A Most Disturbing Betrayal

Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.

-Thomas Jefferson

 

ELSEWHERE ON THIS PAGE I'M SHARING an essay by Theo Caldwell titled, 'Of Course NSA Mass Surveillance Is Illegal'. It's a great piece of writing, which I thoroughly enjoyed. I hope you will enjoy it, too.

 

One of the virtues of Caldwell's piece is its proper emphasis of the inherent simplicity and straightforward character required of anything meant to pass as "law" in America. As Caldwell puts it,

As a moral matter, there is little defense for the NSA’s ubiquitous snooping. At times, the edification of law by morality is clear. It is often noted that murder is not wrong because it is illegal; it is illegal because it is wrong. Nevertheless, there is frequently a chasm between what is legal and what is right.

In such cases as these, there’s always some Harvard Law legerdemain, mystifying to the rest of us rubes, whereby the plain language of the Constitution somehow doesn’t mean what it says and, if only we’d read the Nosey vs. Parker decision, we’d appreciate the applicable precedent.

Nuts to that. America aspires to have a citizen government, not a lawyerly oligarchy. Yet time and again, from the wells of Congress or across the airwaves, self-styled experts defend the indefensible to us, in slow and measured tones, as though they were explaining civics to a small child, or a Golden Retriever.

 

Nuts to that, indeed. This sound expression of disdain for "Harvard Law legerdemain" reminds me of Thomas Jefferson's admonition, "A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." Americans don't look for "official approval" for the nature and primacy of their rights.

 

In fact, Americans have it exactly the other way around. We measure the lawfulness of our magistrates by the degree to which they obediently acknowledge and respect what WE have decided are our rights.

 

HOWEVER, CALDWELL'S WORDS PROMPT another, less happy, thought, as well.

 

It is certainly absurd to let ourselves be swayed to tolerate (or misunderstand) the violation of our rights due to the pronouncements of magistrates. But does this absurdity not pale in comparison to the much more deeply-shameful absurdity of relinquishing our rights and our power to the lusts of avaricious political operatives, like a small child or a Golden Retriever, WHEN EVEN THE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE MAGISTRATES ARE IN OUR FAVOR?!

 

Frankly, I can't think of words with which to adequately discuss this depth of slavish infantilism. In the matter of the limits on federal taxing power-- a matter of nearly incalculable significance to the health of our governmental structure and our own individual well-being-- a massive body of authority stands foursquare and unambiguous on the side of the liberating truth, with nothing at all standing against it. And yet, in a stunning and deeply-disturbing betrayal of the sacrifices of our Founders to impose just those limits, many Americans lie paralyzed like helpless sheep while their law and their rights are ignored and evaded by mere bureaucrats.

 

As Caldwell observes, the deep assault on the Fourth Amendment is supported by a mountain of elaborate briefs and rulings by secret courts and by the Supreme Court, all purporting to justify and authorize the Amendment's evisceration. There can be some forgiveness of those who imagine that those writing these briefs and rulings are well-intentioned and competent, and therefore let themselves be persuaded that, however contrary to common sense and plain reading of the amendment they manifestly are, there must be some legitimate basis for them, and thus for the exercise of power they purport to validate.

 

But in stark contrast to these circumstances by which past tolerance of Fourth Amendment violations can be somewhat forgiven, the legal history and doctrinal circumstances of the "income" tax offer no such defense for Americans who have failed to meet their civic responsibilities. In the case of the "income" tax, every single high court ruling on the subject squarely supports what is revealed in CtC about the nature and limits of that tax.

 

Unlike any other controversial subject involving the scope of governmental authority, in the case of the "income" tax, and the general limited nature of federal taxing power to which it conforms, both the rules of simplicity and individual authority over the nature of legitimate law AND the "Harvard Law" rulings stand with the liberty and the people. Yet most people STILL sit on their hands, with pacifiers or chew-toys firmly lodged in their mouths.

 

I know the adoption of the term "income" for the limited class of things subject to the tax was enormously clever, and understandably effective in clouding some peoples' minds. This is especially so in light of the fact that a tax on the all-inclusive class described by the common WORD 'income' has always been recognized as a direct tax, and thus those who don't understand the special meaning of the TERM "income" are seduced into imagining that judicial rulings upholding the tax are actually upholding an unapportioned, direct tax on "all that comes in".

 

But when the Supreme Court repeatedly and specifically says THIS IS NOT TRUE, I have to wonder if those who persist in misunderstanding don't actually just WANT to not understand, in subordination to some deep-rooted psychological malady...

 

ANYWAY, I AM STILL UNWILLING TO STAND BY AND WATCH this betrayal of our American heritage proceed un-denounced and unimpeded. I cling to the mitigating suspicion that despite my best efforts thus far many Americans have still not actually SEEN all the rulings to which I refer.

 

In the hope that my suspicion is sound, I'm going to append below a selection of those authorities. These are taken from one of the "explanation of terms" pages attached as a comprehension aid to the true history of the 16th Amendment posted here.

 

Perhaps those who have overlooked this material thus far will be prompted by it to read the rest and learn the whole truth. Perhaps those folks will then become faithful heirs to the vision and bequest of their forebears by virtue of which America once was (and can again be) the most liberty-friendly and prosperous place in human history.

 

The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes  "[T]axation on income [is] in its nature an excise..." A unanimous United States Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).   "I hereby certify that the following is a true and faithful statement of the gains, profits, or income of _____ _____, of the _____ of _____, in the county of _____, and State of _____, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, salary, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, or from any other source whatever, from the 1st day of January to the 31st day of December, 1862, both days inclusive, and subject to an income tax under the excise laws of the United States." (The “affirmation” on the first income tax return form, emphasis added).   "The income tax... ...is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.” Former Treasury Department legislative draftsman F. Morse Hubbard in testimony before Congress in 1943.   "...the requirement to pay [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege."  Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911).   "The 'Government' is an abstraction, and its possession of property largely constructive. Actual possession and custody of Government property nearly always are in someone who is not himself the Government but acts in its behalf and for its purposes. He may be an officer, an agent, or a contractor. His personal advantages from the relationship by way of salary, profit, or beneficial personal use of the property may be taxed..."  United States v. County of Allegheny, 322 US 174 (1944).   Case law recognizes no distinction between a privilege tax and an excise tax. See Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v. Senter, 260 S.W. 144, 148 (Tenn. 1924) (“Whether the tax be characterized in the statute as a privilege tax or an excise tax is but a choice of synonymous words, for an excise tax is an indirect or privilege tax.”); American Airways, Inc. v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880 (M.D. Tenn. 1937) (“The terms ‘excise’ tax and privilege’ tax are synonymous and the two are often used interchangeably.”); see also 71 AM JUR. 2d State and Local Taxation §24, (“The term ‘excise tax’ is synonymous with ‘privilege tax,’ and the two have been used interchangeably. Whether a tax is characterized in the statute imposing it as a privilege tax or an excise tax is merely a choice of synonymous words, for an excise tax is a privilege tax.”) Thus, the excise tax now before us is, by more complete description, purportedly an excise upon a particular privilege, assessed according to the quantity of substance possessed in enjoyment of such privilege. Waters, et al. v. Chumley No. E2006-02225-COA-RV-CV, Court of Appeals of Tennessee   “PRIVILEGE:  A particular benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class beyond the common advantages of others citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power of exemption. A particular right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition   THE “PRIVILEGE EXCISE” PRINCIPLE, AND THE WAY IT PLAYS OUT, is very simple. For the government to be able to charge an indirect, non-apportioned fee (tax) for engaging in an activity, the activity must be one done by permission of the government, rather than anything done by right (for which one obviously can’t be charged). This makes “the things done” for which the fee can be charged necessarily and inherently an exercise of privilege.   To put it another way, if you can’t do a thing without paying the government for doing it, doing it is a privilege, and by permission only. When you pay the tax, you’re paying for the privilege of [x], in the most basic sense of that expression. The reciprocal, of course, is that such a tax can’t apply to things for which you don’t need government permission (like trading your labor for pay with anyone except the feds, or engaging in any other economic activity not involving federal stuff).   “Since the right to receive [commonly-defined] income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege.” Jack Cole Company v. Alfred T. MacFarland, Commissioner, 337 S.W.2d 453 (1960)   "[Although the Legislature may declare as privileges and tax as such for State revenue purposes those pursuits and occupations that are not matters of common right], the Legislature has no power to declare as a privilege and tax for revenue purposes occupations that are of common right."   “The right to engage in an employment, to carry on a business, or pursue an occupation or profession not in itself hurtful or conducted in a manner injurious to the public, is a common right, which, under our Constitution, as construed by all our former decisions, can neither be prohibited nor hampered by laying a tax for State revenue on the occupation, employment, business or profession. ... Thousands of individuals in this State carry on their occupations as above defined who derive no income whatever therefrom. But, where an income is derived from any occupation, business, profession or employment, then the Legislature may lay thereon a tax...” Sims v. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557, 271 SW 720 594, 595 (Ark. Sup. Ct., 1925);   “The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right,…” and, “It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property’.” Butcher’s Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883);   ”Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property- partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property”. Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)   So, the receipts subject to the federal excise (the "income" in the federal income tax) are those produced through the exercise of certain federal privileges. Just like the name says, it’s a federal income tax.

 

Find the true history of the 16th Amendment of which these explanatory citations are a part at losthorizons.com/Documents/The16th.htm. READ IT ALL-- LINKED ATTACHMENTS, NOTES, EVERYTHING!!

 

Then GET BUSY!! This liberating information doesn't spread itself. It has no way to email itself to your local newspaper editor, or to your "Human Resources" department, or your CPA, or your congressman, with a cover letter insisting that it get read in its entirety, linked attachments, notes, everything (or any way to print itself in its entirety and send itself to folks like this via snail-mail).

 

YOU'VE GOT TO DO IT!!
 

If you do, the People win, and get back the law and the republic.

 

If you don't, the state keeps getting all the money it wants from the vast majority of Americans who haven't a clue. It remains able to finance the army of DOJ attorneys who spend their well-paid days concocting "Harvard Law" legerdemain with which they justify the trashing of the Fourth Amendment and all the rest of our law (and financing the army of spies who are doing the trashing, as well).

 

If you don't, America-- the noble experiment-- continues its death spiral into totalitarian darkness, no matter what gets done about the surveillance-state outrages.

 

PLEASE!

 

MAKE THE CHOICE TO KEEP FAITH WITH THE FOUNDERS!!

 

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

-Samuel Adams