Before the Income Tax by G. Edward Griffin This report is adapted from two earlier articles by G. Edward Griffin appearing in the April 13, 1987 and February 29, 1988 issues of THE NEW AMERICAN. Mr. Griffin, a journalist and film producer, is the author of The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve.
It is a sobering thought that the federal government could operate - even at its current level of spending - without collecting any taxes whatsoever. All it has to do is create new money through the Federal Reserve System, a process called monetizing the debt. As a matter of fact, much of the money it now spends is obtained that way. The politicians who authorize that process know that this is not true debt, because no one in Washington really expects to repay it. It is merely a means of raising money to run the government without increasing taxes. Actually, the inflation that results from monetizing debt is just as much a tax as any other, but, because it is hidden and so few Americans understand how it works, it is far easier to collect than a tax that is out in the open.
So the question arises: Why does the federal government bother with taxes at all? Why not just operate on monetized debt? The answer is twofold. First, if it did, people would begin to wonder where the money is coming from, and that might cause them to wake up to the reality that inflation is a tax. Thus, open taxes, at some level at least, serve to perpetuate public ignorance regarding the reality of deficit spending. But the second reason is more to the point of this report. It is that taxes, particularly progressive taxes, are weapons by which social planners can wage war on one class of citizens for the benefit of another.
Tool for Social Planning
The January 1946 issue of American Affairs carried an article by Beardsley Ruml, who at the time was chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Ruml devised the system of automatic withholding during World War II, so he was well qualified to speak on the nature and purpose of the federal income tax. His theme was spelled out in the title of his article: "Taxes for Revenue Are Obsolete."
In the introduction to the article, the magazine's editor summarized that Ruml's "thesis is that, given control of a central banking system and an incontrovertible currency [a currency not backed by gold], a sovereign national government is finally free of money worries and need no longer levy taxes for the purpose of providing itself with revenue. All taxation, therefore, should be regarded from the point of view of social and economic consequences."
Ruml explained that, since taxes are no longer needed to raise revenue for the government, there are only two purposes remaining. The first of these is to combat increases in the general price level. When people have money in their pockets they will spend it for goods and services, and this will bid up prices. The solution, wrote Ruml, is to take the money away from them and let the government spend it instead. This, too, will bid up prices, but never mind about that. Ruml explained it this way:
The dollars the government spends become purchasing power in the hands of the people who have received them. The dollars the government takes by taxes cannot be spent by the people, and therefore, these dollars can no longer be used to acquire the things which are available for sale. Taxation is, therefore, an instrument of the first importance in the administration of any fiscal and monetary policy.
The other purpose of taxation, according to Ruml, is to redistribute the wealth from one class of citizens to another. This must always be done in the name of social justice or equality, but the real objective is to override the free market and bring society under the control of the master planners. Ruml said:
The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes which are effective for this purpose are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax. What these taxes should be depends on public policy with respect to the distribution of wealth and income. These taxes should be defended and attacked in terms of their effect on the character of American life, not as revenue measures.
Ruml's view will not be startling to anyone familiar with how the income tax came into existence. Beginning with the War Between the States, the Marxist philosophy of class conflict became manifest in America. Many people wrongly believe that Marxism is a battle of the poor against the rich. In reality, it is a campaign against the middle class - the class that Karl Marx called the bourgeoisie. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote: "The distinguishing feature of Communism is, not the abolition of private property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property." In order to accomplish this, he called for a "heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
Soaking the Rich?
Once this concept of class warfare had been transplanted to America, it found nourishment in the labor movement and eventually blossomed into a powerful political movement known as populism. The populists claimed that the farmers and the urban working class were being exploited by rich industrialists, largely through the unfair way in which taxes were levied. At that time, the nation's revenue was drawn primarily from internal excise taxes on the sale of such items as tobacco and liquor, and from tariffs on imports. Today, tariffs are viewed as a means of protecting jobs for American workers, but in the political debates of the 1890s they were seen as subsidies for big business, a means of protecting them from the rigors of foreign competition, thus allowing bloated profits that would not be possible without political protection. Furthermore, since these tariffs were passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices, they were viewed as nothing but a tax levied against the little man to perpetuate the unearned profits of the rich.*
The populists advocated the elimination of tariffs and the institution in their place of a progressive income tax. The move was perceived as an act of justice and revenge. The rich, at long last, were going to be forced to pay their fair share - and more. In the House of Representatives, Congressman Thomas J. Hudson of Kansas expressed the prevailing populist sentiment: "I know that many wealthy men are generous and charitable.... On the other hand, the majority of the very wealthy are haughty, overbearing, autocratic, mean, and it is that class in particular that the income tax is designed to reach."
Yes, working, middle class Americans were in the firm majority, and any politician who promised to "soak the rich" was assured of victory at the polls. How ironic it was that those same politicians came from some of the wealthiest families in the world. Little did the common voters realize that in their greed to shift the tax burden to others, they were, in fact, placing that burden more heavily on themselves.
Our "progressive" income tax is not progressive at all. In fact, it is not even proportionate. If we had a flat-rate income tax with no exemptions or deductions, a person with 20 times the income of another would pay 20 times as much tax. By contrast, a progressive or graduated income tax may require a person with 20 times the income of another to pay considerably more than 20 times as much tax. But the way it was designed to operate is quite different. The same year that the income tax was adopted, Congress also created the tax-exempt foundation, a device whereby, under cover of charity and education, those family dynasties with great wealth can avoid paying either income tax or inheritance tax, while their fortunes remain under their control and continue to operate for their benefit.
Not far behind the super rich come the very rich, who also share in the spoils system. Over the years, the tax laws have become twisted and turned into a Gordian knot of exemptions, deductions, depreciations, shelters, and credits. Those with sufficient wealth can well afford to hire professionals to trace these convoluted paths, but the common man must be content with "standard" deductions and the crumb of a "simplified" tax return.
The federal income tax was never meant to treat all citizens alike. It will never be fair because it was designed to be unfair. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine a tax that is more cumbersome and expensive to administer. So that each individual's income may be determined, the taxpayer must produce documentation on every aspect of his financial life. In order to assure compliance, a virtual army of agents, auditors, and computer technicians must be maintained at public expense. In the dust of this roving army are the hordes of camp followers, the accountants and tax attorneys, all of whom consume massive chunks of the national wealth without producing anything except paperwork and procedures just to measure income. In the process, every detail of our lives is recorded and made available to the bureaucracy. The right to privacy and protection against arbitrary search and seizure is trampled underfoot.
The income tax cannot be reformed. Its heart and soul are favoritism. Its muscle is political power. Its nature is waste and tyranny. It must be completely replaced.
But what should replace it? The world has been exposed to just about every kind of tax imaginable at some point in history. Nations have tried property tax, production tax, excise tax, import tax, manufacturing tax, carriage tax, window tax, chimney tax, liquor tax, tobacco tax, income tax, sales tax, value-added tax, and even a tax on death. The results have almost always been the same. The taxes become despised by the people and often lead to revolt or civil war.
Past Precedent
Fortunately, in our search for a fair tax that raises sufficient revenue, we do not have to begin from scratch. It may come as a surprise to learn that much of the work has been done and that the bulk of the plan has been drafted. Furthermore, it has actually been tested in America and found to be entirely workable. Where is this plan to be found? It is hidden where it is most unlikely to be discovered by the general public or Congress. It is in the Constitution of the United States.
After the Revolutionary War was won there was no way the colonists were going to create a new centralized government with the power to tax. They had had enough of that with England. So when the Articles of Confederation were finalized, they granted no taxing power at all. Whatever was needed had to be requested from the states, and the states were under no firm obligation to pay. Within a few years the impracticality of this arrangement was painfully obvious. The federal government had almost no funds with which to operate and, in fact, Congress did absolutely nothing for four years.
It is possible that the United States would have disintegrated into 13 separate nations with no way to protect themselves from foreign aggression had it not been for a series of tax revolts within the states. The most famous of these was Shay's Rebellion of 1786-87 in Massachusetts. In protest over excessive taxes levied by the state, a brigade of 2,000 armed insurgents blockaded the Springfield courthouse. The band was eventually dispersed by a few cannon volleys, but the incident served to dramatize the fact that none of the states was really prepared for military action on any sizable scale. The disturbance emphasized the need for a stronger central government, and a convention was called for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.
Constitutional Convention
Once the convention was assembled in Philadelphia, the delegates quickly abandoned the idea of trying to revise the Articles. They were too flawed for repair. Everyone now agreed that the central government simply could not function unless it had some power of taxation. But what would that power be?
The overriding concern for all was that the new tax must act equally on the majority and the minority. Regardless of which citizens might find themselves in the majority, they must not be allowed to tax others in any way beyond what they tax themselves. There was unanimous consent on this principle.
Another principle was a direct outgrowth of the tradition of no taxation without representation. The colonists had just fought a war to establish that point. Conversely, if one has representation, then he must pay taxes. Since the whole purpose of representation was to consent - or object - to the levying of taxes, it follows that no one should have a voice in these matters who is not paying those taxes. All citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law, but only those who pay taxes shall be entitled to vote.
In an attempt to apply these broad principles of taxation, the convention delegates struggled with very practical problems. The seaboard states with extensive commercial shipping were reluctant to give up their right to collect import duties, because it was their main source of revenue. Those from the industrialized areas were fearful of taxes placed on manufacturing. Those from the agricultural provinces were hostile to land taxes. All parties were convinced that sooner or later a political majority would seize control and force them, as a potential minority, into tax servitude. After months of debate, it began to appear that the states were in hopeless deadlock. Then - many are convinced it was by divine intervention - a compromise was reached. No, it was more than a compromise. It was an absolutely brilliant plan for taxation. Unfortunately, it was never given a formal name. Those who drafted it were content merely to describe it in terms of its features. For the purposes of this report, however, we shall call it the "Uniform Apportionment Tax."
The Constitution acknowledges two kinds of taxes: direct and indirect. Direct taxes, as the name implies, are charged directly to the person who ultimately pays them. Examples of direct taxes are income and property taxes. Although they may be thought of as taxes on income or on property, remember that only people pay taxes: Money and property do not. Direct taxes, therefore, regardless of what they may be based on are charged directly to the ultimate taxpayer.
Indirect taxes, on the other hand, are levied on a commodity with the expectation that the taxes will be passed along to the consumer as part of the market price of the commodity. Examples of indirect taxes are import and excise taxes. The taxpayer always knows when he is paying a direct tax, but is often unaware of the indirect tax.
Danger of Direct Taxes
Direct taxes were viewed by the Founding Fathers as dangerous because they give government great power over its citizens and also because, in order to assess such taxes, agents must have the authority to snoop into the private lives of the citizens. They agreed, therefore, that direct taxes are safer if administered by the states, where elected representatives are closer to the people and easier to control.
Indirect taxes, on the other hand, were viewed as less dangerous, because people could avoid them if they wanted merely by not purchasing the items being taxed. This assumes the establishment of taxes only on those items that are considered nonessential, such as liquor and tobacco, often called luxury taxes. Furthermore, the process of collecting indirect taxes does not endanger the individual's right of privacy.
For these reasons, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention agreed that indirect taxes would be more appropriate for the federal government. The compromise that allowed the states "to form a more perfect union" consisted of two provisions:
1) The federal government was to derive its primary revenue from indirect taxes, and these were to be uniform in all states.
2) In the event of war or similar emergencies, the federal government, with the consent of Congress, would have authority to levy direct taxes "passed through" the states to their citizens, but these were to be proportional to the number of representatives that each state had in Congress.
This process is called apportionment. In other words, if there were 100 representatives in Congress, and the state of Virginia had seven of them, the voters in Virginia would have to pay seven percent of the direct national, emergency tax. The specific wording establishing the Uniform Apportionment Tax is found in Article I of the Constitution, and specifies:
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union.... The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.... No capitation [a head tax, sometimes called a poll tax], or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
A sample of the extensive historical record of the founding era demonstrates the reasoning of the men who created the concept. Alexander Hamilton, who was to become the first Secretary of the Treasury, wrote in The Federalist, #21:
Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will in time find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions.... If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds.... Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country. Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment.
Emergency Measure
It was a cardinal point to these discussions that the power of direct taxation through apportionment was to be exercised only to pay for debt incurred as a result of war, insurrection, or similar emergencies, but not for the normal operation of the federal government. That function was to be financed by indirect taxes alone. James Madison commented:
When, therefore, direct taxes are not necessary, they will not be recurred to.... It can be of little advantage to those in power to raise money in a manner oppressive to the people.... Direct taxes will only be recurred to for great purposes.... If this country should be engaged in war - and I conceive that we ought to provide for the possibility of such a case - how would it be carried on?... How is it possible a war could be supported without money or credit? And would it be possible for a government to have credit without having the power of raising money? No; it would be impossible for any government, in such a case, to defend itself. Then I say, sir, that it is necessary to establish funds for extraordinary exigencies, and to give this power to the general government.
To the Founding Fathers, the primary purpose of apportionment was to block the central government from using the power of direct taxation - except in times of great national emergency. The barrier was not in the formula of distributing the tax load among the states, but in the procedure for doing so. To lay a direct tax, Congress had to do certain things that no government wants to do. Since each tax is a separate project, each would have to be written into a revenue act. The purpose and the amount of the tax would have to be clearly stated, and then debated and voted upon. When the tax was collected, the revenue act would expire, and the door to more money would be closed.
How different this is from the ongoing power of general taxation, under which the purpose is seldom known, the amount is always in doubt, and the process is endless. The rule of apportionment, therefore, was the greatest restraint on the power and reach of government that had yet been devised by man, and it is little wonder that it became a thorn in the side of federal politicians in the years to follow.
Of course, the Uniform Apportionment Tax was not flawless. In truth, there can never be a perfect tax if the people cannot afford it. When Hamilton became the first Secretary of the Treasury, he persuaded Congress to authorize the nation's first indirect tax. It was an excise on whiskey, a few luxury items, auction sales, and negotiable instruments. It was excellent in theory, but it was a heavy tax - resulting in a whopping 25 percent increase in prices - and it led to a full-scale revolt. Rumors quickly spread that the government was about to extend these taxes to all articles of consumption, including food and clothing. This would be the European experience all over again. Excessive excise taxes were what had driven many immigrants to seek refuge in America. So it is not surprising that this first experiment was met with large-scale public resistance.
The biggest ruckus came from the Western farmers. Because there was a shortage of money along the frontier, it had become common to use whiskey as a medium of exchange. Grain was too bulky for transport, so the farmers grew rye, distilled it into whiskey, and moved their produce into national trade in that form. For the frontiersman, therefore, a tax on whiskey was not an excise tax or luxury tax at all. It was a 25 percent tax on their basic crop, and they complained that no other farmers and no other producers of manufactured goods had to pay a similar tax - which was quite true. By 1794 the entire region was in open revolt. Tax collectors were tarred and feathered and their houses were burned to the ground. When a judge of the Supreme Court declared a state of insurrection in western Pennsylvania, President Washington called out the militia from adjacent states and, in a show of force, led these troops in full-dress uniform.
Fortunately, military confrontation was averted: The rebels surrendered in return for amnesty, no one went to jail, and within a few months the excise tax was repealed.
First Direct Tax
In 1798, Congress levied its first direct tax. It was in the amount of $2 million and was apportioned among the states on the basis of the current census, which was also the basis for the number of representatives each state had in Congress. The purpose of the tax was to extinguish part of the debt incurred by the Revolutionary War. Reduction of the national debt was viewed as one of those rare emergencies that would justify resorting to the extreme measure of a direct tax. In this case, the tax was levied on dwellings, land, and slaves. It did not provide for any deductions or exemptions, but, sadly, it was progressive in nature, with larger homes paying more per $100 of value than others.
Herein lay one of the hidden flaws in the tax concept of the Founding Fathers. They had inherited the feudal concept of noblesse oblige, the obligation of noblemen to take care of their inferiors and assume greater responsibility of government. By 1776, however, especially in America, this concept had lost its virtue. In a republic such as ours, there is no justification for allowing class distinctions into the law - and that includes tax law. If one class can be exempted from taxes on the basis of class, rank, or wealth, then that same group can be singled out later for extra taxes on the same basis, depending merely on the political majority at the time. The principle of taxing those with wealth at a higher rate than others must have seemed harmless at the time - perhaps even humanitarian - but it was destined to fester into a huge boil that would torment Americans for many generations to come.
All of these issues aside, the fact remains that the first direct tax in the United States was entirely constitutional. Congress had stated the purpose and the amount. It had been debated and passed. Most important, once collected, the tax would expire. In spite of these constraints, however, the tax met with considerable resistance and, in fact, soon led to a second revolt, this one among German settlers along the Eastern Seaboard. Pennsylvania's quota of the $2 million tax was $273,000, which fell mainly on land and houses. The valuation of houses was estimated by counting the number and size of windows, a practice inherited from England. But when the tax assessors arrived, the German residents thought they were reviving the hated European hearth tax. They organized into small bands and set out to assault the assessors and drive them from the district, which they did in short order. When some of the rebels were arrested and put into prison, an auctioneer named John Fries led a march on the courthouse and freed them. President John Adams once again called out the militia. Fries was captured, tried, and convicted of treason, but later received a presidential pardon.
Early Decentralization
By the time Thomas Jefferson became President, the nation had already experienced two uprisings over taxes - small to be sure, but revolts nonetheless. Hamilton and Adams had wanted to forge ahead with a powerful central government, and for this they needed revenue. The political tide now turned back to Jefferson's views of limited government. In his first Annual Message, Jefferson urged repeal of all internal taxation and a return to a reliance on tariffs alone. He said:
Considering the general tendency to multiply offices and dependencies and to increase expense to the ultimate term of burden which the citizen can bear, it behooves us to avail ourselves of every occasion which presents itself for taking off the surcharge; that it may never be seen here that, after leaving to labor the smallest portion of its earning on which it can subsist, government shall itself consume the whole residue of what it was instituted to guard.
Jefferson was not just making a speech to please the voters. He followed through. He cut government spending to the bone and even put much of the Navy into drydock. Meanwhile, Treasury receipts from tariffs were growing rapidly with the expanding nation. Lower taxes left the consumer with more money to buy imported goods. Jefferson proved his point. At the end of his term, the government actually had a surplus and had accelerated repayment of the federal debt - all as a result of tariffs alone.
The second time a direct tax was levied in accordance with the apportionment requirements of the Constitution was in 1813, principally to pay for the War of 1812. Another direct tax was assessed two years later for the same purpose. The first was for $3 million and the second for $6 million. The terms of assessment and proportion among the states were similar to those of the first revenue act. One interesting variation, however, was that the states were given the option of levying the tax entirely on their own according to whatever method of distribution they wished, saving the federal government the expense of administering the project. The states could take a 15 percent discount if they paid within six months, and a ten percent discount if they paid within nine months.
The first part of the 19th century was a period of great growth and prosperity for the United States. Excise taxes had been repealed, and the debts of war had been repaid. By and large, the central government was weak regarding internal affairs, which meant that the people were strong. The bureaucracy stayed out of the way and let Americans get on with their lives. Commerce flourished, wealth was created, and the standard of living for the common man soared. The Old World watched in amazement and envy. Then, with the War Between the States, the long retreat from greatness began.
With the outbreak of war between the northern and southern states, there was urgent need on both sides for massive armies and equally massive funding. In the South, almost the entire amount was raised by fiat money - paper bills with no backing in gold or anything of tangible value. In the North, however, Congress struggled to raise revenue in accordance with the Constitution. War was exactly the kind of "exigency" foreseen by the Founding Fathers when they established the principle of apportionment. So on August 5, 1861, Congress enacted the nation's fourth direct-tax revenue bill for the stated amount of $20 million. It was similar to the previous bills except that this time slaves were no longer taxed as property - only land, "improvements," and dwellings. The big departure, however, was that it also contained a provision to tax incomes. Congress did not like the idea of having to get taxes on a piecemeal basis. It wanted a continual flow of income without having to justify its specific purpose and without stated amounts. It looked for a way to bypass the apportionment process.
But how? All direct taxes had to be apportioned. That is what the Constitution mandated. The solution was easy: Since an excise tax is an indirect tax and does not have to be apportioned, they simply redefined the income tax as an excise tax.
The "excise" tax was a flat three percent of all income over $800 a year. Considering that the per capita income at that time was only about $150, that was a substantial exemption. Putting aside the merits or demerits of an income tax in general, we are dealing here with the concept of exemptions from that tax. This is, once again, the feudal tradition of noblesse oblige, but under a slightly different form. It is directly contrary to the concept of taxation with representation. If some are exempt from the tax, for whatever reason, and if they continue to have representation, then those who do pay it are denied an increment of consent and representation which is in direct proportion to the exemption.
Inflation Tax
In retrospect, the war-emergency income tax proved to be a relatively unimportant source of revenue. By far the greater part came from government debt and fiat money, which, incidentally, also was contrary to clear provisions of the Constitution. The Lincoln Administration raised a total of about $2.7 billion in bonds and "greenbacks." The direct tax on property pulled in about $17 million. The income tax, over the ten-year period it remained in force, raised about $347 million. Wars are seldom financed out of tax revenue alone. Inevitably, they are funded by government debt, the monetization of which causes inflation - a form of taxation few people understand. Americans in the northern states paid, in addition to the property tax, a hidden tax of a full one-half of all their savings as a result of a 50 percent decline in the purchasing power of their money during that period.
America's first income tax was sold to the citizens as a temporary necessity, a wartime emergency. As such, it contained a date for its own termination. As is often the case in such matters, Congress managed to extend it a few years longer, but it finally did expire in 1872. By this time, however, the theories of Karl Marx were sweeping through the intellectual and educational institutions of America, and the populists were capturing political power. Politicians dreamed longingly of a permanent income tax because of the bountiful stream of revenue that would flow from it. But the masses also were fascinated with the progressive - or "graduated" - feature because it gave expression to their envy of the rich and salved their sense of hurt over high protective tariffs. Senator William Peffer of Kansas expressed this prevailing mood:
Wealth is accumulated in New York, and not because those men are more industrious than we are, not because they are wiser and better, but because they trade, because they buy and sell, because they deal in usury, because they reap in what they have never earned, because they take in and live off what other men earn.... The West and the South have made you people rich.
High Court Spike
With pressure from both the public and the politicians for a progressive income tax, who could stand in the way? But five men did do exactly that. They were Justices of the Supreme Court.
In 1893, President Grover Cleveland jumped on the populist bandwagon, asking Congress to lower tariffs and make up for lost revenue by taxing the income of corporations. The bill was expanded to include personal incomes as well and passed through Congress the following year. Before it even went into effect, however, it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In the case of Pollack v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., the High Court declared that a tax is not lawful if it is levied on income from investments, because that would be the same as a tax on property. As such, it is a direct tax, which according to the Constitution must be levied in accordance with the rule of apportionment.
At the time of this ruling, the populists were in firm control of the Democratic Party and were making inroads into the Republican ranks as well. They castigated the Supreme Court as a tool of the rich and an enemy of the people. President Theodore Roosevelt advocated a progressive inheritance tax in 1906, and in his 1908 message to Congress called for a new income tax, suggesting that it be worded in such a way as to prevent the Supreme Court from striking it down. When William Howard Taft became President, the political winds were at gale force. It was no longer a question of if an income tax was to become law, only of how.
In April 1909, Senator Joseph Bailey, a wealthy Democrat from the South, introduced an income tax bill that he expected to be opposed by the Republicans. But the Republicans decided to steal the show by introducing a plan of their own. Under the leadership of Senator Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island, and with the help of President Taft himself, they proposed an amendment to the Constitution as a means of circumventing the Supreme Court. It is sometimes claimed that these men were secretly opposed to an income tax and resorted to this stratagem merely to appease populist sentiment, while hoping that the amendment would never be ratified by three-fourths of the states. There is ample reason, however, to believe that they proposed the amendment because they truly wanted it.
Aldrich, in particular, is highly suspect in this role. His daughter, Abbey, was married to John D. Rockefeller Jr., and Aldrich was the man who arranged the secret meeting on Jekyll Island in Georgia in November 1910 that led to the creation of the Federal Reserve System. He also played a pivotal role in making sure that the income tax law did not apply to foundations. This made it possible to shift the tax burden to the middle class by allowing tax-exempt status to the great fortunes of such families as Rockefeller, Morgan, Carnegie, and Aldrich.
A Modern Serfdom
At the very least, it must be concluded that these men, sensing the unstoppable clamor for a soak-the-rich income tax, decided to run to the head of the parade, lead it away from Wall Street, and render the law harmless to themselves and their friends. It is not paranoia, however, to sense that there was more to it than that. It is quite possible that they represented a cabal of monetary and political scientists that planned the entire scenario and even helped create the public clamor that would serve as an excuse for their action. Their objective, in this more sinister view, would have been the creation of a modern serfdom with themselves as lords and masters. The serfs would be convinced of their self-importance by the delusions of representative government and the socialist tax that they honestly believed was to their benefit. The age-old dream of contented serfs would at last be realized.
The Senate approved the 16th Amendment by an astounding vote of 77 to zero! The House followed suit with a roll call of 318 to 14. The measure then went to the states for ratification. On February 12, 1913, the 42nd state voted for approval, and the following words became a part of the United States Constitution:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Casting the Die
The 16th Amendment was sold to the people with solemn assurance that the income tax would be simple to compute, fair to all, and would never apply to any part of a person's income needed to sustain a decent standard of living. It was generally understood that only very large incomes derived from investments would be taxed, not the wages of the working man. That was, of course, a farce. The very first federal tax form issued in 1913 listed wages and salaries as income on which tax was to be paid.
The first tax was delicate by today's standards. After a whopping exemption on the first $4,000 of family income, the government took only one percent of the first $20,000, two percent at $50,000, and the highest rate was seven percent on incomes in excess of $500,000. These were all astronomical incomes in 1913, so it was only the very wealthy who paid any tax at all.
But the die was cast. Now that the federal government had a direct and perpetual access to the wealth of its citizens and no longer had to justify its financial needs through specific revenue acts, its spending began to rise like a hot-air balloon. With each round of spending came a reduction in the amount of exemptions, an increase in the tax rate, and a compounding of the complexity. At first it was the incomes of corporations; then of the very wealthy; then of the well-provided widow and the highly paid worker; and finally the wages of the janitor and the tips of waitresses.
No one in America fully understands the constantly changing Internal Revenue Code. Agents of the IRS do not, judges do not, congressmen do not, and most assuredly taxpayers do not.
When one considers the complexity of the tax code and the astronomical expense of operating the IRS itself, it is obvious that every other tax that has ever been tried in history is easier to compute and more efficient to collect than the income tax. And every time there is a tax "reform" bill rushed through Congress, the tax code always seems to emerge more complex and unfair than before. It is the nature of the beast.
The result of this reality is aptly described in the beginning of Prentice Hall's booklet, Research in Federal Taxation. Under the heading, "Opportunities Unlimited," it says:
Today's tax professionals face the prospect of the most promising future in the history of their profession.... With each passing year the federal tax laws affect American business and the individual taxpayer more and more. No businessperson, however expert in the business practices, can do without a tax advisor. He or she needs help on business transactions that have tax implications, because many daily business decisions are regulated to a degree by the tax consequences and results. And the great majority of taxpayers are becoming increasingly aware of the impact of the federal tax on their income and personal wealth. Their investments, provisions for retirement, wills, and business-connected (or sometimes even personal) expenditures require tax planning.
America has become infested with a swarm of tax professionals who are a drain on every business and private transaction that occurs. A significant part of everything we purchase goes to pay for a vast workforce of bookkeepers and accountants who must maintain reams of records to substantiate every cost of doing business, while producing nothing to expand the physical or cultural well-being of the nation.
Retarding the Economy
In the long run, any income tax, even one that is based on the same percentage for everyone, will serve to lessen the incentive to produce and, thus, will retard the nation's economic growth - which, in turn, will lower everyone's standard of living.
One of the most powerful advocates of this idea in 1879 was Henry George, better known for his advocacy of a single tax on land. We do not have to agree with his thesis on the single tax to appreciate the wisdom of his opposition to a direct tax on income or personal property. In his treatise Progress and Poverty, George wrote:
If I have worked harder and built myself a good house while you have been contented to live in a hovel, the tax-gatherer now comes annually to make me pay a penalty for my energy and industry by taxing me more than you. If I have saved while you wasted, I am [milked] while you are exempt.
If a man built a ship, we make him pay for his temerity as though he had done an injury to the state; if a railroad be opened, down comes the tax collector upon it as though it were a public nuisance.... We punish with a tax the man who covers barren fields with ripening grain; we fine him who puts up machinery and him who drains a swamp.
To abolish these taxes would be to lift the whole enormous weight of taxation from productive industry.... The state would say to the producer, "Be as industrious, as thrifty, as enterprising as you choose. You shall have your full reward!"
Since the income tax was created in 1913, it has been a long, bumpy ride and the American people have been jarred into a state of annoyance. We no longer are misty-eyed over political rhetoric that promises a utopia to be paid for by someone else. We have learned the hard way that there is no free lunch. Our "lunch," in fact, has cost us a fortune.
It has been necessary to review some history and taxation theory in order to come to an understanding of how we got to where we are and, most important, to learn from the mistakes of the past. Hopefully the information presented here will help crystalize the thinking of those who are opinion leaders. But specific proposals must be constructed in such a way as to have broad, immediate appeal to the American public. With that objective in mind, let us turn, finally, to what now must be done to restore tax sanity to our government.
Presidential candidate Steve Forbes has made his "flat-tax" plan a major campaign issue. A flat-rate income tax is certainly an improvement over a graduated income tax. But if a flat-rate tax were adopted, it still would be a direct tax and would still allow Congress to have continual access to our pocketbooks without ever having to explain or justify why it needed the money. Tax reform will never become a reality until Congress is once again required to live within a modest means - as would automatically happen if it had to depend only on indirect taxes - or, if extraordinary revenue is wanted, to specify the exact amount and to justify it in a specific revenue act.
Eliminate the Income Tax
The flat-tax plan is not the answer. What we need is to follow the greatest proposal for tax reform the world has ever seen, and it is already in our Constitution. What we need is to take the chains off the rule of apportionment and put them back where they belong, on the Congress of the United States. What we need is to repeal the 16th Amendment.
This single act would accomplish almost everything the current proposals for tax reform claim to seek. For the first time since 1913, the federal government would have to prepare a realistic budget, because it would no longer be able to rely on an ongoing, limitless supply of revenue. Like the rest of us, it would have to live within its means, which would be from indirect taxes only. If it exceeded this budget, it would have to face the voters with a specific request for a specific amount on a specific date. It is difficult to conceive of a more effective plan for trimming the scope and reach of the federal bureaucracy. It would be necessary to scrutinize the budget to try to discover the hidden boondoggles and subsidies. Cut back the funds, and these automatically would wither away. The rule of apportionment is the only realistic answer.
Yes, we are talking about the elimination of the income tax. Many people would naturally ask, "But where would the money come from to run the government?" This question presupposes that all the money the federal government now receives is necessary. The reality is that - if we were to cut out the waste, subsidies, foreign giveaways, transfer programs, interest on the national debt, transfusions into the International Monetary Fund, and support for the World Bank, plus the cost of running the IRS itself - the federal government could easily operate, as it was intended to do, on indirect taxes alone. Many important sources of revenue would not be affected by apportionment, most specifically tariffs (for revenue only, not for subsidizing a politically favored industry) and such excises as a gasoline tax for the maintenance of roads, fees for admission to national parks, postage stamps for the operation of the post office, and similar items. It is totally workable.
Get The Liberty Letter !
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
States to feds: Stay in D.C.!$11 trillion 'micromanaging' price sparks explosion in sovereignty movement
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A movement to reclaim for states all rights not specifically designated to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution is exploding across the nation, with 35 states already acting or at least considering such proposals – and one state lawmaker estimating the nation as a whole could save $11 trillion in coming years if it would succeed.
WND reported not long ago when the number of states with lawmakers considering such sovereignty efforts reached 20.
Now, according to the Tenth Amendment Center, such provisions have been launched in at least 35 states. They all address the Tenth Amendment that says: "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
South Carolina's S. 424 is an example. It is titled: "To affirm South Carolina's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution."
Essentially it's a reminder that the United States is made up of individual states; it's not a federal authority broken up into political subdivisions.
In South Carolina, the proposals remains pending in the state Senate, where Sen. Lee Bright said he still hopes that it will be adopted this year.
The proposal there notes specifically that the "federal government was created by the states … to be an agent of the states," and the states currently "are treated as agents of the federal government," many times in violation of the Constitution.
The resolution states:
Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring: That the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, claims for the State of South Carolina sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution.Be it further resolved that all federal governmental agencies, quasi-governmental agencies, and their agents and employees operating within the geographic boundaries of the State of South Carolina, and all federal governmental agencies and their agents and employees, whose actions have effect on the inhabitants or lands or waters of the State of South Carolina, shall operate within the confines of the original intent of the Constitution of the United States and abide by the provisions of the Constitution of South Carolina, the South Carolina statutes, or the common law as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
Bright told WND the movement is spreading from state to state as fast as lawmakers discover it.
Michael Boldin, a spokesman for the Tenth Amendment Center, said his organization has created a posting for all such proposals to be tracked.
Among the states where such proposals at least have been considered are Louisiana, Colorado, Wisconsin, Illinois, West Virginia, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Nevada, Oregon, Alabama, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Idaho, New Mexico, South Dakota, Virginia, Kentucky, Alaska, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Minnesota, South Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, Texas, New Hampshire, Missouri, Iowa, Montana, Michigan, Arizona, Washington and Oklahoma.
In North Dakota, it passed the House and Senate both in April, with the House a short time later adopting changes made by the Senate.
In South Dakota, it was approved by both houses of the Legislature and under that state's rules does not need the governor's signature.
Just last week, Rep. M.J. "Manny" Steele, a Republican in South Dakota, wrote that he believes up to $11 trillion is being wasted in the coming years by Washington's efforts "to duplicate and micromanage our states' affairs."
He said states should manage their own affairs and not be dependant on a federal cash cow to make ends meet. Likewise with industries, he said, citing federal cash dumps on the banking, insurance and automobile industries.
After all, he agreed, with enough federal money allocated to the industry, Americans all still could be listening to 8-track tapes in their cars, but would that really be the best outcome?
Steele told WND his dollar estimate was based on what President Obama himself has allocated in the coming years to spend on stimulus packages, industry bailouts and the like.
"If we would just let the market take care of these things," he said.
His letter noted that Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Carolina legislatures joined South Dakota's in passing some statement on the Tenth Amendment this year. The results vary based on state procedures, however. In Oklahoma, the governor vetoed the plan and it was launched on its second trip through the legislature.
"Over the course of decades, there have been increasing federal mandates and acts designed to effectively step in and legislate the affairs of our various states from Washington D.C.," Steele said. "Federal usurpation into state affairs severely limits the ability of state governments to operate according to their citizens' wishes."
Citizens should be driving this from the grassroots, claim your Sovereignty! Get the LibertyLetter.
Monday, May 4, 2009
The spirit of Tax Protest & Tea Parties
This is only my opinion, but it seems to me that for as long as you are convinced that permission is needed from some great high authority, American Liberty will be in peril. Our foundation is that we are the authority, it seems that we need to re-learn that and explain it to our hired help in Washington D.C. In my experience with this subject, it seems that there are two things that no one wants to do, regardless of their position. One is to give permission, and the other is to make a determination.
It appears to me that if the Congress or IRS really had the great authority that they are credited with, they would not be so dependant on OUR determination.
It only demonstrates that we, are the authority. This is what it comes down to, each must make their own decision and determination, it is nothing different from what you are already doing. It's just that the determination you are already making is probably costing your future.
It makes me sick to hear a politician make a statement along the lines of "we can't let people provide for their own retirement". We elect a representative and all of a sudden we have an expert/daddy deciding what is best for us concerning our own lives. When did the role change? It changed when "We the People" abdicated our responsibility for self governance. See, that is the way that it works, if you don't make the determinations for your own life, some self-interested politician will be glad to do it for you, or coerce you to yield your authority. And if you let it go on long enough, you then are hearing about what else they can't "let" you, in regard to your own life... because they know best.
But, our determination seems to be very much needed. You don't need to sign a form every time you buy a tank of gas and pay excise tax on each gallon. Could it be that you already authorized that tax via a properly executed law?
The USA has, from the very beginning, stood in defiance of a world that would withhold permission. It seems ironic that we, the children of rebellion, would now put so much into asking or seeking permission for what we should be able to determine on our own. Our forefathers held with what they determined to be right as individuals, and they collectively stayed the course to base our Republic on a foundation of self governance by law of the people.
Both their brilliance and humility are evidenced in the perfection that they left in our Constitution. The only thing that they could not fix would be our determination to keep it. Maybe that is as it should be.
The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may become persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right, on a legal basis, is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war (revolution) we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of the war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.
There are two subjects which I shall claim a right to further as long as I have breath: the public education and the subdivision of the counties into wards (townships). I consider the continuance of Republican government as absolutely hanging on these two hooks. Where every man is a sharer in the direction of his ward republic or of some of the higher ones, and feels that he is a participator in the government of affairs, not merely at an election one day in the year, but every day; when there shall not be a man in the State who shall not be a member of some one of its councils, great or small, he will let the heart be torn out of his body sooner then his power be wrested from him by a Caesar or Bonaparte.
Thomas Jefferson
If you are afraid, stop and feel the fear as much as you can. While it is with you, ask yourself if it could possibly be right that you are living in a country founded on the principles of freedom, Liberty, and the Sovereign rights of the people, yet you stand in fear of its government. While so many gave their very lives to secure these unalienable rights to this great nation, you have only to stand up to secure them to yourself and your posterity. If you will, you will learn that fear is a powerless jailer.
If you are still a little squeamish about the thought of actually applying this information, think about what is the worst that could happen. If you are already a taxpayer, as far as you know, what's the harm in having the government prove it? If you had required them to prove it in the first place, you might not have been a taxpayer for all of this time.
It is my hope that you will find this information useful. And, that you use it to your advantage and benefit. There is always some risk in setting aside fear to stand up for your right, take courage, for the benefit of having rights far outweigh that risk. Our rights have been won for us, it falls to us to retain them, in honor of those that have gone before.
It appears to me that if the Congress or IRS really had the great authority that they are credited with, they would not be so dependant on OUR determination.
It only demonstrates that we, are the authority. This is what it comes down to, each must make their own decision and determination, it is nothing different from what you are already doing. It's just that the determination you are already making is probably costing your future.
It makes me sick to hear a politician make a statement along the lines of "we can't let people provide for their own retirement". We elect a representative and all of a sudden we have an expert/daddy deciding what is best for us concerning our own lives. When did the role change? It changed when "We the People" abdicated our responsibility for self governance. See, that is the way that it works, if you don't make the determinations for your own life, some self-interested politician will be glad to do it for you, or coerce you to yield your authority. And if you let it go on long enough, you then are hearing about what else they can't "let" you, in regard to your own life... because they know best.
But, our determination seems to be very much needed. You don't need to sign a form every time you buy a tank of gas and pay excise tax on each gallon. Could it be that you already authorized that tax via a properly executed law?
The USA has, from the very beginning, stood in defiance of a world that would withhold permission. It seems ironic that we, the children of rebellion, would now put so much into asking or seeking permission for what we should be able to determine on our own. Our forefathers held with what they determined to be right as individuals, and they collectively stayed the course to base our Republic on a foundation of self governance by law of the people.
Both their brilliance and humility are evidenced in the perfection that they left in our Constitution. The only thing that they could not fix would be our determination to keep it. Maybe that is as it should be.
The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may become persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right, on a legal basis, is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war (revolution) we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of the war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.
There are two subjects which I shall claim a right to further as long as I have breath: the public education and the subdivision of the counties into wards (townships). I consider the continuance of Republican government as absolutely hanging on these two hooks. Where every man is a sharer in the direction of his ward republic or of some of the higher ones, and feels that he is a participator in the government of affairs, not merely at an election one day in the year, but every day; when there shall not be a man in the State who shall not be a member of some one of its councils, great or small, he will let the heart be torn out of his body sooner then his power be wrested from him by a Caesar or Bonaparte.
Thomas Jefferson
If you are afraid, stop and feel the fear as much as you can. While it is with you, ask yourself if it could possibly be right that you are living in a country founded on the principles of freedom, Liberty, and the Sovereign rights of the people, yet you stand in fear of its government. While so many gave their very lives to secure these unalienable rights to this great nation, you have only to stand up to secure them to yourself and your posterity. If you will, you will learn that fear is a powerless jailer.
If you are still a little squeamish about the thought of actually applying this information, think about what is the worst that could happen. If you are already a taxpayer, as far as you know, what's the harm in having the government prove it? If you had required them to prove it in the first place, you might not have been a taxpayer for all of this time.
It is my hope that you will find this information useful. And, that you use it to your advantage and benefit. There is always some risk in setting aside fear to stand up for your right, take courage, for the benefit of having rights far outweigh that risk. Our rights have been won for us, it falls to us to retain them, in honor of those that have gone before.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Thomas Jefferson - The spirit of a free America
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people
preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts,
pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers
12:356
"Governments, wherein the will of every one has a just influence... has its evils,... the principal of which
is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it
becomes nothing. Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. [I prefer the tumult of liberty
to the quiet of servitude.] Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of
government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs." --Thomas Jefferson to James
Madison, 1787. ME 6:64
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always
kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a
little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail
Adams, 1787.
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... We have had thirteen States
independent for eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century
and a half, for each State. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?"
--Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, 1787. ME 6:372
"Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not
distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government.
The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because
real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been
the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries." --Thomas Jefferson: Report on Spanish Convention,
1792.
"If our country, when pressed with wrongs at the point of the bayonet, had been governed by its heads
instead of its hearts, where should we have been now? Hanging on a gallows as high as Haman's."
--Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:444
"The commotions that have taken place in America, as far as they are yet known to me, offer nothing
threatening. They are a proof that the people have liberty enough, and I could not wish them less than
they have. If the happiness of the mass of the people can be secured at the expense of a little tempest
now and then, or even of a little blood, it will be a precious purchase. 'Malo libertatem periculosam
quam quietem servitutem.' Let common sense and common honesty have fair play, and they will soon
set things to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Ezra Stiles, 1786. ME 6:25
"The tumults in America I expected would have produced in Europe an unfavorable opinion of our
political state. But it has not. On the contrary, the small effect of these tumults seems to have given
more confidence in the firmness of our governments. The interposition of the people themselves on the
side of government has had a great effect on the opinion here [in Europe]." --Thomas Jefferson to
Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57
"The late rebellion in Massachusetts has given more alarm than I think it should have done. Calculate
that one rebellion in thirteen states in the course of eleven years, is but one for each state in a century
and a half. No country should be so long without one. Nor will any degree of power in the hands of
government prevent insurrections." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:391
"[An occasional insurrection] will not weigh against the inconveniences of a government of force, such
as are monarchies and aristocracies." --Thomas Jefferson to T. B. Hollis, July 2, 1787. (*) ME 6:155
"Cherish... the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their
errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME
6:58
Misdirected Resistance
"There are extraordinary situations which require extraordinary interposition. An exasperated people
who feel that they possess power are not easily restrained within limits strictly regular." --Thomas
Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:196, Papers 1:127
"[The] uneasiness [of the people] has produced acts absolutely unjustifiable; but I hope they will
provoke no severities from their governments. A consciousness of those in power that their
administration of the public affairs has been honest may, perhaps, produce too great a degree of
indignation; and those characters wherein fear predominates over hope, may apprehend too much from
these instances of irregularity. They may conclude too hastily, that nature has formed man
insusceptible of any other government than that of force, a conclusion not founded in truth nor
experience." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Jan. 30, 1787. ME 6:64
"The arm of the people [is] a machine not quite so blind as balls and bombs, but blind to a certain
degree." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1793. ME 9:10
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as
storms are in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on
the rights of the people, which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest
republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is
medicine necessary for the sound health of government." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.
ME 6:65
"[No] degree of power in the hands of government [will] prevent insurrections." --Thomas Jefferson to
James Madison, 1787. Papers 12:442.
"The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820.
ME 15:283
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson to William
Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
Rebellion, Right and Wrong
"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and
inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to
alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and
happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
"In no country on earth is [a disposition to oppose the law by force] so impracticable as in one where
every man feels a vital interest in maintaining the authority of the laws, and instantly engages in it as in
his own personal cause." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Smith, 1808. ME 12:62
"In a country whose constitution is derived from the will of the people directly expressed by their free
suffrages, where the principal executive functionaries and those of the legislature are renewed by them
at short periods, where under the character of jurors they exercise in person the greatest portion of the
judiciary powers, where the laws are consequently so formed and administered as to bear with equal
weight and favor on all, restraining no man in the pursuits of honest industry and securing to every one
the property which that acquires, it would not be supposed that any safeguards could be needed against
insurrection or enterprise on the public peace or authority. The laws, however, aware that these should
not be trusted to moral restraints only, have wisely provided punishments for these crimes when
committed." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806. ME 3:418
"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret
societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people; but
to admit them as ordinary and habitual instruments as a part of the machinery of the Constitution,
would be to change that machinery by introducing moving powers foreign to it, and to an extent
depending solely on local views, and, therefore, incalculable." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane,
1803. FE 8:256
"The paradox with me is how any friend to the union of our country can, in conscience, contribute a
cent to the maintenance of anyone who perverts the sanctity of his desk to the open inculcation of
rebellion, civil war, dissolution of government, and the miseries of anarchy." --Thomas Jefferson to
William Plumer, 1815. ME 14:235
preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts,
pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers
12:356
"Governments, wherein the will of every one has a just influence... has its evils,... the principal of which
is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it
becomes nothing. Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. [I prefer the tumult of liberty
to the quiet of servitude.] Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of
government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs." --Thomas Jefferson to James
Madison, 1787. ME 6:64
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always
kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a
little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." --Thomas Jefferson to Abigail
Adams, 1787.
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... We have had thirteen States
independent for eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century
and a half, for each State. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?"
--Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, 1787. ME 6:372
"Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not
distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government.
The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because
real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been
the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries." --Thomas Jefferson: Report on Spanish Convention,
1792.
"If our country, when pressed with wrongs at the point of the bayonet, had been governed by its heads
instead of its hearts, where should we have been now? Hanging on a gallows as high as Haman's."
--Thomas Jefferson to Maria Cosway, 1786. ME 5:444
"The commotions that have taken place in America, as far as they are yet known to me, offer nothing
threatening. They are a proof that the people have liberty enough, and I could not wish them less than
they have. If the happiness of the mass of the people can be secured at the expense of a little tempest
now and then, or even of a little blood, it will be a precious purchase. 'Malo libertatem periculosam
quam quietem servitutem.' Let common sense and common honesty have fair play, and they will soon
set things to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Ezra Stiles, 1786. ME 6:25
"The tumults in America I expected would have produced in Europe an unfavorable opinion of our
political state. But it has not. On the contrary, the small effect of these tumults seems to have given
more confidence in the firmness of our governments. The interposition of the people themselves on the
side of government has had a great effect on the opinion here [in Europe]." --Thomas Jefferson to
Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57
"The late rebellion in Massachusetts has given more alarm than I think it should have done. Calculate
that one rebellion in thirteen states in the course of eleven years, is but one for each state in a century
and a half. No country should be so long without one. Nor will any degree of power in the hands of
government prevent insurrections." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:391
"[An occasional insurrection] will not weigh against the inconveniences of a government of force, such
as are monarchies and aristocracies." --Thomas Jefferson to T. B. Hollis, July 2, 1787. (*) ME 6:155
"Cherish... the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their
errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME
6:58
Misdirected Resistance
"There are extraordinary situations which require extraordinary interposition. An exasperated people
who feel that they possess power are not easily restrained within limits strictly regular." --Thomas
Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:196, Papers 1:127
"[The] uneasiness [of the people] has produced acts absolutely unjustifiable; but I hope they will
provoke no severities from their governments. A consciousness of those in power that their
administration of the public affairs has been honest may, perhaps, produce too great a degree of
indignation; and those characters wherein fear predominates over hope, may apprehend too much from
these instances of irregularity. They may conclude too hastily, that nature has formed man
insusceptible of any other government than that of force, a conclusion not founded in truth nor
experience." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Jan. 30, 1787. ME 6:64
"The arm of the people [is] a machine not quite so blind as balls and bombs, but blind to a certain
degree." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1793. ME 9:10
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as
storms are in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on
the rights of the people, which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest
republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is
medicine necessary for the sound health of government." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787.
ME 6:65
"[No] degree of power in the hands of government [will] prevent insurrections." --Thomas Jefferson to
James Madison, 1787. Papers 12:442.
"The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1820.
ME 15:283
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson to William
Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
Rebellion, Right and Wrong
"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and
inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to
alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and
happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
"In no country on earth is [a disposition to oppose the law by force] so impracticable as in one where
every man feels a vital interest in maintaining the authority of the laws, and instantly engages in it as in
his own personal cause." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Smith, 1808. ME 12:62
"In a country whose constitution is derived from the will of the people directly expressed by their free
suffrages, where the principal executive functionaries and those of the legislature are renewed by them
at short periods, where under the character of jurors they exercise in person the greatest portion of the
judiciary powers, where the laws are consequently so formed and administered as to bear with equal
weight and favor on all, restraining no man in the pursuits of honest industry and securing to every one
the property which that acquires, it would not be supposed that any safeguards could be needed against
insurrection or enterprise on the public peace or authority. The laws, however, aware that these should
not be trusted to moral restraints only, have wisely provided punishments for these crimes when
committed." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806. ME 3:418
"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret
societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people; but
to admit them as ordinary and habitual instruments as a part of the machinery of the Constitution,
would be to change that machinery by introducing moving powers foreign to it, and to an extent
depending solely on local views, and, therefore, incalculable." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane,
1803. FE 8:256
"The paradox with me is how any friend to the union of our country can, in conscience, contribute a
cent to the maintenance of anyone who perverts the sanctity of his desk to the open inculcation of
rebellion, civil war, dissolution of government, and the miseries of anarchy." --Thomas Jefferson to
William Plumer, 1815. ME 14:235
Saturday, May 2, 2009
What makes you think you owe something to Congress?
When it comes to the idea that I owe something to the rest of society becuase I went out and earned some money, I've got to question that idea. Especially when someone says that my neighbors passed a law that says I am required to "share the wealth". I would have to doubt that such a law exists in the free country where I was born.
Even though I am just an ordinary person, I tend to believe that I am right when no one in government is willing to cite any lawful authority that would say that I am wrong. There is often a difference in what we may think or believe and actual reality. It seems such a shame to see so many millions of productive people coerced into such an unreal belief as federal income taxation in America. But, knowing actual reality will require your determination, you will have to challenge what you are told in order to know it as true or false.
If you should decide to make these filings, all that you are doing is returning to your original legal status and challenging the federal government to tax you lawfully, in that status. This is the quickest, simplest, and above all, most powerful way to regain and retain your Liberty.
This is only my opinion, but it seems to me that for as long as you are convinced that permission is needed from some great high authority, American Liberty will be in peril. Our foundation is that we are the authority, it seems that we need to re-learn that and explain it to our hired help in Washington D.C.
In my experience with this subject, it seems that there are two things that no one wants to do, regardless of their position. One is to give permission, and the other is to make a determination. It appears to me that if the Congress or IRS really had the great authority that they are credited with, they would not be so dependant on OUR determination.
It only demonstrates that we, are the authority. This is what it comes down to, each must make their own decision and determination, it is nothing different from what you are already doing. It's just that the determination you are already making is probably costing your future.
It makes me sick to hear a politician make a statement along the lines of "we can't let people provide for their own retirement". We elect a representative and all of a sudden we have an expert/daddy deciding what is best for us concerning our own lives. When did the role change?
It changed when "We the People" abdicated our responsibility for self governance. See, that is the way that it works, if you don't make the determinations for your own life, some self-interested politician will be glad to do it for you, or coerce you to yield your authority. And if you let it go on long enough, you then are hearing about what else they can't "let" you, in regard to your own life... because they know best.
But, our determination seems to be very much needed. You don't need to sign a form every time you buy a tank of gas and pay excise tax on each gallon. Could it be that you already authorized that tax via a properly executed law?
The USA has, from the very beginning, stood in defiance of a world that would withhold permission. It seems ironic that we, the children of rebellion, would now put so much into asking or seeking permission for what we should be able to determine on our own. Our forefathers held with what they determined to be right as individuals, and they collectively stayed the course to base our Republic on a foundation of self governance by law of the people.
Both their brilliance and humility are evidenced in the perfection that they left in our Constitution. The only thing that they could not fix would be our determination to keep it. Maybe that is as it should be.
The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may become persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right, on a legal basis, is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war (revolution) we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of the war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.
There are two subjects which I shall claim a right to further as long as I have breath: the public education and the subdivision of the counties into wards (townships). I consider the continuance of Republican government as absolutely hanging on these two hooks. Where every man is a sharer in the direction of his ward republic or of some of the higher ones, and feels that he is a participator in the government of affairs, not merely at an election one day in the year, but every day; when there shall not be a man in the State who shall not be a member of some one of its councils, great or small, he will let the heart be torn out of his body sooner then his power be wrested from him by a Caesar or Bonaparte.
Thomas Jefferson
If you are afraid, stop and feel the fear as much as you can. While it is with you, ask yourself if it could possibly be right that you are living in a country founded on the principles of freedom, Liberty, and the Sovereign rights of the people, yet you stand in fear of its government.
While so many gave their very lives to secure unalienable rights to this great nation, you have only to stand up to secure them to yourself and your posterity. If you will, you will learn that fear is a powerless jailer.
If you are still a little squeamish about the thought of actually applying this information, think about what is the worst that could happen. If you are already a federal income taxpayer, as far as you know, what's the harm in having the government prove it? If you had required them to prove it in the first place, you might not have been a federal income taxpayer for all of this time.
It is my hope that you will find this information useful. And, that you use it to your advantage and benefit. There is always some risk in setting aside fear to stand up for your right, take courage, for the benefit of having rights far outweigh that risk. Our rights have been won for us, it falls to us to retain them, in honor of those that have gone before.
Jon D. Luman
Even though I am just an ordinary person, I tend to believe that I am right when no one in government is willing to cite any lawful authority that would say that I am wrong. There is often a difference in what we may think or believe and actual reality. It seems such a shame to see so many millions of productive people coerced into such an unreal belief as federal income taxation in America. But, knowing actual reality will require your determination, you will have to challenge what you are told in order to know it as true or false.
If you should decide to make these filings, all that you are doing is returning to your original legal status and challenging the federal government to tax you lawfully, in that status. This is the quickest, simplest, and above all, most powerful way to regain and retain your Liberty.
This is only my opinion, but it seems to me that for as long as you are convinced that permission is needed from some great high authority, American Liberty will be in peril. Our foundation is that we are the authority, it seems that we need to re-learn that and explain it to our hired help in Washington D.C.
In my experience with this subject, it seems that there are two things that no one wants to do, regardless of their position. One is to give permission, and the other is to make a determination. It appears to me that if the Congress or IRS really had the great authority that they are credited with, they would not be so dependant on OUR determination.
It only demonstrates that we, are the authority. This is what it comes down to, each must make their own decision and determination, it is nothing different from what you are already doing. It's just that the determination you are already making is probably costing your future.
It makes me sick to hear a politician make a statement along the lines of "we can't let people provide for their own retirement". We elect a representative and all of a sudden we have an expert/daddy deciding what is best for us concerning our own lives. When did the role change?
It changed when "We the People" abdicated our responsibility for self governance. See, that is the way that it works, if you don't make the determinations for your own life, some self-interested politician will be glad to do it for you, or coerce you to yield your authority. And if you let it go on long enough, you then are hearing about what else they can't "let" you, in regard to your own life... because they know best.
But, our determination seems to be very much needed. You don't need to sign a form every time you buy a tank of gas and pay excise tax on each gallon. Could it be that you already authorized that tax via a properly executed law?
The USA has, from the very beginning, stood in defiance of a world that would withhold permission. It seems ironic that we, the children of rebellion, would now put so much into asking or seeking permission for what we should be able to determine on our own. Our forefathers held with what they determined to be right as individuals, and they collectively stayed the course to base our Republic on a foundation of self governance by law of the people.
Both their brilliance and humility are evidenced in the perfection that they left in our Constitution. The only thing that they could not fix would be our determination to keep it. Maybe that is as it should be.
The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may become persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right, on a legal basis, is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war (revolution) we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of the war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.
There are two subjects which I shall claim a right to further as long as I have breath: the public education and the subdivision of the counties into wards (townships). I consider the continuance of Republican government as absolutely hanging on these two hooks. Where every man is a sharer in the direction of his ward republic or of some of the higher ones, and feels that he is a participator in the government of affairs, not merely at an election one day in the year, but every day; when there shall not be a man in the State who shall not be a member of some one of its councils, great or small, he will let the heart be torn out of his body sooner then his power be wrested from him by a Caesar or Bonaparte.
Thomas Jefferson
If you are afraid, stop and feel the fear as much as you can. While it is with you, ask yourself if it could possibly be right that you are living in a country founded on the principles of freedom, Liberty, and the Sovereign rights of the people, yet you stand in fear of its government.
While so many gave their very lives to secure unalienable rights to this great nation, you have only to stand up to secure them to yourself and your posterity. If you will, you will learn that fear is a powerless jailer.
If you are still a little squeamish about the thought of actually applying this information, think about what is the worst that could happen. If you are already a federal income taxpayer, as far as you know, what's the harm in having the government prove it? If you had required them to prove it in the first place, you might not have been a federal income taxpayer for all of this time.
It is my hope that you will find this information useful. And, that you use it to your advantage and benefit. There is always some risk in setting aside fear to stand up for your right, take courage, for the benefit of having rights far outweigh that risk. Our rights have been won for us, it falls to us to retain them, in honor of those that have gone before.
Jon D. Luman
Friday, May 1, 2009
The 14th Amendent (U.S. Constitution - 1868)
U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection
Amendment Text Annotations
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Annotations
Section 1. Rights Guaranteed
Citizens of the United States
Privileges and Immunities
Due Process of Law
The Development of Substantive Due Process
''Persons'' Defined
Police Power Defined and Limited
''Liberty''
Liberty of Contract
Regulatory Labor Laws Generally
Laws Regulating Hours of Labor
Laws Regulating Labor in Mines
Laws Prohibiting Employment of Children in Hazardous Occupations
Laws Regulating Payment of Wages
Minimum Wage Laws
Workers' Compensation Laws
Collective Bargaining
Regulation of Business Enterprises: Rates, Charges, and Conditions of Service
''Business Affected With a Public Interest''
Nebbia v. New York
Judicial Review of Publicly Determined Rates and Charges
Development
Limitations on Judicial Review
The Ben Avon Case
History of the Valuation Question
Regulation of Public Utilities (Other Than Rates)
In General
Compulsory Expenditures: Grade Crossings, and the Like
Compellable Services
Safety Regulations Applicable to Railroads
Statutory Liabilities and Penalties Applicable to Railroads
Regulation of Corporations, Business, Professions, and Trades
Corporations
Business in General
Laws Prohibiting Trusts, Discrimination, Restraint of Trade
Laws Preventing Fraud in Sale of Goods and Securities
Banking, Wage Assignments and Garnishment
Insurance
Miscellaneous Businesses and Professions
Protection of State Resources
Oil and Gas
Protection of Property and Agricultural Crops
Water
Fish and Game
Ownership of Real Property: Limitations, Rights
Zoning and Similar Actions
Estates, Succession, Abandoned Property
Health, Safety, and Morals
Safety Regulations
Sanitation
Food, Drugs, Milk
Intoxicating Liquor
Regulation of Motor Vehicles and Carriers
Protecting Morality
Vested Rights, Remedial Rights, Political Candidacy
Control of Local Units of Government
Taxing Power
Generally
Public Purpose
Other Considerations Affecting Validity: Excessive Burden; Ratio of Amount Of Benefit Received
Estate, Gift and Inheritance Taxes
Income Taxes
Franchise Taxes
Severance Taxes
Real Property Taxes
Jurisdiction to Tax
Sales/Use Taxes
Land
Tangible Personalty
Intangible Personalty
Transfer (Inheritance, Estate, Gift) Taxes
Corporate Privilege Taxes
Individual Income Taxes
Corporate Income Taxes: Foreign Corporations
Insurance Company Taxes
Procedure in Taxation
Generally
Notice and Hearing in Relation to Taxes
Notice and Hearing in Relation to Assessments
Collection of Taxes
Sufficiency and Manner of Giving Notice
Sufficiency of Remedy
Laches
Eminent Domain
Substantive Due Process and Noneconomic Liberty
Abortion
Privacy: Its Constitutional Dimensions
Family Relationships
Liberty Interests of Retarded and Mentally Ill: Commitment and Treatment
''Right to Die''
Procedural Due Process: Civil
Some General Criteria
Ancient Use and Uniformity
Equality
Due Process, Judicial Process, and Separation of Powers
Power of the States to Regulate Procedure
Generally
Commencement of Actions
Pleas in Abatement
Defenses
Amendments and Continuances
Costs, Damages, and Penalties
Statutes of Limitation
Evidence and Presumptions
Jury Trials
Appeals
Jurisdiction
Generally
In Personam Proceedings Against Individuals
Suability of Foreign Corporations
Actions in Rem: Proceedings Against Property
Actions in Rem: Attachment Proceedings
Actions in Rem: Estates, Trusts, Corporations
Notice: Service of Process
The Procedure Which Is Due Process
The Interests Protected: Entitlements and Positivist Recognition
Proceedings in Which Procedural Due Process Must Be Observed
When Is Process Due
The Requirements of Due Process
Procedural Due Process: Criminal
Generally
The Elements of Due Process
Clarity in Criminal Statutes: The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine
Other Aspects of Statutory Notice
Entrapment
Criminal Identification Process
Initiation of the Prosecution
Fair Trial
Guilty Pleas
Prosecutorial Misconduct
Proof, Burden of Proof, and Presumptions
Sentencing
The Problem of the Incompetent or Insane Defendant or Convict
Corrective Process: Appeals and Other Remedies
Rights of Prisoners
Probation and Parole
The Problem of the Juvenile Offender
The Problem of Civil Commitment
Equal Protection of the Laws
Scope and Application
State Action
''Persons''
''Within Its Jurisdiction''
Equal Protection: Judging Classifications by Law
Traditional Standard: Restrained Review
The New Standards: Active Review
Testing Facially Neutral Classifications Which Impact on Minorities
Traditional Equal Protection: Economic Regulation and Related Exercises of the Police Powers
Taxation
Classification for Purpose of Taxation
Foreign Corporations and Nonresidents
Income Taxes
Inheritance Taxes
Motor Vehicle Taxes
Property Taxes
Special Assessment
Police Power Regulation
Classification
Other Business and Employment Relations
Labor Relations
Monopolies and Unfair Trade Practices
Administrative Discretion
Social Welfare
Punishment of Crime
Equal Protection and Race
Overview
Education
Development and Application of ''Separate But Equal''
Brown v. Board of Education
Brown's Aftermath
Implementation of School Desegregation
Northern Schools: Inter- and Intradistrict Desegregation
Efforts to Curb Busing and Other Desegregation Remedies
Termination of Court Supervision
Juries
Capital Punishment
Housing
Other Areas of Discrimination
Transportation
Public Facilities
Marriage
Judicial System
Public Designation
Public Accommodations
Elections
Permissible Remedial Utilization of Racial Classifications
The New Equal Protection
Classifications Meriting Close Scrutiny
Alienage and Nationality
Sex
Illegitimacy
Fundamental Interests: The Political Process
Voter Qualifications
Access to the Ballot
Apportionment and Districting
Weighing of Votes
The Right to Travel
Durational Residency Requirements
Marriage and Familial Relations
Sexual Orientation
Poverty and Fundamental Interests: The Intersection of Due Process and Equal Protection
Generally
Criminal Procedure
The Criminal Sentence
Voting
Access to Courts
Educational Opportunity
Abortion
Section 2. Apportionment of Representation
Sections 3 and 4. Disqualification and Public Debt
Section 5. Enforcement
Generally
State Action
Congressional Definition of Fourteenth Amendment Rights
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)