Taxation Without Representation is Tyranny
How many of you voted for a delegate to represent you on the United States Supreme Court?
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.”
The Supreme Court seems to have forgotten that. In Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33 (1990) the Court affirmed the right of federal courts to order legislatures to levy taxes. But it didn’t stop there. The Court went on to say if the legislature is reluctant (legislators do have to face the voters, after all) the federal district courts can levy the tax directly, bypassing the legislative process.
There are also hidden taxes. When the federal courts require local governments to build new, more “humane” jails, for example, the argument is not about whether the court has jurisdiction to do that [it doesn’t - the Constitution confers no authority for the federal courts to impose taxes, directly or indirectly by requiring some action that forces a legislative body to raise taxes to carry out the court's order] but whether a prisoner’s case can be certified as a class action for the benefit of all prisoners. Local governments must raise taxes to comply with that “unfunded mandate.”
Direct and hidden taxes levied by the federal courts are separate from, and in addition to, taxes levied by Congress. Over the past ten years, federal taxes enacted by Congress have averaged 19% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The director of CBO testified earlier this year that if entitlements continue to expand at their present rate, by the middle of this century the tax to pay for three entitlements - Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - will be 21% of GDP, up from 4.1 % in 2004.
So what can we do about it?
To believe that that you can successfully “lobby” the average heroin addict to give up his habit voluntarily, without drastic intervention by some outside force, is naïve. To believe Congress or the Court will restrain itself from imposing taxes goes beyond naiveté to delusional. For there to be meaningful tax reform and/or limited government, there must be some draconian action by the people to impose limits that Congress – and the Supreme Court - cannot avoid.
Two-thirds of the states, by a simple majority vote of their legislatures, can demand that Congress convene a convention at which the state representatives can propose amendments to the Constitution. We can limit Congress’ power to tax. We MUST rescind the federal court’s unconstitutional, self-given power to tax. And we MUST prevent the Supreme Court from unilaterally, without any authorization in the Constitution, further amending the Constitution.
One example of a Supreme Court amendment is Roe v. Wade. Before Roe, there was no constitutional right to have an abortion. After Roe, there was a constitutional right to have an abortion. Play whatever semantic games with that you like, that is a constitutional amendment.
Look at the tortured language written by Justice Blackmun:
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, in the Ninth Amendment or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed “fundamental” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.
That convoluted logic is from Roe v. Wade.[i] The court admits that it can find no right of privacy in the Constitution; the Court could not even find any solid precedent in its own prior rulings that extended a “right of privacy.” It had to resort to a mushy amalgam of prior decisions, some nebulous “penumbra of the Bill of Rights” (whatever that means), and the common law to find the “right of privacy;” from that shaky springboard, the Court leaped to the right of a woman to have an abortion. In other words, the Court “amended” the Constitution to guarantee a woman’s right to choose.
[i] 410 U.S. 113, 152 (1973)
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.”
The Supreme Court seems to have forgotten that. In Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33 (1990) the Court affirmed the right of federal courts to order legislatures to levy taxes. But it didn’t stop there. The Court went on to say if the legislature is reluctant (legislators do have to face the voters, after all) the federal district courts can levy the tax directly, bypassing the legislative process.
There are also hidden taxes. When the federal courts require local governments to build new, more “humane” jails, for example, the argument is not about whether the court has jurisdiction to do that [it doesn’t - the Constitution confers no authority for the federal courts to impose taxes, directly or indirectly by requiring some action that forces a legislative body to raise taxes to carry out the court's order] but whether a prisoner’s case can be certified as a class action for the benefit of all prisoners. Local governments must raise taxes to comply with that “unfunded mandate.”
Direct and hidden taxes levied by the federal courts are separate from, and in addition to, taxes levied by Congress. Over the past ten years, federal taxes enacted by Congress have averaged 19% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The director of CBO testified earlier this year that if entitlements continue to expand at their present rate, by the middle of this century the tax to pay for three entitlements - Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - will be 21% of GDP, up from 4.1 % in 2004.
So what can we do about it?
To believe that that you can successfully “lobby” the average heroin addict to give up his habit voluntarily, without drastic intervention by some outside force, is naïve. To believe Congress or the Court will restrain itself from imposing taxes goes beyond naiveté to delusional. For there to be meaningful tax reform and/or limited government, there must be some draconian action by the people to impose limits that Congress – and the Supreme Court - cannot avoid.
Two-thirds of the states, by a simple majority vote of their legislatures, can demand that Congress convene a convention at which the state representatives can propose amendments to the Constitution. We can limit Congress’ power to tax. We MUST rescind the federal court’s unconstitutional, self-given power to tax. And we MUST prevent the Supreme Court from unilaterally, without any authorization in the Constitution, further amending the Constitution.
One example of a Supreme Court amendment is Roe v. Wade. Before Roe, there was no constitutional right to have an abortion. After Roe, there was a constitutional right to have an abortion. Play whatever semantic games with that you like, that is a constitutional amendment.
Look at the tortured language written by Justice Blackmun:
The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, in the Ninth Amendment or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed “fundamental” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.
That convoluted logic is from Roe v. Wade.[i] The court admits that it can find no right of privacy in the Constitution; the Court could not even find any solid precedent in its own prior rulings that extended a “right of privacy.” It had to resort to a mushy amalgam of prior decisions, some nebulous “penumbra of the Bill of Rights” (whatever that means), and the common law to find the “right of privacy;” from that shaky springboard, the Court leaped to the right of a woman to have an abortion. In other words, the Court “amended” the Constitution to guarantee a woman’s right to choose.
[i] 410 U.S. 113, 152 (1973)
posted by GN at 11:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home