Found this on the Constitution Party website. Interesting.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
POLITICS & PARTIES
Consititution Party
Green Party
Independent American Party
Libertarian Party
Populist Party
Reform Party
Unity Party
2008 Central
Downsize DC
None of the Above
Tenth Amendment Center
U.S. DOCUMENTS & CONGRESS
The Constitution
The Declaration of Independence
The Federalist Papers
Thomas
U.S. Code
House of Representatives
U.S. Senate
In the era of cliches, maxims, and sound bites, I, "the Quipper" will try to keep it short and sweet during my rants and momentary lapses into reason. Note, I said "try".
About Me
BLURT SHIRTS
My Links
POLITICS & PARTIES
Consititution Party
Green Party
Independent American Party
Libertarian Party
Populist Party
Reform Party
Unity Party
2008 Central
Downsize DC
None of the Above
Tenth Amendment Center
U.S. DOCUMENTS & CONGRESS
The Constitution
The Declaration of Independence
The Federalist Papers
Thomas
U.S. Code
House of Representatives
U.S. Senate
Labels
- Animal Crossing (1)
- Artist (2)
- Baldwin (1)
- bands (15)
- Barr (1)
- Biden (1)
- blog (3)
- Blurt Shirts (4)
- business (13)
- Christmas (1)
- CLC Radio (22)
- definition warp (4)
- Dokken (1)
- family (23)
- finance (4)
- global warming (8)
- health care (1)
- homeschool (1)
- humor (14)
- Idiot of the Week (22)
- idunno (4)
- islam (7)
- Keyes (1)
- liberty (1)
- life (14)
- McCain (2)
- music (17)
- Obama (6)
- Palin (1)
- PandT (4)
- politics (67)
- project management (2)
- religion (13)
- sports (10)
- technology (1)
- vacation (1)
- vocation (1)
- war (4)
- Wii (1)
4 comments:
Oh that it were true!
As much as I loathe the income tax, I don't quite follow the argument. How is direct taxation constitutionally prohibited? Look at 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.
he argument is this: Wages for labor is a trade. It is not "income" IE money that comes in for nothing or as a result of profitable business or investment. It is a straight-across trade.
Chalk one up for the good guys.
Unfortunately, when he takes the case upward, he will get away from the "Jury of Peers" and placed into a court that has a distinct conflict of interest.
Think of it this way: You have a piece of software on your PC that Microsoft alleges is a license infringement. So you have to now go to the Microsoft building, check in with Microsoft employed bailiffs and secretaries, then sit before a Microsoft employed judge. How are they inclined to find?
So, I rejoice in this victory, but I'm worried about the future of the case.
It goes back to original intent. Was the original intent of the 16th Amendment to include wages? If yes, then wages are taxable.
Post a Comment