Are we in a Constitutional Crisis?

[KMeek]

The issue of whether the 16th Amendment (authorizing a federal income tax) was properly ratified or adopted has been addressed repeatedly in Federal Courts throughout the United States (although apparently not by the United States Supreme Court). On each and every occasion ALL of the Court decisions (based on my brief review of the case law) have found that the 16th Amendment was properly ratified/adopted.



Amidst this background do we as taxpayers really want our government employees/officials to devote time to meetings and hearings with people who refuse to accept the findings of all the Federal Court decisions? After all, the issue is purely a legal one and there is NO legal precedent to support an improper ratification or adoption.



The same people making this ridiculous argument would not be any happier if the United State Supreme Court affirmed the proper ratification/adoption of the Amendment. They would then do as they are doing now and continue to claim that the Courts are simply wrong. It always strikes me as a paradox that the same people so concerned about the "correct" interpretation of the law refuse to acknowledge or accept the decisions by the Courts that are Constitutionally directed to answer such legal questions.

 

[The patriot]

It's the "I cant be out of money, I still have checks in the check book" mentality that got us here. Well, that and social programs.

I cant spend more than I make,or else I'll go bust. Washington hasnt figured this out. "We the people", to them is an un ending supply of funds.

JConley, I'm happy, and proud to pay taxes that in turn pay the good men and women that protect us.

I actually think the armed forces need more of our taxes. Our intelligence community needs more funds too. Many a budget was "balanced" on them. Sattelites are nice (and pretty cool too ) but it's human intel that were lacking in, as evidence on 9/11.

A bird wont tell you what people are thinking.

I dont know if this is a "constitutional crisis". The ones it hurt the most is the middle class.

FATCAT is right.

I vote at every election.

JM . 02

Eric

 

[fest3er]

Originally posted by KMeek

[B... It always strikes me as a paradox that the same people so concerned about the "correct" interpretation of the law refuse to acknowledge or accept the decisions by the Courts that are Constitutionally directed to answer such legal questions. [/B]

Are you then saying that the courts can never be wrong? That they can never make an incorrect decision?



Fest3er

 

[RonaldLarson]

Sooooooo Champagne flight....

by all means, send a voluntary contribution to the feds. It's your moral and Constitutional obligation. Maybe more will be spent on Medijoke, er care, socialist insecurity and welfraud, if you and your kind send more money. Meanwhile those of us who have created jobs and wealth for associates and employees, without ANY assistance from the feds, and still managed to put enough away to live comfortably in our golden years will continue to hold dear to the obvious truths associated with CAPITALISM: opportunity, integrity and prosperity. You see, in CAPITALISM, nobody is left out unless they don't want to succeed, and every body has unlimited opportunity. What gives ANY government the right to punish the people who create wealth with punitive taxes?

Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.

Ron

 

[KMeek]

Can Courts be wrong? Of course. But, when 10 different courts--most of which are Federal Appellate Courts with multiple judges-- reach the same decision on an issue which is strictly a question of law what other conclusion can you reach? I am not aware of even ONE judge that has bought into the argument many of you accept as true. Maybe those of you buying into this tripe are smarter than all of the Federal Appellate Court judges combined that have considered this issue. If you are so convinced that the argument has merit why are you still paying income taxes? Unless you are willing to quit paying income taxes it would seem to me you are not very committed to your position and are simply unwilling to accept the fact that you are wrong and doing nothing more than whining.



ONE of the real dangers to the Constitution occurs when people refuse to accept judicial decisions even if they don't like them. The same is true of any law--including laws that require the payment of Federal Income taxes!

 

[mimprevento]

Confusing the issue

KMeeks is right the issue of the core legality of taxation is a settled issue based on substantial federal precedent-the Supreme Court is not going to issue any groundbreaking jurisprudence on this issue although I am no Constitutional scholar- since there is no disagreement among the federal appeals courts it is not likely that the issue will ever be in a position to be reviewed by them. In tax evasion cases the issue is settled. That being said WHAT IS DONE with collected taxes is a matter of true public debate with the polls being the decider not a Court- we elect oficials who will responsibly administer Government- the comments here seem largely to focus on fiscal stupidity- on that we all agree. VOTE

 

[fest3er]

Off-topic

Originally posted by ol ron

Socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.

Socialism: 'Depends' for the mentally incontinent.



Fest3er

 

[The patriot]

On Federal courts, etc.etc.

Has anyone ever heard of Jury nullification?

 

[Champane Flight]

Take a look at

You might want to look at what really gets spent for welfare and social programs. Maybe 10% of total budget. Not that they are a good thing, but for some (the ones that really need them, maybe ten percent of them) they are everything. What we are supporting in a big way is our military machine, at over 65% of what you put in. I don't have a problem with that either, as long as its used to arm, pay, and protect our men and women in the service. What I don't like to see are $100. 00 toilet seats and $1000. 00 pens. This is a by product of all that integrity and honesty that big buisness puts out. I do not advocate a socialist goverment in any form. I do think however that a little socialism in big buisness keeps the Capitilist honest.



I have not seen much integrity or oportunity in large corps. Sorry, maybe you can sell that dog eat dog stuff to someone else.

I feel that everyone that works for the other guy and gives eight or twelve (or in my case 15-20) a day deserves a decent wage comparable to the joker in the three piece suit. Who does nothing but make the little guys job harder by trying to justify his job. And then makes 6-7 digit salary by cutting the real workers throats.



On the same hand, I have been burnt by the large Unions to. Thats the kind of crap that happens when you have a company undermining every employee in the Union. And playing to the ones who have no idea what a Union is or stands for. A Union is only as strong as the employees in it.



A flat tax would be good, IF our lawmakers could agree on anything more than what toilet paper to put in the congressional bathroom. And I really don't see that happening in the near future. I will not argue the constitional right of our goverment to tax us. We do need a basic goverment by and for the people right now. And I will vote for the best person "I" see running for office, not the partys or Unions canidate. That is the wonderful thing about America.

 

[ADSmith]

Champagne Flight, you might want to check your numbers before you post. According to the IRS in the back of my 2001 tax booklet, 58% of the federal budget was spent on social programs, NOT 10%. This is broken down as follows: 33% for social security, medicare and other retirement, 16% for 'social programs', and 9% for physical, human, and community development. I call all three of these categories social programs. Other categories of interest: 12% was spent to pay down the debt, 11% was spent in interest on the debt, and ONLY 17% was spent on national defense.

 

[Champane Flight]

I really don't count Social security as a give away program. In that same sense, 19% of the budget goes to such programs. While our military budget is at its highest point ever.

 

[Power Wagon]

Originally posted by KMeek

Can Courts be wrong? Of course. But, when 10 different courts--most of which are Federal Appellate Courts with multiple judges-- reach the same decision on an issue which is strictly a question of law what other conclusion can you reach? I am not aware of even ONE judge that has bought into the argument many of you accept as true. Maybe those of you buying into this tripe are smarter than all of the Federal Appellate Court judges combined that have considered this issue. If you are so convinced that the argument has merit why are you still paying income taxes? Unless you are willing to quit paying income taxes it would seem to me you are not very committed to your position and are simply unwilling to accept the fact that you are wrong and doing nothing more than whining.



ONE of the real dangers to the Constitution occurs when people refuse to accept judicial decisions even if they don't like them. The same is true of any law--including laws that require the payment of Federal Income taxes!

You don't think judges get leaned on? Can you imagine the threats the IRS directs at judges who are faced with questions of the legality of the issues in question?



Can you imagine the political pandemonium should suddenly the income tax be struck down? One entire party would lose their reason for existence - that being to meddle in every man's financial life. And the feds would have been struck an incredible blow to their power base.



No, I would not expect ANY lower court to rule based upon law or eveidence, but upon the circumstances and the pressure brought to bear on them.



I'm sorry, but long ago, we let the genie out of the bottle... FDR and other uncorked a federal demon that's nearly impossible to put back in the bottle where it belongs. I just never cease to be amazed that so many people WANT that demon sitting on our shoulders...

 

[Power Wagon]

Originally posted by Champane Flight

I really don't count Social security as a give away program. In that same sense, 19% of the budget goes to such programs. While our military budget is at its highest point ever.

What HAVE you been smoking/drinking/eating/sniffing?



Social security is NOTHING BUT a giveaway program.



Sheesh! It taxes paychecks and directly distributes it to those collecting. It is PURELY a redistribution scheme.



Our military is now at one of the lowest points in terms of percentage of federal outlays.



Oh, wait. I take that back. YOU get the numbers and you PROVE the percentages. I'm tired of these silly assertions you make about the budget. It's time you got the numbers and proved it.

 

[THerman]

As far as the whining about what the "suits" make money wise, I know I can't complain. I work hard, those above me work hard and I know first hand they wind up working longer hours than I do... . I am sure there are bad eggs out there... . But WHO AM I TO COMPLAIN?? If I had taken the same track in college, I would be one of the (*#@$%!!'s that are pulling in 6 figures... .



I, and everyone out there, made decisions that set us on the path we are on. And all paths can be changed... I could go back to school, change course... . That is if I hadn't gotten myself into the situation where I can't afford to. I have to work to live. I have no-one to blame but myself if I don't like where I'm at.



Yes things happen that we have no control of, but how we respond to those events is what defines us.



If we don't like our situation, CHANGE IT! Stop whining. :{



Oh, my situation? Could be lots better if I didn't feel the need to spend everything I make, but I am also taking some career chances. If they work out, I would be one of the hated, if not, then time to find another path... ...

 

[fest3er]

Hmmm. This thread seems to have strayed far from its original intent.



I did not intend this to be a free-for-all brawl amongst liberals, conservatives, anarchists, socialists and other political types of people. The intent was not to argue if the government is right or wrong in what it is doing or how it is doing it.



The intent was, rather, to discuss the merits of Bob Schulz's 'statements of fact' that clearly seem to indicate, to me at least, that the government unconstitutionally 'declared' the 16th Amendment to have been ratified, and have been

• unconstitutionally taking our hard-earned cash via the income tax system,
  
• unconstitutionally forcing us to waive our right to not incriminate ourselves,
  
• unconstitutionally refusing to respond to a specific petition for redress of grievances,
  
• illegally failing to include Privacy Act notifications on all IRS forms,
  

and a whole host of other illegal and unconstitutional activities.



As far as I know, the US Supreme Court have never ruled on the validity of the 16th Amendment, nor on the constitutionality or legality of all laws enacted and agencies created based on that amendment.



This discussion does not involve the legality or worthiness of social give-away programs, military spending programs, Congressional Pork programs or government waste and unrelated abuse and fraud.



The questions I now put are:

• "Do you think that the 'We the People' foundation are correct in their assessment of the legal situation?"
  
• Are we then in a specific identifiable Constitutional Crisis?
  
• What, then, can we do about it?
• What will we do about it?
  

Fest3er

 

[LSchenck]

It always amazes me when people "quote" numbers as fact that they have obviously just pulled from thin air.



I guess when the facts are not convenient to your cause it is easier to make stuff up.



All of our budget numbers are on-line. Check out http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/pdf/bud34.pdf .



For 2001 defense took 16. 6% of our budget.



Social outlays including education, social services, health, medicare, welfare, and Social Security were 61. 7% of our 2001 budget. Social Security alone was 23. 2% and growing.



Before long these Ponsi schemes WILL collapse when our kids tax rates hit the Stratosphere.



Lyndle Schenck

 

[mimprevento]

Ponzi scheme???

For 2002 defense and homeland security will doubtless be higher and justifiably so- it appears that defense and Social Security took 40% of the budget- fine by me- are we suggesting that this program in which millions of Americans have invested and rely- be abolished? It can be properly managed but it is too soon to wean off millions of hard working members of the greatest generation from this- privatization and streamling of the system are laudable goals but I cannot see equating it to a Ponzi scheme- both Republican and Democratic administrations for decades have supported the premise behind that system- I ***** about grants to study the mating habits of african frogs and welfare fraud but do not lump that in with legitimate programs which save, better and preserve the lives of our people including children who otherwise have no hope for an education or to enjoy the lives we do. Just my . 02. Flames welcome

 

[LSchenck]

Defense was 16. 6% of the 2001 budget and does increase to 17. 0% for 2002 and 17. 8% in 2003. These are hardly shocking increases although I expect the supplemental will have some additional defense increases.



Social spending is almost 2/3 of our total expenditures. Social security stays fairly level for the next 5 or 6 years at the 22. 4% in 2002 range. Medicare, welfare, etc make up almost another 40% of the budget.



The problem with Social Security is that it in 10 or 15 years when the number of retires increase dramatically with the number of new workers paying their way continually decreasing, we will hit a point where the amount of money extorted from workers to pay retirees is less than the amount needed.



It is a pure myth that American workers have invested in a Social Security Trust Fund. The money is spent as it comes in. Workers who are currently retired or soon to retire will see a great return on the amount they and their employers have "contributed". For the rest of us that have been paying ever-increasing amounts into the system, we will get less than we put in, if anything.



Social Security is absolutly nothing but a Ponsi scheme. In fact it is the definition of a Ponsi Scheme and it is headed for collapse in our lifetimes. I am 50 years old and I do not expect to receive a nickel of SS. This is because I have saved over the years and you can bet that one of the "fixes" for SS will be to "MEANS-TEST" future recipitents. ANybody under 40. Forget about it.



Democrats and Republicans, everybody, knows this program is headed for disaster but since it will happen after their careers are over they don't care. It is true that Congress does not participate in the system. Why would they? I wouldn't either if I could get out.



Limited privatization of Social Security is a band-aid fix that will only delay the train wreck. However it is better than doing nothing. I would not think much of my kids or grand kids if they allowed themselves to be taxed at 80 - 90% so Gramps could live the good life.

 

[Champane Flight]

Lets see

Lets see I have paid into SS for many years now. I am now getting ready for retirement. I will then get SS based on the pay I recieved for all those years. I think someone is still a long way from retirement and resents anyone who wants a fair shake. Maybe you could have Bush and Uncle Sam mess with your contributions, not mine... .....

 

[mimprevento]

Enjoy your retirement

Champagne you earned it I am 44 and got a long way to go but that is my point- you paid in and will get a hard earned benefit that is worth keeping- I hope I will but I am trying to put together a decent retirement package so I do not have to rely on it- I think politically anybody running for office needs to pledge to preserve the viability of the program for my kid.