Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 27

• 0%

  ameliog1 year, 2 months ago

  America, freedom to fascism.

  Reply

  13 Replies

  • 0%

    populist1 year, 2 months ago

    yup...it's time for the income tax to go....whatever your opinion on it, it's the tool that the government uses to oppress people. money is power, and these people have far too much.

    Some related watching and reading:

    "Freedom To Fascism"

    http://freedomtofascism.com/

    "Why the Income Tax Must Go"

    http://www.populistamerica.com/why_the_income_t...

    Reply

    3 Replies

    • 0%

      ameliog1 year, 2 months ago

      we're on the same wave populist. I saw the Russo documentary last month and it'll make you reconsider the legality of our income tax system - not just reform, but abolishment.

      It's one of the appealing things about Ron Paul, and probably one of the reasons he'll get squeezed from the debates. In the debate the other night, Blitzer only went to him with occasional questions to try to get a colorful, off-the-wall response for entertainment purposes. The IRS is the Gestapo.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        drbhelthi1 year, 2 months ago

        The IRS is only one of several "wings" to the Bush GESTAPO.

        Little wonder that the yr 2000, court-appointed, US leadership continues the practices of George H.W. Bush, after he had overtaken the CIA. "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." --- William Casey, Director CIA (Quote from internal staff meeting notes 1981)

        The "story behind the story" is found at: http://www.thelawparty.org/FranklinCoverup/Wash...

        Direction of the U.S. under GHWB#2 ? Very clear. Desecration, denigration & worse.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 33%

          mcarpentry1 year, 2 months ago

          drbhelthi, Another parrot, IT's ALL BUSH's FAULT, When was the IRS implimented? Bush was not even a teenager, give us a break with the blame everything on Bush.

          Reply
  • 100%

    KingOfTruth1 year, 2 months ago

    I believe that the first change in that direction may have been when the Supreme Court ruled that they were the final word on everything way back when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court honors historical lawgivers in its main chamber. Biblical figures include Moses and Solomon. Other country's lawgivers represented by political leaders or monarchs such as Confucius, King John, Napoleon, and Charlemagne. Only the United States is represented by a law changer that was a judgeâ;;Chief Justice John Marshall.

    That shows how much power and respect we give to the Supreme Court of the land. This wasn't always so. Marshall is credited through his early leadership with developing our unique court structureâ;;where the Supreme Court can overturn the legislature and has the final word on the constitutionality of a law.

    Let's visit the early days of the Supreme Court, John Marshall's contributions and discuss how the court its power.

    Reply

    8 Replies

    • 100%

      KingOfTruth1 year, 2 months ago

      Before Marshall took over as chief justice, the court met only twice a year, in February and August. When it met for the first time on February 2, 1790, there were no cases to be decided. The same was true for the next two sessions. During the first 10 years of the Court it heard only about 100 cases.

      The first actual ruling on a case came in February 1793 in Chisholm v. Georgia. This case established the right for citizens of one state to sue another state. The right to sue states didn't last long though. This ruling led to such an uproar by the states that the Congress passed the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution on March 4, 1794. This amendment bans suits from being filed by individuals of another state or of a foreign country against a state. Just 339 days later on February 7, 1795, the amendment was ratified and took effect January 1798.

      The Supreme Court first ruled on the right to overturn a state legislature in 1796.

      Reply

      7 Replies

      • 0%

        KingOfTruth1 year, 2 months ago

        Virginia had enacted a law that confiscated British property, including any debts owed by its citizens to British subjects. The British subject filed suit to collect his money.

        The Supreme Court overturned the state law because the Treaty of Paris, which established peace after the Revolutionary War, protected such debts. Justice Samuel Chase in his opinion said, "A treaty cannot be the supreme law of the land if any act of a state Legislature can stand in its way." Just think what the United States would be like today if each state could decide whether or not it wanted to abide by a treaty signed by the federal government.

        Interestingly, John Marshall, who at that time was a practicing attorney in Virginia, argued against overturning the state law by questioning the right of the judiciary to invalidate a state law because that right has not been given to it by the Constitution.

        Reply

        6 Replies

        • 17%

          KingOfTruth1 year, 2 months ago

          John Marshall is most famous for the court ruling that established the Supreme Court's right to overturn a law passed by Congress. He also ruled the right to overturn a state legislature in a second famous case.

          When John Adams appointed John Marshall chief justice in 1801 (just before he left the presidency), Marshall took over a weakened court that was so low on the priority list Congress did not even see the need to provide it with a place to meet.

          One of Marshall's first acts to take control of the situation was to change the way the Court dished out its opinions. Rather than have each justice read his own opinion, Marshall got the justices to agree the court should have one opinion delivered orally. During his tenure, Marshall delivered the opinions on all the critical cases. A judge did have the right to read a dissenting opinion.

          Low esteem for the Supreme Court was not its only problem.

          Reply

          5 Replies

          • 20%

            KingOfTruth1 year, 2 months ago

            The Court also played the role of political football between the Federalists and the Republicans. In 1800 the Federalists lost the battle and were getting ready to give up control of both the executive and legislative branches.

            One of the Federalists' last acts before losing control was to pass the Judiciary Act of 1801 on February 13, 1801, which made major changes in the makeup of the judiciary. While the act did include the desired reform that relieved Supreme Court justices of their dreaded circuit court duties, it also created a new layer of judges at the district and circuit court levels that could quickly be appointed by outgoing Federalist President John Adams. This would give the Federalists at least some control of the judiciary branch after they left office.

            Within two weeks, John Adams nominated and the Congress confirmed the appointments of these new judges.

            Reply
          • 100%

            KingOfTruth1 year, 2 months ago

            The task had to be done so quickly that the commissions for many of these new judges were completed on John Adams' last day in office by, guess who, Secretary of State John Marshall. He had been appointed as Secretary of State in 1800 and continued to serve in that post even after being appointed chief justice.

            These last minute appointees were dubbed the "midnight judges" because the lame-duck Congress worked late into the night to confirm all the judges just before a March 3 midnight deadline when the newly elected President Thomas Jefferson would take office. One story about the incident even says that John Marshall was asked to leave his office at midnight by Levi Lincoln, Jefferson's incoming Attorney General, but this is probably a tale told by some to make the changeover more dramatic.

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 0%

              KingOfTruth1 year, 2 months ago

              This last-minute flurry of activity did leave a mess for both sides to clean up and set the stage for a landmark decision of the Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, which we'll discuss later. The Congress repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 on March 8, 1802, abolished the new courts and made no provision for the newly appointed judges. Instead Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1802, moving the Court's next term, which had been scheduled to begin June 1802, to February 1803.

              The Marshall Court did uphold the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act of 1802 in a March 1803 decision, Stuart v. Laird.

              While Supreme Court action was delayed in the summer of 1802 after repealing the 1801 law, a case was filed by one of the judges who did not get his commission. John Marshall left 42 commissions on his desk when he left the office as Secretary of State. He didn't have enough time to deliver them.

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                KingOfTruth1 year, 2 months ago

                Jefferson told his new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver only 25 of the commissions left by Marshall. Four of the 17 judges who did not get their commissions filed suit in the Supreme Court asking for a writ of mandamus.

                The case in which the Supreme Court ruled on this issue was titled Marbury v. Madison. William Marbury was one of the slighted justices. James Madison was named as Jefferson's Secretary of State because he had the duty to deliver the commissions. Since Madison refused to deliver them, Marbury asked for a writ to force Madison to deliver the commissions. The case sat in the Supreme Court clerk's office for two years before it was argued. The Court was not even allowed to conduct business for the more than a year because the Congress had moved its summer 1802 session to February 1803.

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  KingOfTruth1 year, 2 months ago

                  While the precedent to review state legislation had been established by earlier court rulings, this was the first time the Court took a firm stance on its right to overturn federal law.

                  The Congress were so glad to win their case little notice was made of the more critical ruling. No one seriously challenged the right of the Supreme Court to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional.

                  Marshall went on to firmly establish the right of the Supreme Court to rule state legislation unconstitutional in Fletcher v. Peck.

                  Reply
• 80%

  SonOfTheMask1 year, 2 months ago

  Enforcing tax collection is not fascism.

  It's an intersting news snippet, but to use it as a platform for suggesting America is becoming fascist...that doesn't work so well. To me, at least.

  Reply

  4 Replies

  • 0%

    ameliog1 year, 2 months ago

    I don't know if you're thinking this is somehow a Bush-era problem, or if you're thinking the implication that the IRS' heavy handedness is a reflection on this administration. To me, it's a completely different matter. The IRS has been a problem since its inception. The Fed plays into this heavily as well. Fascism is a term that affects people in various ways. Maybe corporatism is a more apt term, although any term that's used will be open to debate depending on where you're coming from.

    Reply
  • 100%

    vinwal1 year, 2 months ago

    SonOfTheMask: Can you please show me or tell me where to find the law that requires US citizens to pay an unapportioned tax on the wages received in trade for labor?

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      KingOfTruth1 year, 2 months ago

      After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital. The courts have interpreted the Sixteenth Amendment as standing for the rule that the Amendment allows a direct tax on "wages, salaries, commissions, etc. without apportionment."

      The one thing that I always complain about, and may be what you too are looking at, is the phrase gain derived from labor......to me, I do not see wages as income derived from labor but as money in equal trade for my time, education, experience and labor...

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        buckncindykill1 year, 2 months ago

        Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified

        "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."

        Ratified 2/13/1913

        During the ratification process, 'those in Congress who favored the idea of an income tax met with considerable success, capturing public sentiment with promises that the tax would "soak the rich", and leave the vast majority of Americans alone. Economic class warfare was as alive and well in the early 1900s as it is in the early 2000s.'

        The FairTax Book

        Also read Karl Marxs' The Communist Manifesto - in it are 10 goals that must be accomplished to bring about a true communist society. Number two on the list was the establishment of "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax." Number three was the "abolition of all rights of inheritance."

        Sound familiar?

        Reply
• 93%

  Shankari251 year, 2 months ago

  unbelievable.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 86%

    populist1 year, 2 months ago

    sad, isn't it? It's not the first time, and it won't be the last, either...

    Reply
• 0%

  nostalgia1 year, 2 months ago

  Collection of income tax is the ONE thing the Federal government does with anything close to efficiency and the one thing they are serious about enforcing.

  Maybe we should put the IRS in charge of enforcing immigration law

  Reply
• 50%

  OldRusty1 year, 2 months ago

  The reason they would not say they were a church, was because they did not want to be burned out.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 100%

    populist1 year, 2 months ago

    wow, that's sad. i could see it happening, though

    Reply
• 100%

  ABANOCLA1 year, 2 months ago

  waco part 2 the sequel...send in Janet reno, she will kick their a$$...lol

  Reply
• 0%

  edan1 year, 2 months ago

  The whole "Free World"(otherwise known as America), needs to wakeup to the fact that the IRS is only a collection agency for the Privately Owned Federal Reserve.

  The second thing that needs to be addressed is that the Democratic and Republican parties are put in place and kept alive by the same people that control the money. The two parties were put in place to keep everybody arguing with each other and to forget about real issues. A real issue that we should all be upset about is slavery. The income tax is a form of slavery and ignorant people believe that they need to pay their fair share. Many believe that illegal stealing of a person's money is justified by the bogus National Debt.

  I have one question for you ones that believe we need to pay our fair share. If there is such a thing as a national Debt, to whom is that money owed?

  I agree Bush is a moron and so was Clinton. There I slammed both sides, so show what good they've done before you defend them.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    fourthtunz1 year, 2 months ago

    You've got it right, Both bush and clinton are tools of the bankers that run this country. The 2 party system is just to keep us devided and fighting over the scraps. Kind of like good cop bad cop, or keystone kops!

    One party makes a comeback to save us from the other, what a joke!

    And the debates? Good theatre.

    Reply