pi = 103993/33102 (Well, almost.)

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Man of Reason on September 01, 1998 at 18:22:01:

In Reply to: How I view other opinions posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 01, 1998 at 15:05:15:

:: Empty Generalizations

My entire point is that your ramblings about 'types of citizenship', at least as far as the taxing power of Congress goes, is irrelevent. You are looking at the problem through the wrong end of the telescope. Study the limitations on the application of federal powers instead. My previous posting (link below), to which your only rebuttal was a sad poem, is more than sufficient to make my case. However if you need further proof, consider the following:

"In approaching this subject we must remember that enactments levying taxes, as other laws of the federal government when acting within constitutional authority, are the supreme law of the land. The Constitution contains only two limitations on the right of Congress to levy excise taxes: they must be levied for the public welfare, and are required to be uniform throughout the United States. As Mr. Chief Justice Chase said, speaking for the court in License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 471, 18 L. ed. 497, 500: 'Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject and may be exercised at discretion.' The limitations to which the chief justice refers were the only ones imposed in the Constitution upon the taxing power. " [emphasis mine]
FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) at 153 - 154

This cite postdates Amendment XIV by about 44 years, and it affirms that everyone ("every subject,…at discretion"), including your so-called State Citizens are subject to Congress' taxing power within the above stated Constitutional restrictions. To me it is direct evidence that your citizenship arguments are flawed, if not incorrect altogether. To you it seems, for reasons I cannot fathom, this is in some manner evidence of a corrupt judiciary. I might add that it is a logical extension to apply the same line of reasoning to other enumerated powers of the federal government, if enumerated, they may be excercised at discretion limited only by the wording of the Constitution itself. It has also been noted in Supreme Court cases that there also exist non-enumerated powers (see LEGAL TENDER CASES, 79 U.S. 457 (1870) ) in order to carry into effect the necessary functions required of the government. Those functions also apply across the land.

As for your cites, which are sadly vague (you might consider at least providing the volume and page, or perhaps a quote once in a while), are there two categories of Citizenship? Sure, I'll go along with that, although I prefer Tom's definitions to yours, but it is my opinion that the issue is beside the point. I'll stick with the Flint court's interpretation of the extent of federal power and leave you to your bottom up pretzel logic approach.

Step back from the trees and look at the forest.

{I will presume that we need not debate Congress' absolute authority within D.C. or the territories/possessions, regardless of your citizenship. That's one point we can agree on (I think), and so I will not address the issue. }

PS. You DID remember to check and get permission before you used parts of the poem, didn't you? I would think someone who is such a stickler for copyright laws would have made doubly sure not to slight a fellow copyright holder. After all, what's good for Mother Goose is good for the gander.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]