Subject:
|
Re: Medical Marijuana
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Nov 2001 20:27:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
812 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> As an example of this stance, I offer the view that the income tax is
> "unconstitutional"... proven by the fact that a constitutional amendment was
> required to get it to be so.
Actually, it is my understanding that the 16th Amendment has no REAL force
in law -- the Supreme Court itself stated this in the case of STANTON v.
BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916):
"But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically
considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it
was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power
of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power
of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken
out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged,
and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113] in the category of direct taxation
subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the
income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on
income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the
income taxed."
And we could talk about this some more, but the bottom line seems to be that
the court refuses to settle the question of whether the income tax, as it is
applied, is actually a direct tax subject to time limits and apportionment
as in the main body of the Constitution, or whether it is an indirect tax
(thereby converting a tax *applied* directly on your labor into some kind of
an excise tax) that is not subject to the time limits or apportionment, but
is subject to the rule of uniformity.
It's not so much that the income tax is illegal, but that it is incorrectly
applied to monies not falling under the definition of "income" as per the
case of EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920): "'Income may be defined as
the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided
it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of
capital assets" and that it be "proceeding from the property, severed from
the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being
'derived'-that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his
separate use, benefit and disposal- that is income derived from property."
Basically, this means that income is the gain and interest on a principle
sum, not the principle itself, and certainly not labor. Something like that...
uh huh...
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Medical Marijuana
|
| (...) Right. And I take my read on what's constitutional from what the founding fathers *intended*, not from what the current supreme court says about the matter. As I've said before, many times, effectively answering the question posed. As an (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
