Supreme Court & the Right To Discriminate Against Class
The famous golfer Phil Mickelson was forced to apologize for saying he would have to make “drastic changes” due to new U.S. and California tax laws. The 42-year-old golf champion said the comments should have remained private. He has been assailed as sponsors are intimidated by the government. God help us if we really ever had free speech in this country. Jefferson said God created us all equal in the Declaration of Independence. What happened to those ideals?
To set the record STRAIGHT, it is has been the Judiciary and NOT the people that has (1) claimed that it is constitutional to charge people income taxes on a proportional basis endorsing Karl Marx’s theories of communism, (2) applied income taxes to worldwide income when Congress did not expressly do so, and (3) broadly defined income as anything you get not requiring actual labor. I would like to see a store charge white people one price, Spanish-Speaking a different price, and different prices to Asians and Blacks based upon someone else’s theories and let the Supreme Court say that is constitutional. Would the Supreme Court say the equal protection of the law clause does not apply? What is the difference between if one person pays 60% in taxes and another nothing from creating different prices in a store based upon race, religion, the way you are dressed, or upon the color of your hair?
There can be no justice for all, equal protection, or anything of the sort as long as you discriminate based upon ANY criteria including class. This is why judges can NEVERbe picked by government. No one who has EVER worked for government should be allowed to be a judge. Ben Franklin argued lawyers should nominal judges for they will nominate the best to eliminate competition. Without a HONEST independent Judiciary, there can never be any rule of law because judges will rationalize whatever government desires to do at that moment in time as they have done with taxation.
To get the corporate “income tax” to fly, the Supreme Court classified it as an “excise tax”. Congress acted in ruthless disregard of the Constitution and passed a corporate income tax by changing the label, precisely as Obama swore Obamacare was not a tax yet the Supreme Court ruled it was a tax to sustain it. The Corporate “excise tax” was set at 1% on all incomes exceeding $5,000. In 1911, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld this corporate “excise tax” as constitutional in Flint v. Stone Tracy Company, 220 U.S. 107 (1911) in which the court ruled that the tax was a special excise tax on theprivilege of doing business not income. Talk about some fine bullshit. Today it is just called an income tax. But that would have been illegal so it was upheld as an excise tax.
Then U.S. Supreme Court in 1916 upheld the progressive income tax as constitutional inBrushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916). The Supreme Court indicated that the amendment did not expand the federal government’s existing power to tax income (meaning profit or gain from any source) but rather removed the possibility of classifying an income tax as a direct tax on the basis of the source of the income. The Amendment removed the need for the income tax to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. Income taxes are required, however, to abide by the law of geographical uniformity. The Brushaber court said that if one state were taxed at a different rate, then “This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.”
I fail to see how it is unconstitutional to tax one state at a high rate than another based upon income but that same “radical” change is immaterial on a individual basis. The Court held that it LACKED the power to deal with the proportionality. If they had no power, then it is a dictatorship for thyre is a denial of due process of law, the right to challenge the very act of Congress. They wrote:
“In fact, comprehensively surveying all the contentions relied upon, … we cannot escape the conclusion that they all rest upon the mistaken theory that, although there be differences between the subjects taxed, to differently tax them transcends the limit of taxation and amounts to a want of due process, and that, where a tax levied is believed by one who resists its enforcement to be wanting in wisdom and to operate injustice, from that fact in the nature of things there arises a want of due process of law and a resulting authority in the judiciary to exceed its powers and correct what is assumed to be mistaken or unwise exertions by the legislative authority of its lawful powers, even although there be no semblance of warrant in the Constitution for so doing.”
Karl Marx won and eliminated the equal justice for all. No court will rule on the matter since they claim to lack the power to strike down even communism. Bin Laden created Home Land Security, justified the destruction of civil rights, and gave birth to the annihilation of everything the Founding Fathers and all the veterans of WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Gulf Wars, fought and died for. Their memory has been eradicated. All of this just to collect taxes that the Founding Fathers said NO DIRECT TAXATIONand even the Ten Commandants declared it a sin to covet the possessions of your neighbor.
No comments:
Post a Comment