Posted by Two Cities on February 24, 1998 at 15:44:03:
In Reply to: Re: About truth? or making money? posted by Common Right Group on February 24, 1998 at 04:40:35:
: : :Congress can't make tax collection"in the 50 states" the law unless
: : they do away with the constitution. the 16 amendment
: : say they can tax whatever source. remember congress
: : is limited by the constitution. now check out the
: : the meaning of source in the irc. and whatever has no meaning
: : because congress is limited to what they can do by
: : the constitution, nothing more so "whatever" would
: : be only in its limited capacity granted to congress by the people.
: :
: Excuse please. We aren't overly fond of being a critical wet-blanket, but even less fond of those misquotes of the provisions of the constitution for the U.S.A. We have enough problems from those lawyers and judges qho quote law and cases out of context without the William Wallaces of America doing it too.
: The sixteenth amendment doesn't authorize the taxation of "whatever source" but the "income, from whatever source derived." The use of the word "income" in that amendment is what prevents the Congress from defining income because there is no legislative enabling clause. That would seem to mean that the congress also would be precluded from defining "whatever source." Since the net effect of the sixteenth amendment is solely to remove the "income" tax from the area of direct taxation, the principle on which the Pollock case was decided, thus removing the need for apportionment among the several states, that leaves the income tax in the area of excise taxes.
: This, then, leaves the congress in the position of being able to tax only that which was taxable prior to the passage of the sixteenth amendment, Duties, Imposts and Excises. Are you importing something subject to an Import Duty? Maybe you are importing or manufacturing for sale something subject to imposts, which we believe is the Stamp Tax, although our information may be in error on this point. Otherwise, what is the Excise (privilege) that you are engaged in? Certainly it isn't the "privilege of selling you labor in an occupation which does not arry a substantial risk to the public health, safety, or welfare, in order to sustain your life. Or did the government give you life?
: {This next is tongue in cheek: Selah: The government may have screwed many people, but their screwing generally creates death, not life.}
The Government only "screwed" persons, or rather regulated them according to corporate styles and dictates. The government didn't get involved, it was after all of the people for the people.
The cult of "personality". And the semantic fog. Personality belongs to the creatures (creations) of the State. Individuality lies elsewhere. So we get the several logical structures. A government of the people for the people (the individuals), and we get the Government of the people for the persons, a true subject of regulation, since no natural rights or properties are involved with fictional grants of existance. All entities that are allowed to assume a standing under the law, have a set of laws that are applicable. It is both logical and "natural", that the living be governed by a different set of rules than the dead.
Any definition of "person", that includes or mentions terminology such as "natural person", is inherently flawed.
And the Government is entirely incapable of dealing with individuals unless a representative capacitity of personality has been assigned or assumed.
The government conducts the limited dealings required visavi individuals.
Unfortunately some real live men/women got caught in the wringer with an attached "personal" body corporate, where the corporate liabilities were artfully turned into individual responsibilities.
It does of course not help much, when "person" has become an idiom in common usage.