United States Constitution
Amendment XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
One of the more wacky (and common) tax protester arguments is the one where it is claimed that the federal income tax constitutes involuntary servitude in violation of the thirteenth amendment of the Constitution.
Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925, 926 (10 th Cir. 1954), is the leading case on the issue. Here, in response to the taxpayer’s argument that the income tax constituted involuntary servitude of the kind prohibited by the 13th amendment, the Court said, “[I]f the requirements of the tax laws were to be classed as servitude, they would not be the kind of involuntary servitude referred to in the Thirteenth Amendment.”
Courts have consistently found arguments that taxation constitutes a form of involuntary servitude to be frivolous. Below is a list of other cases where the involuntary servitude argument was found to be frivolous.
Quatloos, the Financial and Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc., tells would-be tax protesters who wish to argue the merits of their absurd tax protester arguments to save their breath:
For some reason, people feel compelled to call us or send us e-mail to argue about the legitimacy of these theories. Well don’t, because we just don’t care.
As shown above, IT DOESN’T MATTER whether you are right or wrong because even if you are right (you’re not) these theories aren’t going to help you anyhow, since no court will recognize these theories and they will not stop the IRS from levying taxes, fines, and sanctions, or from seizing your property.
The only thing which matters to us is whether or not stuff works, and these theories have proven “in spades” that they don’t.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Even if by some miracle these Kool-Aid drinkers turned out to be correct, they’d still lose.
Other Court Cases:
United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 983 (8 th Cir. 1983) – the court affirmed Drefke’s failure to file conviction, rejecting his claim that the Thirteenth Amendment prohibited his imprisonment because that amendment “is inapplicable where involuntary servitude is imposed as punishment for a crime.”
Ginter v. Southern, 611 F.2d 1226 (8 th Cir. 1979) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s claim that the Internal Revenue Code results in involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.
Kasey v. Commissioner, 457 F.2d 369 (9 th Cir. 1972) – the court rejected as without merit the argument that the requirements to keep records and to prepare and file tax returns violated the Kaseys’ Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and amount to involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.
Wilbert v. Internal Revenue Service(In re Wilbert), 262 B.R. 571, 578, 88 A.F.T.R.2d 6650 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2001) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that taxation is a form of involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment, stating that “[i]t is well-settled American jurisprudence that constitutional challenges to the IRS’ authority to collect individual income taxes have no legal merit and are ‘patently frivolous.’
43 responses so far ↓
1 John // Feb 5, 2009 at 9:02 pm
It’s quite simple. Not all taxes violate the 13th Amendment. Yet some do. Any taxes taken from one American to directly benefit another constitute involuntary servitude. All programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and any Welfare, individual or corporate that are funded from taxes violate the 13th Amendment. Now, for those who say even if we’re right, we’ll lose. We’ll see about that. If it takes a massive tax revolt… we will take our country back from the theives and slave masters.
2 Peter // Feb 8, 2009 at 10:45 am
John,
Every Supreme Court since the enactment of the 13th amendment disagrees with you and has ruled that the income tax does not constitute “involuntary servitude.”
In short, the income tax is not only in fact constitutional, it has repeatedly and forcefully been declared to be constitutional by judiciaries as politically divergent as the Rehnquist and Warren courts.
It is obvious that you want taxes to be illegal so you won’t have to pay them.
You start with the result you want – taxes are illegal – and then fashion a frivolous argument that comports with that result.
I have not yet met a tax protester who has analyzed the actual Supreme Court decisions that have emphatically (and unanimously) found that the income tax does NOT violate the 13 amendment and provided a cogent legal argument showing that those rulings are wrong as a matter of law.
John, like all protesters, you want a thing to be true so badly that you do not allow anything to enter into your consciousness that might prove it false.
Denial ain’t a river.
Remember what Paul Simon said:
“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
3 Matthew // Mar 21, 2009 at 8:59 am
I wonder if the supreme court would feel any differently if the income tax contained a component which was allocated to directly benefit a private corporation, if it were to be determined that the indebtness of the taxpayer to the government (for said taxes) came about as a result of fraud or other high crimes, such as that involved with the transfer of monies to AIG (serving as a conduit to major private banking institutions such as Goldman Sachs, and actually engineered by the ultimate beneficiaries)
4 Peter // Mar 21, 2009 at 11:12 am
Matthew,
Thanks for visiting my site.
I really don’t understand what point you are trying to make or what it has to do with the absurd tax protester argument that the imposition of the income tax constitutes involuntary servitude.
5 Matthew // Mar 21, 2009 at 11:26 am
Never mind I already figured out the error in my logic. There is no requirement to perform work or service, per say, the tax is derived from work or service performed for reasons other than specifically paying the tax.
As you can see I’m not a lawyer, but I think you would provide more value by delineating the key elements of the actual decisions. Your response to “John” is critical of his initial presumption that the tax is illegal. However you also simply begin with a presumption, that the tax is legal. Then you fashion a frivolous argument; that is, one that is simply based on the fact of precedence (which is not the context in which non-lawyers think, i.e. just because it has been ruled, does not make it truth). In this case it appears to be a strong argument because it happens to align itself with the court’s decision. Nonetheless, it doesn’t provide any insight as to why the court has found the historical legal challenges to be invalid.
Additionally, and I apologize if I seem overly critical, but describing such challenges to taxation as “silly” when the supreme court has found them to have sufficient merit to hear them, indicates a narrow opinion with regard to different perspectives/philosophies on taxation as a whole. If you have had several of your own cases heard by the Supreme Court than I respectfully withdraw that statement and concur that you have some experience from which to judge the merit of cases heard by that court.
And all that aside, I give you due credit and appreciation for your efforts to educate, and the opportunity for people to leave such comments.
6 Matthew // Mar 21, 2009 at 11:31 am
Peter, the (invalid) point I was trying to make, or idea I was trying to suggest, was that somehow the current siphoning of public money into private corporations by people with interests in those corporations could change the nature of the argument…. and that somehow the court may find differently in that new context. But again, I now understand why it is not relevant to whether or not income tax consitutes involuntary servitude.
7 Peter // Mar 21, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Matthew,
Okay, get it.
Along those lines, consider that the U.S. government (ostensibly on behalf of “we the people”) owns almost 80% of AIG and it is proposing to tax away compensation packages already bargained for by private citizens.
If that doesn’t scare the beejawkers outta ya, nothing will.
8 Peter // Mar 21, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Matthew, in response to your earlier post:
It would take me 100 blog posts to explain the reasoning of those cases.
I don’t have the time nor the inclination to work that hard.
John (and you) should read those cases and tell me why you think they’re wrongly decided.
The burden is on the tax protester to prove that the Supreme Court has consistently incorrectly decided these matters.
Good luck with that.
P.S. basing an argument on precedent is the opposite of “frivolous.”
9 Rick // Aug 7, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Of course the courts our going to rule in favor of the government on taxes , it is a no-brainer . Obviously no one wants to fill out any kind of long , confusing form , and are doing it involuntary. The question is why not a sales tax , that would be non-intrusive into the lives of supposed sovereign free citizens? The courts may intellectualize it and call it what they will , but anyone can see it is involuntary servitude .
Does anyone think that one arm of the government would ever decide against taking power from another arm of the government in matters of controlling citizens or money!
10 Tomas // Dec 21, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Property tax violates the 13th Amendment forcing you into government servitude to keep your home. Income tax only violates the 13th amendment in that you can be fined or imprisoned if you fail to keep records and file a return. It matters not what lawyers or the Supreme Court say. The above is as true as any law of physics
11 Peter // Dec 21, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Tomas,
It doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court says?
I am hearing that Twilight Zone theme again.
12 Joel // Feb 9, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Has any court considered whether the mandatory labor of employers withholding employees’ taxes (or merchants collecting sales tax) constitutes involuntary servitude?
13 Michael Ward // Mar 22, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Peter,
The argument isn’t with the idea of an income tax but with a progressive income tax with regressive benefits. A flat income tax might not constitute involuntary servitude, but let’s examine the following example.
ninety percent of the population pays zero federal income tax.
ten percent of the population are forced to pay 90% income tax on all income over $75,000.
The ninety percent receive a plethora of benefits from free housing, free food, free transportation, and free medical care. The ten percent receive no benefits from the government.
Clearly the 10% are being forced to serve the 90% with almost zero ability to reduce their burden through voting because the 90% will ensure that the status quo is maintained. The people are left with the choice of becoming a successful slave or a poor slave-master.
Is there anything in the current view of the constitution that would prevent this situation from coming true?
Can you point me to a Supreme Court decision that would deal with this type of situation? Again, I am not talking about the income tax as a function but progressive income taxes with regressive benefits.
Truly, thank you for your time and knowledge.
14 Peter // May 2, 2010 at 10:25 am
Bob,
It doesn’t matter that you think the income tax is a violation of the 13th amendment. The 16th amendment says it’s legal. You are wasting your breath unless you think you can get enough politicians to agree to repeal the 16th amendment.
15 Shawn // May 8, 2010 at 9:03 pm
The 16th Amendment wasn’t even correctly ratified according to the law and was shoved through the day before Christmas Eve while many representatives and Senators were at home with there families. Sound familiar to the bailout? Income, as defined by the Constitution, does not include wages for labor only profits or corporate gains. I am aware the 16th amendment is somehow exempted from income taxes on the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes. Big question here. How is it that we all are to abide by the Constitution but an amendment that is not even legal doesn’t? We free thinkers call that unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional then it is illegal by law. Please argue that point.
16 Shawn // May 8, 2010 at 9:19 pm
And please don’t quote Article 26 of the IRS Tax code. The 16th amendment may have excluded itself from the Constitution but the government agency that was formed from it to collect taxes is not. The IRS is still liable to the Constitution so they are not exempt from the law. Article 26 is in direct violation of the 13th amendment. They use coercion if you do not pay income tax so how is that now a direct violation of the 13th amendment.
17 Shawn // May 8, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co. 240 US 103, at 112 (1916)
“By the previous ruling, it was settled that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation, possessed by Congress, from the beginning, from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged…”
Now try to argue with the Supreme Court on that one. Please remember all lower courts must abide by the Supreme Court so why have they all blatantly ignored this.
18 Peter // May 10, 2010 at 2:36 am
Shawn,
In spite of your passionate desire that the income tax be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has found it to be constitutional both in theory and in practice on numerous occasions.
Remember, this isn’t Neverland where if you want a thing bad enough all you have to do is believe in it and it will come true. In the real world, no amount of clapping is going to bring Tinkerbell back to life again.
Nice try, though.
19 Shawn // May 10, 2010 at 3:57 am
Why did you not post my comment on how the Supreme Court declared Congress had no new direct taxing power under the 16th amendment? Better yet why not post all three posts I submitted including the one on Article 26. Trying to belittle someone without disproving them doesn’t win your case against intelligent people.
20 Peter // May 10, 2010 at 4:04 am
Shawn,
Read my posts under the category Absurd Tax Protestor Arguments. It’s all there. There’s no need for me to repeat it here.
By the way, I don’t belittle you because you think the 16th amendment is unconstitutional, I belittle you because you’re a Gator!
21 steven // May 16, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Let’s look at this from a point of physical reality.
A slave LABORS to take cotton from the field in order to stoke the coffers of the plantation owner. failure to do so results in severe punnishment.
An employee LABORS a significant portion of his time in order to take money from his employer in order t o stoke the financial coffers of the government. Failure to do results in severe punnishment.
STATE THE DIFFERENCE.
22 Peter // May 17, 2010 at 8:19 am
Steven,
The difference is that plantation slaves had no choice as to whether or not they worked or where they worked or when they worked or the conditions of their jobs. Employees today do have those choices.
Furthermore, the federal government provides services to all citizens and residents of the U.S. If you don’t pay for those services through taxes, you are making the government and its workers your slaves.
Finally, have you ever driven on an interstate highway? Who do you suppose pays for that?
23 Shawn // May 17, 2010 at 11:09 pm
The taxes on all goods and services, local and federal, pay for all the services you speak of. The gasoline tax gives the government huge quantities of money alone. The Federal Income Tax in tied directly to the Federal Reserve, a private corporation. Income tax merely pays interest to a private organization ON OUR MONEY. All the other taxes paid on various levels pay for everything else, including the interstates. Our government was created to serve the will of the people and be afraid of us. Not the other way around. We call that Fascism. Take social security for example. A tax imposed on everyone with a job to support people that don’t want to work anymore or think I should pay for them. We all know Social Security will be gone before many of us can collect. I personally don’t rely on the government for anything and know I will never draw social security. Shouldn’t I be able to oped out if I so choose? Oh that’s right, you can’t. I am forced to pay into something I will never see. The same goes with income tax. Personal responsibility is long gone isn’t it? Just like the government’s responsibility to it’s citizens. When will people realize that you can’t be scared of the government or they will rule you further and take away even more liberties. Peter please quit trying to live up to the status quo and think for yourself. Our government is a monster that needs to be cut down to size.
24 steven // May 18, 2010 at 4:11 am
Shawn is correct, the gasoline tax pays for the highways. This tax exsists on both the state and federal levels. The income tax pays for GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE, not NATIONAL PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
Furthermore, most of the government services you implied I will never be entitled to. The founding fathers actually advocated against profesional career politicians. Why should I be forced to pay their salaries? All I should be paying for is the military and national security. It was originally proposed that this was to be funded through taxes on imported finished goods. This was a very economically and ethically sound principal. Instead, I am forced to labor for the government for this. Let us not forget that the American animal was intended to be as tax free as possible!
One must work to survive in this human society. There is no avoiding it. I was enrolled in the system without my prior knowlege or concent due to my age. No alternatives have ever been provided. This makes the matter INVOLUNTARY. The only way out is through EXPATRIATION. This action leaves the individual with no working capacity whatsoever.
Peter, In order for your arguments to logically apply, The people of the land must be availed of what I call a ROGUE CITIZEN CONTRACT.
Under such a contract I would VOLUNTARILY opt out of any and all government benifit entitlements, and therefore, be liable for none. I still, however, still be bound to constitutional common law, AND THAT IS ALL. Currently this option is not available to any “citizen”.
Again, I iterate the question of how this is anything less than involuntary servitude?
25 Peter // May 18, 2010 at 8:10 am
steven,
Thanks for visiting.
Under your definition of involuntary servitude, any law that requires a person to do a thing or refrain from doing a thing is slavery.
For instance, you are not free to drive faster than the speed limit and you must wear clothes in public.
The Supreme Court has addressed the involuntary servitude argument many times. Both liberal and conservative jurists agree that the income tax is not a violation of the 13th amendment.
The case is pretty much closed.
26 Peter // May 18, 2010 at 8:12 am
Shawn,
I suggest you pay your taxes, but if you don’t and the IRS catches you I would be more than happy to defend you. Just give me a call.
By the way, I am opposed to high taxes and agree that the government is too big. But that doesn’t mean I think the income tax is slavery.
That’s just silliness.
27 steven // May 20, 2010 at 3:28 am
Peter,
Your last argument contains holes in two different ways:
FIRST
To refrain or not refrain from doing something (as per your examples) is simply a matter of establishing a matter of civyl decency. THAT IS WHAT COMMON LAW IS ALL ABOUT. I see no connection between this philosophy and the matter at hand.
SECOND
These elements require no element of labor or service to impliment. They do nothing to bolster either financially or materially the resources of another entity.
The income tax, however, does through coercion.
28 Peter // May 20, 2010 at 7:44 am
Steven,
Maybe, but it’s not slavery and it’s not a violation of the 13th amendment.
29 Michael Ward // May 30, 2010 at 10:24 am
Peter, I still do not think anyone has made the slavery point as clear as my previous post. Why have you not approved it yet? I tried posting it on Mar 22, 2010.
Thank you.
30 Peter // May 30, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Michael,
It’s up now.
31 steven // Jun 3, 2010 at 5:56 am
If it’s not slavery, the you must,then, define your definitoin of slavery and involuntary servitude.
32 Peter // Jun 3, 2010 at 8:36 am
steven,
All laws “coerce” people to do what they may not wish to do. That doesn’t make it slavery.
33 John // Jul 11, 2010 at 3:05 am
On the other side of the pond the European Court of Human Rights have Article 4 based on the 13th Amendment. This is much more explicit but is useful in determining why the Supreme Court would not consider taxes to be held subject to the 13th.
“article 4 exempts, labour during imprisonment
(for crimes), during military service, during an act of emergency AND for normal Civic duties”
It is the last item which exempts taxes from being caught by the 13th. Taxes are part of your civic duty to ensure that the country remains secure and can support it’s citizens in a way that is civilized.
34 Peter // Jul 11, 2010 at 8:26 am
John,
Very interesting. Thanks.
Of course, when we demolish one absurd argument against taxes, they just concoct another.
35 Alejandro Argerich // Sep 29, 2010 at 5:12 pm
At the risk of sounding like a “frivolous nut job”, here’s my two cents:
1. Porth v. Brodrick
POINT A – Judgment reads…“if the requirements of the tax laws were to be classed as servitude, they would not be the kind of involuntary servitude referred to in the Thirteenth Amendment”
My point: “as opposed to what, voluntary servitude? Like military service or the civil service? What, may I ask, in the court’s consideration, could possibly qualify the nature of any such service as “voluntary”??
Did I take an oath to pay taxes and file each year? Did I sign an agreement? Is there any legal vehicle that any IRS official can show me where I have voluntarily agreed to such service other than an arbitrary opinion of de-facto service (i.e. “because we said so!”)???
I’d sure as hell like to see it.
POINT B – Judgment reads…..Porth’s 13th-Amendment challenge was
“clearly unsubstantial and without merit” as well as “far-fetched and frivolous”.
MY POINT –
Ok, fine. It’s the court’s prerrogative to find as it pleases – HOWEVER, there’s a larger indication within the tax attorney community that THIS PARTICULAR 13th-A. claim’s absurdity applies to ALL 13th-A. claims.
Whatever happened to judging a case on its merits? Jurispridence is one thing, but if I file a petition based on a 13th-Amendment argument that DIFFERS from Porth’s….shouldn’t my petition be considered on its own merit and not simply brushed aside because someone else had a related case based on different arguments dismissed and labeled “frivolous”?
My contention is not the same as his. So then why is my case “frivolous” right off the bat?? That’s not jurisprudence, that’s negligence of the duty to perform JUDICIAL REVIEW – or, in other words, it’s just plain old LAZYNESS.
2. Ginter v. Southern, responding to 13th Amendment Challenge by Plaintiff:
Judgment reads…“The constitutional claims are based upon arguments so frivolous that we do not discuss them in any detail”
MY POINT – Ok, fine.
But I’d like to see them anyway. Funny, the whole case history and pleadings of most every federal case is freely available online and just a google search away…EXCEPT THIS ONE!
No pleadings from the plaintiff, ANYWHERE. No motions. No case history of any kind beyond the Apellate Court’s judgment.
How convenient.
SO IF I AM SO WRONG, THEN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN IT TO ME WITHOUT QUOTING IRRELEVANT CASES.
POINT 1 – The US Constitution, Amendment 13, says ” Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
POINT 2 – 18 USC § 1589 says
“(a) Whoever knowingly provides or obtains the labor or services of a person by any one of, or by any combination of, the following means— …
(I don’t think #s 1, 2 or 3 apply BUT..)
…(4) by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person to believe that, if that person did not perform such labor or services, that person or another person would suffer serious harm or physical restraint,
(then reading on down)
(c) In this section:
(2) The term “serious harm” means any harm, whether physical or nonphysical, including psychological, financial, or reputational harm, that is sufficiently serious, under all the surrounding circumstances, to compel a reasonable person of the same background and in the same circumstances to perform or to continue performing labor or services in order to avoid incurring that harm.”
SO, LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT:
1. No one can hire me without a taxpayer ID or Social Security.
2. In being issued a Social Security or Tax ID number, I have not volunteered for any kind of service, expressed or denied. The only time I have volunteered was enlistment in the Army, many years after having received such SSN or Tax ID number.
3. The very act of any employer paying me for my labor requires my employer to withold part of that payment as a tax. At year’s end, I must compute how much I paid vs. how much I was supposed to pay, and file accordingly. I cannot opt out of this system.
4. Should I file a W4 that shows no taxes, fail to pay taxes, fail to report taxes, the IRS threatens me with garnishment of wages, liens on my property, and/or imprisonment.
5. The IRS does not FORCE me to work. However, under any circumstances, if I do work for either monetary or non-monetary remuneration, the IRS demands I fully comply or face the consequences it threatens me with.
6. Not being a landowner where I may grow crops and not owning livestock that I may slaughter and consume – a rarity in the 21st century for most – I therefore can have no hope whatsoever of livelihood, sustenace, shelter or financial stability.
My only option is, therefore, to work and in doing so, comply with the IRS’s witholding and reporting system, should I wish to continue living.
HOW IN THE HELL DOES THIS NOT VIOLATE § 1589?????? HOW IS THIS NOT THE MOST SERIOUS KIND OF THREAT TO A CITIZEN’S PSYCHOLOGICAL AND FINANCIAL WELL-BEING??
THE VERY ABILITY OF BEING ABLE TO STAY ALIVE IN THE MODERN WORLD DEMANDS I WORK!!
THE VERY FACT OF BEING COMPENSATED FOR MY LABOR MEANS THE IRS CAN TAKE 25% OF MY EARNINGS!!! A FOURTH!!!
And if I don’t comply, they levy my property, they levy my wages, and they imprison me.
And they say slavery is illegal…
36 Peter // Oct 1, 2010 at 9:24 am
Alejandro,
You apparently object to governments enacting any laws whatsoever. If requiring citizens to pay taxes is “slavery” because they didn’t sign an agreement consenting to pay taxes, then requiring them to obey any law absent their explicit consent is also slavery.
This is both frivolous and nutty.
We live in a republic. We elect representatives to enact the laws that all of us must follow. When you accept any of the benefits provided by the federal government – national defense or the use of interstate highways, for example – you give your consent to the payment of taxes.
How dare you accept federal government benefits and then insist that the government is enslaving you?
Income taxes are legal and have been consistently ruled to be legal for nearly 100 years. You are beating your head against a granite wall and it’s silly and childish.
Just ask Wesley Snipes.
37 Common Sense // Dec 8, 2010 at 2:09 pm
You argue that the Government provides you benefits with the money they take…
Who defines whether those benefits are acceptable to YOU, the individual???
Slave owners would tell you they kept the proceeds of the day–that they saw as fair–in exchange for “benefits” they provided their slaves. And they would of told you that the slaves should be grateful for being taken care of… funny how the slaves thought different.
huh, those two income tax systems sound vaguely competitive… “I will take your wages, and I will tell you what’s good for you.”… it’s just one of the systems wants to give you the fallacy that you’re not rooted to just one landowner… i.e. you can work on any street you choose, but at the end of the day? Uncle Sam is still your pimp.
38 Common Sense // Dec 8, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Isn’t it weird that when the 16th Amendment was passed, that to that point in history, the notion of income tax was that of being no higher than 6%–even on the highest incomes???
That’s weird, it’s as if some sort of slippery slope was created that we then just couldn’t crawl out of…
39 Dialogues with Tax Protesters // Mar 10, 2011 at 10:36 pm
[...] Volume # 5 – Absurd Tax Protester Arguments – Taxes Violate 13th Amendment Proscription … Bookmark & Share: [...]
40 Evan // Jun 1, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Typical of a tax attorney – boot licking the Supreme Court in order to satisfy their love of complicated gobbly-goop. The ultimate decision of what is or is not constitutional is not made by the Supreme Court, but by the States ability to say what the constitution means because (a) they created it and (b) they reserved the ultimate right to amend it. The Supreme Court is ultimately only the interpreter of federal laws that ARE constitutional. It has, for most of its history, usurped the States powers and twisted the federal system into an unrecognizable mess. I am a lawyer too, and unfortunately you, sir, have bought into the kool-aid crapola dished out in law school.
41 Peter // Jun 2, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Evan, excuse me, but I’m due back on earth in five minutes.
How can you possibly have graduated from law school and passed the bar exam without knowing that the Supreme Court is, in fact, “the ultimate [decider] of what is or is not constitutional?”
Pay your taxes and stop free-loading.
42 SomeoneElse // Feb 18, 2012 at 11:15 pm
If the U.S is over 200 (222 to 229 by some accounts) years old and taxes have only been collected for the past 100, where did the U.S. get it’s money to provide services before enacting the 16th amendment?
There was still National Defense before taxation. Railroads are much more efficient than driving trucks and cars, but yet G.M. and other corporations made sure we wouldn’t have those benefits.
Our money is no longer backed by Gold and Silver reserves?
The role of the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter is to interpret the law in the way it was written, not make up their own based on payoffs by the IRS, the IMF, or any other corporation.
I don’t need to go to law school for 3 or 4 years to be educated on the lies of lawyers and what I’ve learned over the past 38 via experience.
Please explain why Senators can inside trade on stocks of corporations before they fail and not fall under the same laws of the common man that prohibit it.
Please explain why members of Congress have their own private retirement fund and don’t have to pay into Social Security.
43 Peter // Feb 21, 2012 at 10:13 am
SomeoneElse,
I don’t have to answer any of your questions. The Supreme Court has a thousand times completely refuted all or your wacky tax protester arguments. I refer you to those cases for your answers, assuming you really want them, which we both know you don’t.
The law is what the Supreme Court says it is.
Oh, and the reason why Senators can inside trade and private citizens cannot is because the law permits it. And the reason why members of Congress have their own private retirement fund and don’t have to pay into SS is because the law permits it.
And you look weak and pathetic when you make excuses for not being able to get into law school.
Leave a Comment