Unconstitutionality and Unfair Taxation of the People’s Income


Abolish_IRS_5The Framers of the United States Constitution, founders of the United States of America, were wise and had the foresight to ensure that the articles and amendments of that document For the People and By the People should endure. But only if We the People did their duty in ensuring that those that operate OUR government did not usurp, dilute or do away with rights and liberties established. What liberties and rights that remain today can be traced to the framers of the Constitution, their wisdom and their perseverance in establishing a document that would withstand time – only if that document was honored. We the People have allowed politicians and special interest groups to dilute and remove some of those rights because of false promises of those who wish to see government in charge of every facet of the People’ lives. They insist they know better how to run our lives than we do, and have convinced a growing majority that “fair” collectivism is better than individual liberty; when history has proven differently.

Where in the Federalist Papers does it suggest that the Founders intended to tax the labor of its citizens?

Where in the vast amount of writing of Thomas Jefferson is it referred to taxing the labor of citizens as a forced taxation or as we know the income tax system of today required by government?

In Federalist #33 written by Alexander Hamilton, he mentions taxation:

Though a law, therefore, laying a tax for the use of the United States would be supreme in its nature, and could not legally be opposed or controlled, yet a law for abrogating or preventing the collection of a tax laid by the authority of the State, (unless upon imports and exports), would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution. As far as an improper accumulation of taxes on the same object might tend to render the collection difficult or precarious, this would be a mutual inconvenience, not arising from a superiority or defect of power on either side, but from an injudicious exercise of power by one or the other, in a manner equally disadvantageous to both. It is to be hoped and presumed, however, that mutual interest would dictate a concert in this respect which would avoid any material inconvenience. …

Federalist #34 [Alexander Hamilton]

I FLATTER myself it has been clearly shown in my last number that the particular States, under the proposed Constitution, would have COEQUAL authority with the Union in the article of revenue, except as to duties on imports. As this leaves open to the States far the greatest part of the resources of the community, there can be no color for the assertion that they would not possess means as abundant as could be desired for the supply of their own wants, independent of all external control. … It is well-known that in the Roman republic the legislative authority, in the last resort, resided for ages in two different political bodies not as branches of the same legislature, but as distinct and independent legislatures, in each of which an opposite interest prevailed: in one the patrician; in the other, the plebian. Many arguments might have been adduced to prove the unfitness of two such seemingly contradictory authorities, each having power to annul or repeal the acts of the other. But a man would have been regarded as frantic who should have attempted at Rome to disprove their existence. It will be readily understood that I allude to the COMITIA CENTURIATA and the COMITIA TRIBUTA. The former, in which the people voted by centuries, was so arranged as to give a superiority to the patrician interest; in the latter, in which numbers prevailed, the plebian interest had an entire predominancy. And yet these two legislatures coexisted for ages, and the Roman republic attained to the utmost height of human greatness. … There ought to be a CAPACITY to provide for future contingencies as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity. It is true, perhaps, that a computation might be made with sufficient accuracy to answer the purpose of the quantity of revenue requisite to discharge the subsisting engagements of the Union, and to maintain those establishments which, for some time to come, would suffice in time of peace. But would it be wise, or would it not rather be the extreme of folly, to stop at this point, and to leave the government intrusted with the care of the national defense in a state of absolute incapacity to provide for the protection of the community against future invasions of the public peace, by foreign war or domestic convulsions? …
What are the chief sources of expense in every government? What has occasioned that enormous accumulation of debts with which several of the European nations are oppressed? The answers plainly is, wars and rebellions; the support of those institutions which are necessary to guard the body politic against these two most mortal diseases of society. The expenses arising from those institutions which are relative to the mere domestic police of a state, to the support of its legislative, executive, and judicial departments, with their different appendages, and to the encouragement of agriculture and manufactures (which will comprehend almost all the objects of state expenditure), are insignificant in comparison with those which relate to the national defense. …
Suppose, then, the convention had been inclined to proceed upon the principle of a repartition of the objects of revenue, between the Union and its members, in proportion to their comparative necessities; what particular fund could have been selected for the use of the States, that would not either have been too much or too little too little for their present, too much for their future wants? As to the line of separation between external and internal taxes, this would leave to the States, at a rough computation, the command of two-thirds of the resources of the community to defray from a tenth to a twentieth part of its expenses; and to the Union, one-third of the resources of the community, to defray from nine-tenths to nineteen twentieths of its expenses. If we desert this boundary and content ourselves with leaving to the States an exclusive power of taxing houses and lands, there would still be a great disproportion between the means and the end; the possession of one-third of the resources of the community to supply, at most, one tenth of its wants. If any fund could have been selected and appropriated, equal to and not greater than the object, it would have been inadequate to the discharge of the existing debts of the particular States, and would have left them dependent on the Union for a provision for this purpose. …
The convention thought the concurrent jurisdiction preferable to that subordination; and it is evident that it has at least the merit of reconciling an indefinite constitutional power of taxation in the Federal government with an adequate and independent power in the States to provide for their own necessities. There remain a few other lights, in which this important subject of taxation will claim a further consideration.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution:

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 and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

As Alexander Hamilton discusses in the Federalist Papers, the power to tax is a concurrent power of the federal government and the individual states.

In 1913, an amendment was adopted that allows Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it upon the United States Consensus and since the power to tax is concurrent, both federal and state governments can tax income – the fruit of an individual’s labor. Since that time that tax has become a complicated mess where income is not only taxed upon individual income but tax corporations as individual entities to be taxed as well. In addition to taxing the income of all citizens, other taxes remained and were added which compounded the taxation to where essentially the same money was being taxed two or more times beyond the income tax. The need increased as bureaucracy grew, a condition which people now refer to as big government. Between the need to increase revenue to meet the demands of government spending, spending by those entrusted to operate the government on behalf of the people, the amount of taxation had to increase either exponentially or by creating a new system of taxes multiplying the burden upon citizens. However, because the income tax system is not fairly distributed across the spectrum of individual [and corporate] income a phenomenon was created called income redistribution [and wealth], clearly a hallmark of Marxism developed through the Communist Manifesto [text]and Karl Marx and Max Weber. The practice of income redistribution is tied with the practice of wealth redistribution – all in the name of fairness. That is fairness to anyone with less income or wealth than another citizens.

The 16th Amendment disregarded the unconstitutionality of taxing an individual’s fruits of labor [income], ruled to be direct taxes in the court case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co. in 1895. Despite this the amendment passed into law overruling the Supreme Court’s decision.

The income tax system has become so complex that even those working for the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] have difficulty making decisions concerning its regulations. In addition, the IRS has gone beyond powers given to government by the US Constitution and the way the framer/founders set up the check and balance system of government. Contrary to law, the IRS must not prove guilt in order to levy fines and restitution even when taken to a legal court system. The citizen is not innocent until proven guilty but the other way around. Now that the government has commandeered individual health care, the IRS furthers its powers by punishing citizens if they cannot afford high insurance premiums and/or does not wish to choose what the government offers. The only ones who will come out ahead of this mess will be those that govern and insurance companies.

As far as the oppression of those elected to operate our government, those sworn to uphold the Constitution; one of the main problems is that too many lawyers are elected to Congress and thus created an atmosphere of seeking loopholes in the law instead of properly “interpreting” and abiding by it – clearly against what the framers had designed as well as against the their oath of office.

Crafty politicians rely upon the short-term memory of the public and know they fall for the negative campaigning practice of making the opponent look more “evil” or worse choice than choosing or reelecting them. In addition, it has become a practice for the populace to become more loyal to political entities, called a party, than to the US Constitution which is the only thing, the rule of law, keeping their rights and liberties – those which are left and not diluted.

People look for an answer from politicians who term after term are reelected and who expect reasonable and responsible reformation without changing their practices and logic.

In 2014, in order to see improvement upon the infrastructure and economics of government, at least two main changes should occur … repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act and repeal of the 16th Amendment, the latter being replaced by what is called the Fair Tax – a tax based upon consumption, not income. That truly is a “fair” tax because those that make more income will automatically pay more without the unfair and draconian progressive tax system. The side effect will be to force elected officials who are elected to operate OUR government more efficiently and responsibly in terms of budgeting.

After those two main items are taken care of, Congress needs to earn their paychecks and begin to deregulate so that the cost of living will be reduced along with aiding the ability for the People to economically recover in many beneficial ways.

As far as the cost of health care, two major things must change: the insurance companies and the medical institutions, the latter causing high costs by overcharging for their services. In other words, there is not enough competition in the medical industry to initiate a more fair cost system.

The major plus of not having an income tax system is that the IRS will be reduced to a limited auditing agency. If that is not enough to incite We the People, I do not know what will.

The old excuse of “things in government will not change” is what the politicians have and will count upon to keep everything status quo. Nothing will change without effort by the People and demand in unison that politicians start acting like servants of the people instead of the other way around and abide by their oaths of office.

The ball is in YOUR court, quit trying to pass it around before hitting the goal.

Taxation is a necessary evil in any successful society; however, those we elect and expect to operate our government must use those taxes wisely. It is not the job of government to use the people’s tax money for charity, especially abroad. Taxation is to support the cost of operating a government and not to use as a punishment against certain people, organizations, or merchandise as government officials seem fit. Taxing income from the fruits of your labor is wrong, especially when you are taxed more than other citizens because you fall into a certain income category. Since politicians, especially on the left side of the political fence, deem “fairness” as a supreme denominator – income tax is NOT fair and it is intrusive upon rights and liberties of the people. Consumption tax, which includes excise and import taxes, are the only means in which revenue should be raised to cover the cost of government. If the cost of government is beyond the revenue, then the first act would be to budget accordingly – not raise or create new taxation. Imagine if you could go to your boss and say that your spending is more than you can afford and demand an increase to make up the difference. Those in government have been doing this for decades – astonishingly without reprisal from We the People – well, not enough of them. Taxation or rather the paying of taxes is not a form of patriotism, it is just part of the cost of having a government. Any individual, organization or government who diminishes your right to demand that government spend less instead of taxing more should be held in contempt and suspicion – especially if they insist that you are “anti-government” or other inventive name-calling because you tell the truth or demand constitutional law be honored, enforced and upheld.

The Founders of our nation and framers of our constitution believed that freedom of choice was the foundation of all liberties, and since they believed it was given to humanity by the Creator – they insisted that no government has the right to remove that freedom of choice, Yet, with that freedom comes responsibility and to narrow down the problems our nation faces to simplicity it is because too many citizens have chosen NOT to be responsible and rely upon those that govern us to not just govern our nation and enforce its laws, but to make choices for us.

The next time a politician preaches and promises “change” to get your vote make sure you are aware of the details and aware of that person’s background and philosophy – and most definitely go by their actions [past and present] not their flowery words and utopian promises; whether they seek election or reelection in Congress, the White House or state government. Indeed, use that rule of thumb even when dealing with those seeking your vote in local community elections.

Do not expect politicians to make proper changes and reformation on their own accord – YOU, We the People must do our duty and ensure that the constitutional republic is restored.

And for those of you who say that constitutionalists, individuals and entities like the Tea Party movement are “anti-government”, they are correct in a sense. They are citizens who want constitutional law to return and the oppressive, unfair tax code changed; which means they want the present government to go away and return that which the framers desired and designed.

It was, and is for the most part, the best government system ever devised. Do not let it disappear.

My next essay will explain why the Founders distrusted and did not want a standing army. Hopefully these essays will alert and awaken those who have been apathetic and spark an interest to study more and begin a united effort at true reformation.

FREE PDF Download: Rules for Conservative Radicals: How the Tea Party Can Save America – Read what the Tea Party movement is all about, not what progressive media tells you.

And what about Obamacare? All those premiums paid by citizens have gone into the pocket of insurance companies who have dropped over one million clients allegedly because of Obamacare. The rub is that you will be paying more for premiums when you find insurance, which if you do not, the IRS Gestapo will lay a fine upon your income tax [how can a tax agency fine citizens for having no insurance?] – and those jerk-off insurance companies will only pay 80% of hospital bills. Those hospital bills will probably increase in cost as well, and as their usual practice, charge you $20 for one aspirin that costs them 10 cents. I said it before and will say it again – when it comes to Obamacare, only the government and insurance companies benefit from the worst piece of legislation since the 16th Amendment and Congress allowing Social Security funds to be used for something other than social security benefits.

The whole idea of the Affordable Health Care Act was to help citizens afford health care – it has turned out to be a lie. Congress and Obama would have been better off copying the Canadian health care system where a family of four, two adults and two children, pay $200 per month and their insurance pays 100% of the hospital bill, excluding cost of having a private room and telephone. This legislation doesn’t need “fixed” it needs to be thrown into the garbage never to be mentioned again. No wonder people surmise that it was intended to fail so government can just take control of it all – a totally socialist system.

We the People need health care plans that are attuned to the individual, not the collective. Why should a single man have to pay extra for maternity compensation? It is because that single man is helping to pay for other people’s maternity benefits. Why should a healthy person who rarely goes to the doctor or requires hospitalization pay so much for premiums that never are reconstituted? Because in the collective, everyone pays for someone else, and those with more income get the privilege of paying for another citizen’s health care.

Advertisements