|
Taking Steps To Keep It Real
CtC Warrior Barry Sullivan came across an egregious, sustained error
in a very widely-used high school history textbook. The text is 'The
Americans: Reconstruction to the 21st Century', published by
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Within, there is a section on the United
States Constitution, and in that section are several wildly- and
dangerously-incorrect assertions about the various taxing provisions
in that fundamental law.
Recognizing the significance of the implantation of this bad
information in millions of impressionable young minds, Barry took
action with a letter to Houghton Mifflin Harcourt explaining the
errors. Barry's letter, the initial response from the publisher, and
a few more comments follow:
|
03/08/2013
Barry Sullivan
XXXX Xxxxxxxxxx Xxx.
Xxxxxxxx, XX XXXXX
Hoghton Mifflin Harcourt
9400 South Park Center
Loop
Orlando, FL 32819
RE:
The Americans:
Reconstruction to the
21st Century
ISBN 978-0-547-49117-2
I wish to call your
attention to some serious errors in the above mentioned
textbook published by your company:
In the review chapter
where it discusses the Constitution of the United
States, the text states that language which is no longer
in effect is crossed out.
On page 84, in Article 1,
Section 2, Clause 3, the words “... and direct Taxes...”
is crossed out. This is incorrect. As will be explained,
direct Taxes must still be apportioned among the several
States. This has never changed.
On page 89, in Article 1,
Section 9, Clause 4, the words “...or other direct ,
Tax...” and ...”unless in Proportion to the Census or
Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” are
also incorrectly struck out as no longer applicable.
On page 100, the text
incorrectly states that Amendment 16 modifies Article 1,
Section 9. This is also untrue. In the sidebar
“Constitutional Insight” it says that income tax is a
direct tax, when the truth is that it is excise tax.
These errors seem to stem
from widely held misconceptions of the meaning and
implications of the 16th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, a general ignorance
of the Supreme Court decisions regarding it, the nature
of the income tax itself, and the apparently deliberate
promotion of these misunderstandings by the
beneficiaries of the income tax.
Following the
ratification of the 16th Amendment, the
Supreme Court addressed the new amendment in Brushaber
v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916):
“We are of opinion,
however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather
arises from the conclusion that the 16th
Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of
taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which,
although direct, should not be subject to the regulation
of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.
And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption
will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions
in argument to support it...”
“But it clearly
results that the proposition and the contentions under
it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the
Constitution to destroy another, that is, they would
result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment
exempting a direct tax from apportionment into
irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement
that all direct taxes be apportioned.”
Here the Court was
pointing out that the 16th Amendment did not
modify Article 1, Section 9. (To do so would require
that it specifically stated that modification, as all
other repeals or modifications to portions of the
Constitution do.) The Amendment, therefore, cannot be
construed to be in conflict with, nor to modify, other
provisions of the Constitution, and has no effect on
their meaning.
Much of the confusion
surrounding the 16th Amendment is founded in
reverse logic based on an erroneous conclusion: that
private earnings or other private gains which are not
the result of federally granted privilege are subject to
federal taxation; and thus the 16th Amendment
must provide that they are. Neither the former nor the
latter are true:
“The terms ‘excise tax’
and ‘privilege tax’ are synonymous. The two are often
used interchangeably” American Airways v. Wallace 57
F.2nd 877,880
“The right to follow any
of the common occupations of life is an inalienable
right…” Butcher’s Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111
U.S. 746 (1883)
“Since the right to
receive 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, 205
Tenn. 694,337 S.W.2nd 453 Supreme
Court of Tennessee (1960)
“The income tax is not a
tax on income as such. It 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.” Morse Hubbard.
Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House
Congressional Record March 27th 1943, Page
2580.
It should be clear from
the above that the tax on “income” referred to in the 16th
Amendment is an excise, not a direct, tax on special
privilege, the value of which is measured by the gains
“derived” from the privilege. Since it is an excise tax
on privilege, it is an indirect tax and not subject to
regulation of apportionment. The fact that a vast
majority of Americans mistakenly believe that their
private earnings are subject to the tax, and unwittingly
and unnecessarily pay it, does not change the actual
nature of the income tax, nor the meaning of the 16th
Amendment.
The 16th
Amendment merely closed a “loophole” opened up by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust,
157 U.S. 429 and 158 U.S. 601 (1895).
“The Brushaber court also
seizes the opportunity reaffirm the core element of the
“income” tax by pointing out that the only way to
square the Sixteenth Amendment with Article 1, Sections
2 and 9 of the Constitution was through a fixed,
customized definition of what had been a legal term and
was now a Constitutional term; “income”. Because a tax
on “income” is necessarily an excise, whatever is
thus taxed as “income” MUST be confined to such things
to which an excise can properly be applied. As the court
puts it, taxation on “income” is,
‘…in its nature an excise
entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was
concluded that to enforce it would amount to
accomplishing the result which the requirement as to
apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent,
in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and
consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to
the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an
excise would not apply to it.”’
-Cracking The Code /
The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America, by
Peter Hendrickson
The 16th
Amendment only applies to gains of type already taxable,
(federal privilege), without regard that they derive
from the ownership of private property, such as stock
investments in federal instrumentalities, as in the
Pollock case.
“The Sixteenth Amendment,
although referrered to in argument, has no real bearing
and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent
decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or
excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion,
which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among
the several states of taxes laid on income, whether it
be derived from one source or another.”
It is my hope that you
understand that there is nothing “controversial” about
this subject.. There is only correct information and
incorrect information. The information I have provided
you with is correct. Regrettably, the information
contained in your textbook is incorrect.
Inasmuch as an embedded
misconception of what the income tax really is can
disastrously compromise the financial futures of
impressionable high school students, it is imperative
that you recall all of these textbooks, destroy them,
and reissue them with the appropriate corrections.
I would very much like to
know who the contributor is who provided the content in
the textbook to which this letter refers. Please return
that information to me at the address at the top of this
letter. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Barry Sullivan |
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt's response so far:
Barry's initiative and activism is a kind of
stepping-up-to-the-plate that is critically important today. It also
highlights a problem that extends far beyond just highly-influential
history texts like the one addressed here. Even what are supposed to
be "movement" organizations like the Cato Institute, which proudly
publishes a little pocket-sized booklet containing the founding
documents, makes a version of this error therein.
These promulgations of bad information must be denounced and
debunked and driven from our classrooms, especially, as well as from
our public discourse. Barry has done a very important thing here,
but his initiative needs the weight of your efforts, as well. I
urge each of you to follow Barry's lead here with a letter of your
own to these folks demanding the call-back of these errant texts and
their replacement with accurate information.
"Be the change you want to see in the world."
-Mahatma Gandhi
Doesn't it strike you as kind of
sadly funny that many people made much of the fact that members
of Congress didn't read the 'healthcare reform act' before
signing it, and yet those same folks won't bother reading the
tax laws before signing their own tax forms?
Care to post a comment on this
article? Log-on to the national forum!
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
Return to contents |
|
Are You Ready For More Power?
"Peter Hendrickson has done it again! 'Upholding The Law' does
for individual liberties what 'Cracking the Code' did for tax law
compliance: exposes the reader to the unalienable truth!"
-Jesse Herron, Bill Of Rights Press, Fort Collins, Colorado |
*****
|
Making The State Obey The Law
YOU KNOW WHAT? NEITHER YOU NOR I CAN MAKE A JUDGE OBEY THE LAW,
and it isn't even easy to keep just an errant bureaucrat to the straight and
narrow. And yet we all know that some such folks WILL disobey the law if not made to do
otherwise, and sometimes that is a problem for some in this community who are
singled-out for harassment of the sort discussed
here and
here.
But there is SOMETHING that CAN make these folks obey the law:
The knowledge that 300,000
Americans will recognize when official behavior is wrong and corrupt, and will
denounce it (and the knowledge that 300,000 Americans denouncing corrupt
behavior serving a state desire to steal money from the citizenry in general--
that is, through the misapplication of the income tax-- will
quickly grow to 3 million, and then 30 million).
Now, quickly getting 300,000 Americans (and then 3 million and then 30 million) to
reliably recognize when official behavior is wrong and corrupt based on their
own complete knowledge of the law can be tough. But happily, this isn't
necessary.
The happy fact is, even without knowing the truth about the tax everyone WILL
readily grasp that when "side A" has demonstrably cheated in a legal contest,
"side B" is the one who must be right about the legal issue in the contest.
Nothing more need be shown or understood than just the cheating itself.
Since the issue is the truth about the income tax, everyone
will also readily grasp that if "side B" proves that "side A" has
cheated, they have an intense personal interest in raising a hue and cry (the
roof, really), because it means that "side A" has been
screwing them out of their hopes and dreams for decades, and
will continue to do so unless they speak up and/or stand up.
SO, YOU AND I CAN MAKE A JUDGE OBEY THE LAW. All we have to do is show that "side A" has been cheating.
This is easy
as pie.
Since "side B" IS right about the law, "side A" has been doing a
LOT of
cheating over the last ten years. All of it is on the record, and demonstrating
it doesn't require a law degree or any complexity of presentation.
For instance, no one needs to understand legal nuances in
order to recognize cheating when in all other cases throughout our legal
history the term "includes" is acknowledged to mean "limited expansion" in tax
law (and just "limited", period, in general usage in law), but when the government faces a CtC-educated filer the DOJ and
courts suddenly pretend that's NOT what the term means. No one needs to be a
lawyer to understand what this is: plain and obvious evasion and foul play.
Simply reading the discussion of "includes" posted
here makes crystal-clear the
well-settled meaning of the term ("limited expansion" within a circumscribed
custom-defined class) and its unmistakable effect. Equally clear is the term's
effect in limiting what qualifies as
the "wages" from which withholding can be properly done and upon which the
general federal income tax and FICA taxes fall. No one capable of understanding
the words used can fail to grasp that only remuneration to the federal workforce
qualifies as "wages".
The implications are just as unmistakable: Any case where a penalty has been threatened
over someone's
unanswered sworn declaration to having not, in fact, received such "wages", or
where someone's unanswered
sworn declaration to having not, in fact, received such "wages" has been
disregarded in the "determination" of a liability, or deficiency, or
obligation of some kind, is a blatant and unmistakable case of cheating
(corruption) by the government. An unanswered sworn declaration axiomatically
stands dispositive of the matter-- it can't lawfully be denied, disputed or
disregarded.
Thus, no one needs to understand the underlying issues of
law or the legalisms, jargon and rationalizations with which the bad
conclusion is defended. All that need be known is that,
A. Only
federal-service remuneration actually does qualify as "wages" subject to the
corresponding rules (as plainly shown in the article referenced above);
B.
the victim had not received federal-service remuneration (as is established by
the unanswered testimony); and
C.
the victim was treated as though he or she had received it.
Nothing more is required. These facts, by themselves, establish
that the state has cheated in this contest, and therefore must
be asserting or defending an invalid position.
Some folks
paralyze themselves on this point by imagining that some failure on the victim's
part in "t-crossing" or "i-dotting" or form-usage or what-have-you generates a
legitimate pretext by which official cheating in such a case is somehow not
cheating or not an evasion or not wrong. But such musings miss the point (and
make one wonder if that isn't the goal of these musings, since imagining some
justification of this sort avoids the more challenging prospect of facing the
fact that the big-bad state is really just being big and bad).
The fact is, the
victim in such a case has plainly declared him or herself to not have received
"wages". At that point, no "t-crossing" or "i-dotting" or form-usage or
what-have-you is relevant unless and until it is proven by objective external
evidence in a context of acknowledgement of the limited meaning of "wages" that
this declaration is wrong. IF THIS PROOF IS NOT SQUARELY MADE, then no outcome
resting on the prospect that such "wages" WERE received is valid.
The desires of any
government official to justify or arrive at any particular outcome in a
case notwithstanding, there is no valid doctrine that says that even in the face
of an attestor's sworn testimony that he did not receive such "wages" he can be
deemed to have said otherwise (or to not have spoken at all) by virtue of a
"t-crossing" or "i-dotting" or form-usage or what-have-you factor, in a
"stealth-law" trap of some kind. Once the declaration is made, everything else
goes out the window unless the declaration is proven by objective external
evidence to be wrong.
At the same time,
in the absence of contrary evidence of the same weight, the declarant's
testimony is insurmountable. It is not that such unanswered testimony now stands in limbo,
awaiting approval of some sort. Rather, that testimony is the end of the
matter.
SO
THERE YOU HAVE ONE SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD EXAMPLE of all that
needs be done to start the process of making officials obey the
law. Anyone can do this, and if each of you reading these words
does it, this community will soon exceed 300,000
at-least-cheating-conscious (and consequently
income-tax-truth-conscious) activists ready to recognize and
denounce corrupt, lawless behaviors and rulings, and to raise
the roof on behalf of their own interests.
If
you know of any case in which these three elements appear, just
demonstrate them to neighbors, friends and acquaintances. Host a
barbeque with a corkboard on display containing the text of
BriefAndBright.pdf, the sworn testimony (1040 and 4852) of a
cheating victim, and the text of any tax agency or judicial
evasion or "penalty" threat. These things alone will be all that
need be shown. Sum it up in big, bold letters for your friends:
NOT ALL EARNINGS ARE "WAGES", AND ONLY "WAGES" ARE SUBJECT TO
THE TAX; THIS AMERICAN TESTIFIED THAT HE/SHE HAD NO SUCH
"WAGES"; RATHER THAN CITE TO CONTRARY EVIDENCE, THE TAX AGENCY
(OR COURT) EVADED THE ISSUE BY (DECLARING THE FILING
"FRIVOLOUS", IN MOST CASES, OR LIST WHATEVER WAS THE CASE).
Or, think of other ways to present the cheating and explain its
implications. Turn your creativity to this challenge, each of
you in your tens of thousands. Do videos. Do cartoons. Do
papers. Share your ideas with your state forum associates, and
share them with me so I can share them with everyone.
Do
your best. Even the 'Dove' chocolate people know the importance
of taking your righteous activism seriously; while I was writing
this very article Doreen came into my office to show me the
little message in the wrapper of the trifle she had just eaten:
"Don't settle for a spark... light a fire instead!"
Burn bright. As Sam Adams, architect of the first American
Revolution put it,
"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
Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend
Return to contents
|
|
CtC-Educated Lawyers: It's Way Past Time For
You All To Queue Up!
[Y]ou really need to familiarize
yourself with Pete Hendrickson's absolutely magnificent work at his website and
in his book(s). He has, brilliantly and lucidly, "cracked the code" regarding
the federal income EXCISE tax(es)."
-Mark C. Phillips, JD
"...I find your work fascinatingly simple to understand."
-Jerry Arnowitz,
JD
"Your book is a masterpiece!"
-Michael Carver, JD
"Received your book yesterday. Started reading at 11 PM, finished at 4 AM." "I have 16 feet (literally 16' 4.5") of documents supporting just about everything in your book." "Your book should be required reading for every lawyer before being admitted to any Bar." "I hope you sell a million of them."
-John O'Neil Green, JD
“Thanks
again for your efforts, Pete. They mean an awful lot to a lot of people.”
“…as an attorney, I am humbled by your knowledge and ability in navigating
the law. THANK YOU for your hard work and sacrifice.”
-Eric Smithers,
JD
"I am an
attorney and want to give a testimonial to your book, which I find to be
compelling. I am exercising these rights for myself and my adult children.
I'm even considering making this my new avenue of law practice."
Nancy "Ana"
Garner, JD
Learn what these colleagues already know, then step forward and
become part of a coordinated, mutually-supportive squadron focused
on developing strategy and deploying the law in courtrooms across
the country. There's a lot of suing that needs doing right
now.
Are
you ready for a challenge that'll put some real meaning behind all
the effort you went through to get your credentials? Send me
an email. |
Have You Taken A Military, Law Enforcement or Public Office Oath To Uphold And Defend The Constitution?
Renew Your Promise
*****
|
Illuminating
anniversaries of this week:
April 30- In 1492, Christopher Columbus receives his royal commission. In
1789, George Washington takes the oath of office as the first President
of the United States. Unlike modern holders of the office (and a
few bad moves during his tenure notwithstanding), he means it. In
1803, the United States purchases the Louisiana Territory from France
for $15 million. In 1812, the Territory of Orleans becomes the
18th of the several states, styling itself 'Louisiana'. In 1900,
Hawaii is declared a territory of the United States, with Sanford B.
Dole as governor. In 1900, Casey Jones wrecks the Cannonball
Express. In 1927, the first United States federal prison for women
opens. In 1938, Porky Pig goes on his first rabbit hunt. In
1945, Adolph Hitler and Eva Braun commit suicide. In 1993, the
World Wide Web goes public. In 2004, photos of grotesque detainee
abuse by officials at the United States Abu Ghraib prison facility in
Iraq make it to the media. In 2009, Chrysler files for bankruptcy. |
Set a brushfire-- E-mail
this newsletter to a friend
|
Where Is Clark Kent When You Need Him?
"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen
from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep
the Government from falling into error."
-United States Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson
|
|
SPOTLIGHT on ACTIVISM
CtC Warrior David Sides
says, "Bumper stickers? Nice, but NOT BIG ENOUGH!"
(By the way, Dave's got it precisely right-- If you want your power to
be secure, your neighbors have to be empowered with the same knowledge
that you've acquired. Click here for ideas
about spreading the truth-- which include normal bumper stickers
available for free, by the way....)
***
Photographed on 1-70 in Missouri
***
At a
rally outside the Alamo
***
CtC Warrior
Brian H. in Alaska has a great INDOOR approach to spreading the
transformational truth. Here's Brian's desk at his workplace:
You
notice the big glass container to the right of the CtC? Tasty freebies
for Brian's co-workers-- candy and brain-candy all in one:
|
'Don't Tread On Me' Polo Shirts Say It All!
Click Here To Get Yours Now!
*****
CLICK HERE FOR THE
LATEST 'TAX TIP'
*****
More Than Two Thirds Of The Several States That Collect "Income" Taxes
Have Now Acknowledged The Truth About The Law As Revealed In
CtC, And Have Issued
Complete Refunds Accordingly! See The Following Chart...
|
Illuminating
anniversaries of this week:
May 1- In 1328, England recognizes Scotland as an independent state after
32 years of attempted conquest. In 1931, the Empire State Building in New
York City is dedicated. In 1950, Guam is organized as a "State
of the United States". In 1960, the U2 spyplane piloted by Francis
Gary Powers is shot down over the Soviet Union. In 1971, the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is formed. In 2003, George W. Bush declares:
"Mission accomplished!" in Iraq. In 2006, the government of
Puerto Rico closes its Department of Education and 42 other government
agencies in responsible recognition of its fiscal situation. In 2011,
Barack Obama announces the assassination of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad,
Pakistan by a crack team of Navy Seals. The truth of this assertion is
unknown. Though arguably the most potentially-useful subject of
interrogation in US history (at least in the context of the alleged
"terrorist war" paradigm within which all of this happened), and though
described as unarmed and easily-taken, bin Laden was instead summarily shot
in the head. No body was ever seen; instead it is claimed that the
body was taken away by the SEAL team and then simply dumped at sea.
Considerable evidence exists indicating that bin Laden had actually died
years earlier, in December of 2001; further, the series of videos
purportedly of bin Laden making various pronouncements useful to the US
propaganda campaign supporting its foreign and domestic policies in the
intervening years were obvious fakes. |
Set a brushfire-- E-mail
this newsletter to a friend
'The BOSTONIAN'S Paying the EXCISE-MAN, or TARRING & FEATHERING' (1774)
(How our forefathers responded to arrogant "Rule of Law defiers"...)
*****
LostHorizons.com traffic stats now available for the past year (March 1,
2012 to March 1, 2013) show approximately:
2,000,000 page views during that period!
YOU DIDN'T THINK YOU WERE ALL ALONE, DID YOU?
*****
HELP SPREAD THE LIBERATING
TRUTH ABOUT THE TAX
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed,
second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as
self-evident.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer
Set a brushfire-- E-mail
this newsletter to a friend
Get your FREE* CtC bumper sticker and help spread the word!
Just send a stamped, self-addressed envelope to Lost Horizons, Bumper
Sticker Offer, 232 Oriole Rd., Commerce Twp., MI 48382
(*If you want to throw a few bucks into the envelope to help
with costs, that'd be nice, but it's entirely optional...)
Set a brushfire-- E-mail
this newsletter to a friend
*****
|
If You're Not Standing Up, Then You're Standing Down
..and "standing down" means "going down"
MY FRIENDS, IT IS MY SINCERE BELIEF that this community of
activists has been encouraged, inspired, enlightened and expanded over
the years by the steady posting here of
your ongoing victories on behalf
of the rule of law. Certainly, it has been my pride and my joy to help
you share with the world your honorable testament to the liberating
truth about the tax, widespread knowledge of which is so critical to the
well-being of ourselves, our children, and our beloved America.
However, unless YOU send those victories I can't post them. Unless YOU
stand up, your courage and commitment can't inspire anyone.
YOU WILL RECALL THAT FOR THE LAST YEAR OR SO I've been telling you that
we are in a transformational moment. Look around at what is going on
today and recognize the truth of what I say.
More than half the American population views the state as a threat.
As mainstream a publication as Forbes magazine is posting
articles about massive DHS ammunition and armored vehicle purchases.
The
LA Times,
NY Times,
Washington Times and other mainstream organs are editorializing
about Leviathan having grown too big, and gotten dangerously out-of-hand
(see stories at each of the preceding links). Rand Paul's filibuster
denouncing the lawlessness of Mordor-on-the-Potomac has prompted a major
buzz across the country.
Concurrently, this
CtC
community has been winning legal victories and refunds which are
ever-more significant and telling. Consider, for instance, the
half-dozen victories won during the last twelve months which qualified
for the EWWBL collection (starting
with episode 39). Every one of these is an especially illuminating
acknowledgement of the truth about the tax, and included in this handful
is a very significant two-time victory in a federal district court.
Things are happening!
HOW IT ALL SHAKES OUT is still up for grabs, though. This is not the
time for either complacency or paralysis, because both of those don't
amount to "doing nothing"-- instead they amount to "standing down". And
standing down means conceding the fight, letting all these eleventh-hour
sparks of light burn out unnurtured and the moment be a transformation
for the worse.
This is not the time for standing down. This is the time for a
FULL-COURT PRESS.
This is the time for educated American grown-ups to stand up tall and
firm, pulling others to their feet by their very gravity. This is the
time for leading the way.
STAND UP! SEND THOSE VICTORIES-- the new
ones, and those of the last few years as well. Click
here to learn how. Even if you don't have checks to scan, send your
testimonials. Learn how to do that
here.
|
|
A Much-Needed Twenty-Eighth Amendment
To The United States Constitution
HERE'S THE TEXT OF THE AMENDMENT I'M PROPOSING:
"The power of Congress to regulate Commerce with
foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with
the Indian tribes shall be exercised solely for the
purpose and to the effect of ensuring that such commerce
is unhindered and unburdened by any restrictions,
prohibitions or charges imposed from any quarter or by
any authority, other than such tariffs on foreign
imports as are elsewhere provided for herein."
The purpose of this amendment is to end the pernicious
resort to a misconstruction of the Commerce Clause by
Congress and the executive as a pretext for the assumption
of vast and never-authorized liberty-destroying powers, such
as drug prohibition, abusive “wetlands” regulations,
"gun-control" measures and much
else. The Commerce Clause was never actually a grant of such
powers.
Thomas Jefferson, discussing a proposal to create a national
bank, expressed the nature of the authority granted by the
commerce clause this way:
"...if this was [alleged to be] an exercise of the
power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as
extending as much to the internal commerce of every
State, as to its external. For the power given to
Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the
internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is
to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,)
which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but
to its external commerce only, that is to say, its
commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or
with the Indian tribes."
According to James Madison, the chief architect of the
Constitution, the purpose of the clause is "the relief of
the States which import and export through other States,
from the improper contributions levied on them by the
latter"-- in other words, preventing one State from
taxing goods passing through it into another.
This amendment will simply restore the Commerce Clause to
its proper and intended scope—preventing the several states
from interfering with the passage of goods and services
across their borders to or from the hands of their citizens
and residents.
PLEASE COPY THE TEXT ABOVE and send it to
your US congresscritters (rep and senators). As much as it might
be easier to get this pushed forward by the states, the only
method by that avenue calls for a Constitutional Convention,
not the proposing of a single amendment. The latter is what
we want (and we DON'T want the former). Have them tell you
what they do toward this purpose, and then you tell me, so I can coordinate their
effort with others and push for support nationwide.
Care to post a comment on this
article? Log-on to the national forum!
Return to contents
|
|
The Willingness Of Some People To Trade Liberty For Convenience Is
Without Limit
Some Observations About Current Political Efforts To
Evade The Truth, Such As The "Fair Tax" Scheme
Regarding "Tax Reform" |
"Taxes are not raised to carry on wars, wars are raised to carry on
taxes."
-Thomas Paine
Where
To Find Things On This Site
Law Professor James Duane Says: "Don't Talk To The
Police. Period."
Honest Cops Agree...
*****
The Newsletter is interested in your work! If
you are a writer, scholar, or just a dedicated Warrior with a worth-while
story to tell, please consider sharing your words and your wisdom with our
thousands of readers!
Click here to learn how.
'Letters to the Editor' should be addressed to 'feedback 'at' losthorizons.com', with "Editor" in the subject line.
*****
Films That Belong In Every Home Library
Set a brushfire-- E-mail
this newsletter to a friend
CLICK HERE TO INSTRUCT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES
Ever Wonder How Much An Unrestrained
FedState Would Like To Tap You For?
*****
Warrior David Larson shares this beautiful little farce, wryly
observing that,
"Depositors have "..not lost one penny.." - OK we could agree on that
simple statement ..how about the purchasing power
of that same penny 'not lost'?"
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
REGARDING MONEY
***
|
Illuminating anniversaries of this week:
May 2- In
1670, Charles II of England grants a perpetual charter to the Hudson's
Bay Company to ply the fur-trade from North America. In 1863,
General Stonewall Jackson is accidentally wounded by his own troops, and
dies of complications eight days later. In 1885, Good Housekeeping
magazine goes on sale. In 1918, General Motors acquires the
Chevrolet Motor Company. In 1932, Jack Benny's radio show hits the
airwaves. In 1945, Berlin falls to the Soviet Army. In 1998,
the European Central Bank is founded in Brussels.
|
Set a brushfire-- E-mail
this newsletter to a friend
Last Word
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We
seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that
feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen."
-Samuel Adams,
Architect of the First American Revolution
OK, Now Back To Your Regularly Scheduled Programming:
|
