"Aye, free! Free as a tethered ass!" —W.S. Gilbert
"All the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and . . . the State should be abolished." —Benjamin Tucker
"You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." —James Madison
"Fat chance." —Sheldon Richman
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Leave the Browns Alone!
Ed and Elaine Brown's constitutional argument against the income tax is balderdash. But the tax violates their -- and everyone's -- rights. The government should leave them alone.
It sounds like a rhetorical question. Since when have people in government stopped doing something because they realized "Oh, we're violating someone's rights"?
Ed and Elaine Brown's property is at risk. If someone can show Brown the law which requires him to pay income taxes, he or she can have the Browns' home, worth more than $1,000,000.
http://showedthelaw.blogspot.com
The bet has been going for more than half a year, with no takers. I will bet that you are qualified to show the law, and be wealthy in the process.
Which law we're talking about is clear and constitutional--and immoral. People who offer these bets constantly renege when someone cites the statute enacted by Congress. This is a bogus argument that detracts from the real issue--the illegitimacy of the state.
Let's assume for just a moment that there is no legislation. I am using legislation in the same manner that Hayek did.
If the government were to put into force an income tax and the courts approved it, it is a legally binding legislation. Just because it isn't written doesn't mean that the courts can't inforce income tax. Look at how they have managed to butcher the Constitution.
It just goes to show the power of the state and how truly corrupt the whole state apparatus can become.
Right. One of the rules of the constitution game is that the document means what the authorities say it means. Don't like the rules? (I don't.) Don't play the game. (I don't.)
Don't show me, show the Browns. But, the first is the entire Title 26 (the tens of thousands of pages of the Internal Revenue Code, a vague law, not specific [Gould v. Gould]), and the second is what Prof. Siegel said--an opinion, not the law.
First of all, if I'm a defendant on trial, and the prosecuter presents as evidence Title 26--that's it, if the judge is not crooked (and I know a lot of judges who are), s/he will throw out the case.
Second, in Gould v. Gould, it states, "In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." So the law states I must be the highest "incantation" there is.
Third, and last, Ron Paul, when answering what law requires an average American to pay an income tax, he said (and I quote), "I can't site a law--no, I cannot."
But, the aforementioned is irrelevant. If you want to win the money, check with Ed Brown, not me.
You are missing the point. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that, from the founding, the national government has had the "all-embracing" power to tax. It has never said otherwise. There is no case of doubt in the court's mind. The relevant sections of Title 26, all upheld by the court, are very specific. I don't know what you are arguing here.
Ron Paul did not know the title number. That doesn't mean he thinks there is no law on the books. Ask him.
The Court has spoken. The government wins. We lose. What were you expecting? The game was rigged from the beginning. The fight was lost when the Philadelphia constitutional conventioneers staged their coup and overthrew the Articles of Confederation.
http:// blog.hasanagha.org/images/haft_tir-5_21.jpg Please see this link that show an Iranian girl whom like other girls in islamic lands had be harmed by islamic police or had be harmed by islamic people because her topcoat were not like some model who Islamic Government had determined by Quran!
Many Iranian People do not like Islam but government Kill and harm them.
قال زهرا بنت رسول الله از جهنم:
خداوند فرمود بواسته دروغی که برخدا بسته ام و خود را بانوی برگزیده خدا درجهان نام نهادم و چادر بسر کردن را بر زنان جهان اجباری کردم و چون به خاطر گناه زهرا بنت رسول و پدرش و خاندانش بر زنان ایران ستم می شود و دختران را کتک می زنند.
خداوند امر کرده زهرای بنت رسول درجهنم کسش باز شده و اهل جهنم و بهشت بر کس او می رینند و زهدان حضرت زهرا پر از گوه شده . و مکرو و مکرالله
حزب مبارزه با ستم اسلامگرایان (فاکرین حزب الله ) اعلام کرد چون ریشه همه بدبختی های ملت ایران و جهان اسلام است به ازای هر ظلم به هر ایرانی میلیون ها کیر خر و کیر خوک و ...کامنتی به کس و کون آل محمد رسول الله روانه خواهد کرد.
کیر و سنده خوک تو کس حضرت زهرا بنت رسول الله
به حزب ما بپیوندید و کامنت دونی ها را پر از آنچه شایسته آل محمد است کنید.
کسانی که به زبان های خارجه مسلط هستند کامنت دونی های وبلاگ های خارجی را مستفیض فرمایند.
هرکس روزانه در 10 وبلاگ انگلیسی زبان یا عرب زبان آنچه شایسته محمد رسول الله است را بنویسد تا خارجی ها متوجه علاقه ایرانیان به اسلام شوند. اگر فقط1000000 نفر هم از حزب ما استقبال کنند بزودی اکثر سایت های دارای رنکینگ اینترنت پر از ابراز نفرت ایرانیان نسبت به اسلام خواهد شد.
برای خلیج فارس بمب گوگلی درست کردید که چرا دریای فارس را عرب کرده اند فرهنگ عرب حاصل تفکر محمد رسول الله پست تر از شیطان و حیوان را به فرهنگ درخشان 2500 ساله ایرانی برگزیده اید؟ نگرانید که چرا خلیج فارس را عرب نام گذاشته اند ولی ناراحت نیستید که از بیخ عربتان کرده اند؟
ستاد حزب مبارزه با ستم اسلامگرایان. و نحن الفاکرین الغالبون We will have all hizbolla women fucked by dogs. Now God say, "you must fucked Mohammad and Quran by send message to all people of world. This message sent from Iran"
I think the real issue is the overempowerment of the courts. The courts can say that the laws against murder really mean that you can't eat cheese on tuesdays, and that's what it will mean. So regardless of whether or not it's a law, if the courts decide to enforce it, then it has to be followed.
I sure do wish they were using the more direct and factual arguments against paying taxes, but yeah, I'm on their side in the end.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like a rhetorical question. Since when have people in government stopped doing something because they realized "Oh, we're violating someone's rights"?
ReplyDeleteEd and Elaine Brown's property is at risk. If someone can show Brown the law which requires him to pay income taxes, he or she can have the Browns' home, worth more than $1,000,000.
ReplyDeletehttp://showedthelaw.blogspot.com
The bet has been going for more than half a year, with no takers. I will bet that you are qualified to show the law, and be wealthy in the process.
Doesn't have to be a law. The U.S. Government has some mighty big guns. Thus, the equation:
ReplyDeleteBig Guns = Law
I'm not pretending to the $1M. Just stating reality.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html.
ReplyDeleteWhen can I expect the money?
Which law we're talking about is clear and constitutional--and immoral. People who offer these bets constantly renege when someone cites the statute enacted by Congress. This is a bogus argument that detracts from the real issue--the illegitimacy of the state.
Also see this: http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm.
ReplyDeleteLet's assume for just a moment that there is no legislation. I am using legislation in the same manner that Hayek did.
ReplyDeleteIf the government were to put into force an income tax and the courts approved it, it is a legally binding legislation. Just because it isn't written doesn't mean that the courts can't inforce income tax. Look at how they have managed to butcher the Constitution.
It just goes to show the power of the state and how truly corrupt the whole state apparatus can become.
Right. One of the rules of the constitution game is that the document means what the authorities say it means. Don't like the rules? (I don't.) Don't play the game. (I don't.)
ReplyDeleteDon't show me, show the Browns. But, the first is the entire Title 26 (the tens of thousands of pages of the Internal Revenue Code, a vague law, not specific [Gould v. Gould]), and the second is what Prof. Siegel said--an opinion, not the law.
ReplyDelete"...a vague law..." Excuse me, you say it's vague. The courts say it's not. Under the rules of the game, you lose and the government wins.
ReplyDeleteAll laws contain some vagueness. But notice that you admit it's a law. QED.
Re Siegel: that's not his opinion. He cites and quotes the law.http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm
I don't know what incantation would satisfy your standards of what's a law and what's not, but the Constitution requires no particular words.
Ron Paul, as anti-income-tax as they come, realizes there is a law on the books.
Have the guy send my money asap. PayPal is acceptable.
First of all, if I'm a defendant on trial, and the prosecuter presents as evidence Title 26--that's it, if the judge is not crooked (and I know a lot of judges who are), s/he will throw out the case.
ReplyDeleteSecond, in Gould v. Gould, it states, "In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." So the law states I must be the highest "incantation" there is.
Third, and last, Ron Paul, when answering what law requires an average American to pay an income tax, he said (and I quote), "I can't site a law--no, I cannot."
But, the aforementioned is irrelevant. If you want to win the money, check with Ed Brown, not me.
You are missing the point. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that, from the founding, the national government has had the "all-embracing" power to tax. It has never said otherwise. There is no case of doubt in the court's mind. The relevant sections of Title 26, all upheld by the court, are very specific. I don't know what you are arguing here.
ReplyDeleteRon Paul did not know the title number. That doesn't mean he thinks there is no law on the books. Ask him.
The Court has spoken. The government wins. We lose. What were you expecting? The game was rigged from the beginning. The fight was lost when the Philadelphia constitutional conventioneers staged their coup and overthrew the Articles of Confederation.
http:// blog.hasanagha.org/images/haft_tir-5_21.jpg
ReplyDeletePlease see this link that show an Iranian girl whom like other girls in islamic lands had be harmed by islamic police or had be harmed by islamic people because her topcoat were not like some model who Islamic Government had determined by Quran!
Many Iranian People do not like Islam but government Kill and harm them.
قال زهرا بنت رسول الله از جهنم:
خداوند فرمود بواسته دروغی که برخدا بسته ام و خود را بانوی برگزیده خدا درجهان نام نهادم و چادر بسر کردن را بر زنان جهان اجباری کردم و چون به خاطر گناه زهرا بنت رسول و پدرش و خاندانش بر زنان ایران ستم می شود و دختران را کتک می زنند.
خداوند امر کرده زهرای بنت رسول درجهنم کسش باز شده و اهل جهنم و بهشت بر کس او می رینند و زهدان حضرت زهرا پر از گوه شده .
و مکرو و مکرالله
حزب مبارزه با ستم اسلامگرایان (فاکرین حزب الله ) اعلام کرد چون ریشه همه بدبختی های ملت ایران و جهان اسلام است به ازای هر ظلم به هر ایرانی میلیون ها کیر خر و کیر خوک و ...کامنتی به کس و کون آل محمد رسول الله روانه خواهد کرد.
کیر و سنده خوک تو کس حضرت زهرا بنت رسول الله
به حزب ما بپیوندید و کامنت دونی ها را پر از آنچه شایسته آل محمد است کنید.
کسانی که به زبان های خارجه مسلط هستند کامنت دونی های وبلاگ های خارجی را مستفیض فرمایند.
هرکس روزانه در 10 وبلاگ انگلیسی زبان یا عرب زبان آنچه شایسته محمد رسول الله است را بنویسد تا خارجی ها متوجه علاقه ایرانیان به اسلام شوند. اگر فقط1000000 نفر هم از حزب ما استقبال کنند بزودی اکثر سایت های دارای رنکینگ اینترنت پر از ابراز نفرت ایرانیان نسبت به اسلام خواهد شد.
برای خلیج فارس بمب گوگلی درست کردید که چرا دریای فارس را عرب کرده اند فرهنگ عرب حاصل تفکر محمد رسول الله پست تر از شیطان و حیوان را به فرهنگ درخشان 2500 ساله ایرانی برگزیده اید؟ نگرانید که چرا خلیج فارس را عرب نام گذاشته اند ولی ناراحت نیستید که از بیخ عربتان کرده اند؟
ستاد حزب مبارزه با ستم اسلامگرایان.
و نحن الفاکرین الغالبون
We will have all hizbolla women fucked by dogs.
Now God say, "you must fucked Mohammad and Quran by send message to all people of world.
This message sent from Iran"
I think the real issue is the overempowerment of the courts. The courts can say that the laws against murder really mean that you can't eat cheese on tuesdays, and that's what it will mean. So regardless of whether or not it's a law, if the courts decide to enforce it, then it has to be followed.
ReplyDelete