That an amendment was passed (relatively recently) ok-ing government extortion
(and passed in an arguably incorrect and unconstitutional manner) does not mean
that this level of government extortion is in keeping with the original intent
of founders of this country. Nor does it mean that the people should not
complain bitterly about their de facto enslavement. That Congress gave itself
this power also says little about how it is done or how much is correct or sets
any limits at all. It is extremely dangerous wording.
There is nothing "voluntary" about sums collected at literal gunpoint if you
decide not to "volunteer". Let's not pretend about that.
James Wetterau wrote:
> "Randy Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> says:
> > > > What we need to do is make gov't OUR servant, instead of the other way
> > > > around.
> > >
> > >The argument is that the income tax is unconstitutional as a mandatory
> > >system. People pay it voluntarily.
> > Th "...promote the general welfare..." clause covers all that, I believe.
> > Besides, who says the constitution is all that great, anyway. We need to
> > change it.
> Doesn't anybody actually *read* the Constitution before giving
> opinions about it?
> Amendment XVI.
> 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.
> The income tax, even as a mandatory system, is definitely
> constitutional. The only wiggle room I can conceive of would be to
> find a constitutional quarrel with the exact manner in which the tax
> is imposed. It seems from the article cited that there are some
> people who have some legal quarrel with the income tax regime, but
> they make their case not on the constitution but on the tax code. My
> guess is that no court will accept their argument.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:31 MDT