Cheney treated like others, angry about it

I think there's a guy in New Hampshire who is holed-up in his fortress-like home who is currently refusing to pay his income taxes. He said he's prepared to die if the federal agents try to come in. That was a couple of days ago. Not sure what's going on with that now.

I think there's a guy in New Hampshire who is holed-up in his fortress-like home who is currently refusing to pay his income taxes. He said he's prepared to die if the federal agents try to come in. That was a couple of days ago. Not sure what's going on with that now.

I can understand, and I empathize. If I could do such a thing, I probably would.

This argument is a sham and no one has ever successfuly used it to not pay taxes. In fact this guy went to jail because of this argument.The 861 argument has been found to be a frivolous argument many times. Essentially his argument is that the term 'sources derived" must be defined explicitly. Section 861 appears to do this but courts have found 100% that the section that initially references "sources derived" is general enough and explanatory enough as to not require an explicit dictionary thus rendering the rest of his argument moot. Basically he argues that the government is supposed to be taxing income based on WHERE it comes from and the courts have held that where income comes from is not even part of the equation.

The better argument is that our federal government clearly has no right to actually tax our incomes. No where in the constitution does it explicitly or even indirectly offer that power to the legislature. Good luck though.
The second argument that the federal Gov. has no right to tax our incomes is what I have heard them say and is what this friend says and does not pay federal income tax. I guess one day I will vist him in jail.

The better argument is that our federal government clearly has no right to actually tax our incomes. No where in the constitution does it explicitly or even indirectly offer that power to the legislature. Good luck though.

The 16th Amendment explicitly allows Congress to levy incomes taxes.

The 16th Amendment explicitly allows Congress to levy incomes taxes.

Yes, it does say that. However, I think the argument is that it contradicts previous articles of the original Constitution. I believe it is illegal/unconstitutional to make an amendment to the Constitution which negates something in the original. I'm not sure though.

An interesting site on taxation:
TAX-FREEDOM.COM (http://www.tax-freedom.com/)

"EVERY JUDGE THAT ALLEGES THE 16TH AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES A DIRECT TAX, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT ACTUALLY SAY THAT, AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT ARTICLE I PROVISIONS PROHIBIT THAT, COMMITTS TREASON OF THE HIGHEST ORDER BY IGNORING AND NOT UPHOLDING THE ACTUAL WRITTEN PROVISIONS IN ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND ATTEMPTING TO REPLACE THEM WITH HIS OR HER OWN PERSONAL OPINION, NOT WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION." (sorry for the caps)

the bottom line is, that the U.S. govt is that big, that they WILL do whatever they want, to achieve the results that they want. it might take them awhile, but they always win. its almost like the 500lbs. gorilla

the bottom line is, that the U.S. govt is that big, that they WILL do whatever they want, to achieve the results that they want. it might take them awhile, but they always win. its almost like the 500lbs. gorilla

You are exactly right. It's kinda sad though. This is the type of thing our founding fathers gave their lives to get away from (i.e.: the king).

It reminds me of a quote from Ben Franklin. After leaving one of the sessions held for writing one of the important draft documents (articles of confederation, the constitution, or some other), he was asked, "what have you created?" He responded, "a republic, if you can keep it." I guess we have failed. :doh:

Yes, it does say that. However, I think the argument is that it contradicts previous articles of the original Constitution. I believe it is illegal/unconstitutional to make an amendment to the Constitution which negates something in the original. I'm not sure though.

For better or worse, it is not unconstitutional to pass an amendment to the Constitution that negates something in the original constitution. Subsequently enacted laws or amendments supercede prior laws. Moreover, amendments are not considered "minor additions" to the constitution, they have the same force and effect as the original provisions of the constitution.

For better or worse, it is not unconstitutional to pass an amendment to the Constitution that negates something in the original constitution. The "later in time rule" holds that subsequently enacted laws or amendments supercede prior laws. Moreover, amendments are not considered "minor additions" to the constitution, they have the same force and effect as the original provisions of the constitution.

Yes, but this is the Constitution we are talking about -- not basic laws. Also, isn't an amendment just that -- an amendment? We're talking about a revision here. There is a big difference.