the percentage differences to them like Congress and the President do with the 16th Amendment.

Cruel and unusual punishment
The 8th Amendment can be applied in the case of increased percentages in taxation because the practice could be considered “cruel and unusual punishment.”  Liberals regard taxation at ever higher rates “as punitive”.  Higher taxes are designed to ‘punish the rich’.  Sen. Rand Paul notes the law of diminishing returns on raising taxes.  Progressive taxation is not about increased revenue, it’s about the redistribution of wealth:  “You may not get any more revenue.  [Because’]  You may not get any more economic growth.  But you can say, ‘I stuck it to the rich people.’”  A progressive income tax could legally be addressed as “cruel and unusual punishment.”

The 14th Amendment could also apply.  No State “shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  “Equal protection.”  Our government is not legally permitted to treat people in an unequal manner.  In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Justice John Marshall Harlan argued the following in his “Great Dissent”:  “In view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens.  There is no caste here.  Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.  In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law.  The humblest is the peer of the most powerful.”

The rich are illegally considered a “class” in American politics.  We speak of “class warfare” on a regular basis.  Why are the rich classes treated unequally when it comes to legislative law?  The taxation of income at unequal levels deprives people of liberty and property.  Plus it stifles economic growth and adds to unemployment.  I.e. did you ever work for a poor employer?  How did that work out for you?  It seems to me that the criminals that should be punished here are the Congress not the rich.

THE BOTTOM LINE: The year 1916 was a big turning point for America.  The 16th Amendment so-called Income Tax Amendment which enabled the Federal Government to become large and powerful, the very thing the Framers didn’t want because it would make dependants out of the individual states.  (It has)  The 17th Amendment was passed changing the election of Senators from the states to the people, taking any representation and sovereignty away from the states.  The people already had representation in their district congressmen.  This Amendment changed the Constitutional representative Republic of the United States of America into a true Democracy, another thing the Framers didn’t want.  The third major change was the Federal Reserve Act taking the responsibility of money printing away from the Treasury and putting it in the hands of a group of independent private bankers.

All of these changes were designed to upset the stability of power and of the checks and balances and take power away form the states, take power away from the people, and above all, to create unlimited power for the Federal government.  Do you think that has become successful?  Looks like it to me!

All we need now is a lawyer or group of lawyers to make this point in the courts.  As I said at the beginning either Congress has no regard for, or is ignorant of the Constitution.  I think it is a lot of both…What do you think?

Thanks for listening – de Andréa

No comments: