THE TAX GATHERERS Let's take a look at an equitable tax system. Yes .... there is such a t

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

THE TAX GATHERERS Let's take a look at an equitable tax system. Yes .... there is such a thing . . . it's in our Constitution. Our first compact for the national government was called the Articles of Confederation. These were a disaster. Most states would have preferred to remain independent and refused to give up powers they enjoyed as colonial states. All the original states had their belly filled with abuses from the British monarchy and feared the power of any central government. The Articles were drafted in 1777 and argued and debated for three and one half years. The new government finally got off the ground in March 1, 1781. One reason for the delay was the requirement for unanimous acceptance by the states. They were called Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Province Plantation, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. This union was "for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare." The Articles were a confederation in name only. There was no executive branch to execute the laws, no court system to try the laws, Congress could make war but could not demand the money to pay for it, it could enter into treaties but had no power to enforce them, it could borrow money but had no means to repay it. Congress could requisition money from the states for operating expenses but could not demand it. States were late in paying their share and more often than not, would send less than the Congress requisitioned. It was a case of one government waiting for thirteen other govern- ments to offer their help. There were border squabbles, jealousies, heavy taxes between the states, in some instances, man's unalienable rights were violated . . . the whole system was beset with problems. There were a couple tries to get the states together for a constitutional convention and they finally succeeded in May 1787. For 100 days, through the heat of summer, these men argued, cajoled, persuaded, compromised and finally in September, the new proposed document was sent to Congress for submission to the states and the people for final approval. Concerning taxes, they set up the most simple and equitable tax system devised by man up to that time. Article I, Section 2, clause 3 is the apportionment rule. "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other  Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such a Manner as they shall by law direct." Then in Article I, Section 8, we find: "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, Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." The first authority (Art I, Sec 2) allows for direct taxes. The Framers expected this taxing power to levied on land and buildings only. Being apportioned meant that if State A had 20 percent more population than State B, State A was required to send 20 percent more money to the national government as their share for the expense of government. This was the reason for census taking which is ordained in the same section. The feeling at the convention was that direct taxation should not be used except when absolutely necessary. The power granted in Art I, Sec 8 was for an indirect tax and this had to be uniform throughout the country. As you can see, it involved duties, imposts (tax on imports) and excises and were meant to be taxes on consumption. Whether is was liquor, tobacco or horse carriages, whatever, it was on consuming or using the item. It was assumed that this would be the chief source of direct income for the feds for years to come. And it was. In checking through the Federalist Papers to find their intention concerning taxes, not one word is ever mentioned that they were going to tax individuals directly. Where did we go wrong? None of these powers diminished the power of the states to tax their citizens. Hamilton, in paper No. 32, points out "Under the plan of the convention, they retain that authority in the most absolute and unqualified sense; that an attempt on the part of the national government to abridge them in the exercise of it would be a violent assumption of power, unwarranted by any article or clause of its Constitution." (Any reference to paper no. in this series refers to The Federalist Papers.) Let's jump into our time machine and come forward to 1894 when Congress passed a law to tax income. In 1895, the Supreme Court threw it out because they said it violated the Constitutional requirement that all direct taxes be appor- tioned. The only way the power brokers behind our government were going to beat this roadblock was to propose and pass an amendment to the constitution doing away with the requirement for apportionment. In 1909 the Sixteenth Amendment was proposed and sent to the states for their approval. This is the one which the bureaucracy claims is their authority to tax you and me but they have got big troubles with this one. Let me first point out some absolutes in our Constitu-  tion. The power in the document for the business of government was granted by WE THE PEOPLE and can ONLY be altered by us. Article VI states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all laws passed have to conform to the permission given by us. Everyone who works for the feds in any capacity has to take an oath or affirma- tion to God to support the document. To be President of the United States, a person MUST be a natural born citizen of the United States. (Art II, Sec 1) This is a fixed, explicit command. There are NO excep- tions allowed. No emergency allowances or any amendment saying anyone but a natural born citizen can be president. This is the only requirement in the entire document that a candidate be natural born. It's obvious the Founders put it there for a specific purpose. July 31, 1909, the proposed taxing amendment was introduced into Congress by Philander C Knox who was play acting as secretary of State. The man who was acting as president was William Howard Taft. Taft was born in Cincinnati, Ohio on September 15, 1857. SURPRISE . . . Ohio was NOT admitted to the Union until August 7, 1953! At the time Taft was elected to be presi- ident Ohio was simply a territory. It was not a state which means he was not a natural born citizen. Our Constitution was violated. He was not eligible to be president by any stretch of your imagination. Taft was not president and his illegal lackeys such as Philander C Knox were not officials of the government. They introduced this amendment illegally into Congress. It is therefore an unconstitutional act and of no legal conse- quence. So our illustrious Congress hits the panic button in a frantic effort to correct one big booboo. In their finite 'wisdom', they passed a Joint Resolution admitting Ohio as a full and equal member of the union. (Public Law 204, 83rd Congress, 1st Session). Section 2 of that resolution states: "This joint resolution shall take effect as of March 1, 1803. Approved August 7, 1953." You don't need a calculator to show that it's backdated by 150 years. That's ex-post facto law. They CAN'T do it. Ex-post facto law is forbidden! It's a conspicuous violation of another command in our Constitu- tion which states: "No . . . ex post facto law shall be passed." (Art I, Sec 9) This was added protection for our citizens. An act which was legal one day could not be declared illegal a day, a week, or even years later. NO law can be predated by one day. We didn't agree to any change through the amendment process. That guaranteed protection of no ex post facto law is still the law of the land. From where do they assume such a power especially when there are explicit commands forbidding what they did? First they believe that we all are simple country bumpkins and it's really none of our business what they do to run the country. Their stinking arrogance shows that! Most are lawyers which, they feel, puts themselves above us. They are just more  equal than we are. Two amendments which are absolute prohibitions to their assumption of powers we did not give are the Ninth and Tenth. These are the two amendments bureaucrats insist do not exist. ARTICLE IX THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSTITUTION, OF CERTAIN RIGHTS, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE. ARTICLE X 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. These two absolutely tell everyone that the federal government is a government of enumerated and limited power. They are the fence that we built around their operational powers to keep them from exceeding what we allowed. Why do you suppose they can't read and understand these? Madison insisted that the authority of the new national government is no greater under the new constitution than it was under the Articles of Confederation. Other than the power to regulate commerce, no new powers were given to the feds. The powers they had under the Articles were given vigor (to quote Madison) and the power to enforce. "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and in- definite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The power reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and the properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." Madison, paper no. 45. Another problem surfaces under this Public Law making Ohio a member of the Union. They used a resolution to make the law when the intent of the Founders was for only bills to become law. Resolutions are to express an opinion or to censure some person or action but were never to become law. Congress knew very well they were violating the Consti- tution. This 'law' was buried for twenty years before some- one found it while doing research. And they tell us that ignorance of the law is no excuse! Public relations people at the IRS are real quick to tell Americans that the Supreme Court decided that the Sixteenth Amendment is constitutional. This is a filthy lie! The case they cite as proof is called Brushaber vs Union Pacific RR, (240 US 1, 1916.) There is NO lawyer, bureaucrat  or otherwise, no researcher that can point to a statement in that finding that the Supreme Court rendered a decision saying the 16th Amendment is constitutional. These people must be using Orwell's newspeak now. The case didn't even involve the 16th amendment! These same PR people then tell us that if we don't like the tax assessed, we can go to Tax Court to challenge the IRS. This, they say, meets the requirement of due process of law. What a crock. Due process of law is guaranteed by our Fifth Amendment. It begins with the Constitution. If any link is broken between the Constitution and the law as it operates, there is no due process of law. Due process of law is only operative when the requirements of the Constitution are being followed. We pointed out earlier about Article VI (the Supremacy Clause). Any 'law' which is passed outside the authority in the document, is NO LAW . . . due process is then inoperative and we are not required to obey the law. It's that simple. Another statement they like throwing at us is that the entire tax system depends of voluntary compliance. Yea, sure. Actually, that's true. But they depend on the fear factor to make sure you comply voluntarily. If they are operating outside the law as we granted power, why the fear? If we are not required to obey an unconstitutional law, why the fear? The entire debate in Congress, while the proposed 16th Amendment was being considered, concerned only using civil penalties. We have already proven the feds have no power to determine what comprises criminal activity (See the chapter entitled People Control in this volume.) Now get a copy of the Constitution and notice something special about amendments . . . many carry the statement, "Congress shall have power to enforce this article with ap- propriate legislation." Says nothing of the kind in the 16th Amendment. We gave them NO authority under this amendment to say you can go to jail if you don't pay or if you don't file! How come lawyers don't know this? Or is it that they don't want to rile up one of their fraternity buddies (the judge) or that they don't want to incur the wrath of the IRS? We pointed out the tragedy of the 'forfeiture laws' they use in the drug enforcement scene (read the chapter entitled Food and Drugs). Our friends at the IRS love to do the same thing . . . part of the fear factor to make sure that you comply voluntarily. Perhaps you have been unlucky and have had to go through the devastating seizure of your home and belongings . . or know someone who has been so unfortunate. We've all seen the 'official notices' in the newspaper . . . 'Under the authority of Section 6331 of the Internal Revenue code, the property of John Doe' and so forth. How asinine! This 'Internal Revenue Code' is what Congress has enacted, written and rewritten many times under the so called authority of the Sixteenth Amendment. What Sixteenth  Amendment? It's was an illegal act of Congress as we have pointed out. Any operation and function of the IRS code is also an illegal act of Congress and the IRS! Due process of law again, remember? The taxing power of the government is as stated in the Constitution . . . not the IRS code! This seizure by the IRS is an area of human conduct where I experience a tremendous letdown. How any human can buy property of another through an illegal seizure and sale by government is beyond me! It always reminds me of an ugly old vulture sitting on a tree limb waiting for a dinner of carrion. If people would gain the knowledge of the illegal dealings of our friends at the IRS, then perhaps the ones who purchase these properties will cease buying. If the IRS could sell no more property, it would be impossible for them to seize other possessions. Didn't the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment say that property cannot be taken without due process of law? ALL these seizures are a violation of this guarantee! Let's examine another facet of this mishmash of gobbledegook. All the forms and in the code it makes the statement, something to the effect that anyone made liable for the tax, check schedule A or B or whatever to see how much tax you owe. Now, WHAT makes you liable? Ask your accountant . . . ask the folks at H&R Block . . . ask anyone . . . what makes you liable? There is nothing in law which makes you liable for federal income taxes. You make yourself liable by filing a return. When you sign a 1040 'under the penalty of perjury', you are waiving your rights. You have just become a witness against yourself. At that point, you have fallen under the authority of our friends at the IRS and given them jurisdiction. How about them apples? See why they can honestly say our tax system depends on your voluntary compliance? It does. Then people wait for a refund on their tax return . . . refund hell . . . it's your money! Something else the IRS is pushing for very hard . . . a cash less society. Know why? They cannot trace cash . . . but even the idiots working for the service can follow the trail left behind by the use of credit cards or checks. Another favorite stunt of the PR people at the IRS is to claim people who don't pay their taxes are cheats, crooks or worse. The argument goes that if they don't pay their taxes, we have to make up their share. This stinks to high heaven too. If they don't pay their taxes, we don't have to pay our taxes either. No one is required to obey an unconstitutional law . . . that includes you, me and the other guy. Alexander Hamilton has a very interesting statement in paper no. 33 . . . "If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency  may suggest and prudence justify." Following that suggestion, for starters let's FLOOD the Congress with Petitions for Redress of Grievances. We must demand the so-called 16th Amendment be removed from our Constitution and the IRS be dissolved. Both are illegal under our charter for government. I mean they have to be flooded with petitions, letters and phone calls. A couple they might consider annoying but if they were to receive a million or two, they would have to sit up and take notice. The author already has one petition for redress before Congress concerning this very issue. One congressman, Chick Abraham Kazan, decided that after a few letters refuting what I had claimed, he was behind the eight ball. He submitted my Patition to Congress on April 28, 1981 where it was referred to the Judiciary Committee. There is no power in the Constitution which allows them to throw the petition out . . it's still before the committee. Easiest way to buy time and also to ignore the issue is to pigeonhole the petition and perhaps I will die and the issue will also be dead. Nothing has happened as far as redressing my grievance but as I said, one petition they can ignore. Let's get a million or two into Congress and see if they can ignore all of us! For all my readers who register for this Volume 2, I will send a copy of the Petition together with all correspon- dence and a copy of the page in the Congressional Record showing its acceptance. You too can drive them nuts. All you guys or gals who were in the service, remember part of your oath? You swore to God ... that you will protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. All naturalized citizens also took the same oath. What do you say to God now? . . . "Hey I didn't mean what I said?" Or perhaps, "Sorry, God, I was lying!" If we do nothing about all these violations of our laws, as the axiom says . . . we deserve what we get. REGISTRATION IS ONLY $19.95 PLEASE READ 'SALES PITCH' CHAPTER 


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank